Sustainability efforts for artificial turf slow down due to European uncertainty

ARTICLE

ARTIFICIAL TURF

Wijnand Meijboom, Friday 21 August 2026

258 sec

A year ago, sustainability expert Gert-Jan Kieft from Kiwa ISA Sport raised concerns about the pace at which producers of sports products were developing MKI calculations for the sustainability label of artificial turf. The deadlines set by NOC*NSF were approaching, while the market was still largely 'waiting' and 'passive', according to him. One year later, there is indeed movement, but the major acceleration has failed to materialise.

Gert-Jan Kieft: 'The Netherlands has laid a solid foundation. Try to build on that as much as possible in Europe.'

The number of artificial turf products with category 1 data in the National Environmental Database (NMD) has doubled, but many manufacturers are still waiting for more clarity from Europe. According to Kieft, this uncertainty is slowing down the sustainability transition for sports products. Last year, seventeen sports products with category 1 data were listed in the National Environmental Database. That number has now increased to 35. 'So you can see that people are indeed working on it,' says Kieft. 'Apparently, it is being taken up.' The data almost exclusively concerns artificial turf products for football and hockey fields. Category 1 data consists of product-specific information calculated and verified for a manufacturer. It is considered the most reliable basis for an MKI calculation. However, Kieft immediately adds a note of caution. The doubling sounds impressive, but it still represents only a small part of the total product range. 'That is a fraction,' he says. 'More products are being measured, but that does not mean that products are actually becoming more sustainable.'

'I understand that manufacturers are being cautious. They naturally do not want to do the same work twice and incur double costs.'

According to him, this distinction is important. The purpose of the sustainability label is ultimately not only to collect more data, but above all to encourage manufacturers to develop more sustainable products. In last year's interview, Kieft warned that producers needed to act quickly. An MKI calculation including verification can easily take six months. He also questioned what would happen if some market players had their affairs in order while others lagged behind. However, the expected rush for MKI calculations has not happened. According to Kieft, this is closely linked to the uncertainty surrounding European developments over the past year. Producers want to avoid investing in calculations that may need to be carried out again later. 'I understand that manufacturers are being cautious. They naturally do not want to do the same work twice and incur double costs.' This is particularly relevant for international producers. They sell their products not only in the Netherlands but also in other European countries and therefore prefer to work with a single, uniform system.

'If you do not have an environmental label created for your system, you will not be removed from the list. You will simply receive the lowest label level.'

An important change compared with last year concerns the way NOC*NSF deals with products without an MKI calculation. As manager of the Quality Assurance System and the sports products list, the organisation initially discussed removing products that could not provide an environmental label. That would have been a strong incentive. This approach now appears to have been abandoned. According to Kieft, products without an MKI score will remain on the sports products list. However, they will automatically receive the lowest sustainability label: label G. 'If you do not have an environmental label created for your system, you will not be removed from the list. You will simply receive the lowest label level.' The original deadlines of 1 January 2026 for new artificial turf products and 1 January 2027 for existing products remain in place, but the consequences appear less severe than initially suggested. This does not mean a better label is unimportant, according to Kieft. Municipalities and other clients are paying increasing attention to sustainable procurement. Products with label G will therefore be less attractive than products supported by an MKI score.

Major setback

Whereas last year the discussion mainly focused on the coexistence of the Dutch MKI system and the European Product Environmental Footprint (PEF), the situation has now become more complex. Within the European Synthetic Turf Council (ESTC), significant time and money have been invested in developing European PEF rules for artificial turf. However, that process has suffered a major setback because the required datasets have expired. The datasets used for the calculations must be redeveloped before the system can be rolled out further. 'If you look at when those new datasets could become available, you are probably talking about 2028.' Even that is not certain, according to Kieft. European decision-making often takes longer than expected. This creates considerable uncertainty about the direction the sector will ultimately take. 'The market is now thinking: what am I supposed to do?' says Kieft.

Alternatives

The ESTC is therefore now looking at alternatives. According to Kieft, it is likely that the sector will continue with Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) for the time being. This could be beneficial for many producers. An EPD and a Dutch MKI calculation are both based on a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). As a result, work carried out now would not necessarily be lost if Europe ultimately chooses the EPD route. However, new European product rules would still need to be developed. Kieft believes it is important to build on what has already been developed in the Netherlands. 'The Netherlands has laid a solid foundation. Try to build on that as much as possible in Europe.'

The ongoing discussions can easily create the impression that sustainability efforts have come to a standstill. According to Kieft, this is not the case, but progress is slower than desired. He sees an important role for municipalities and other clients. Last year, he called on contractors to actively ask manufacturers for sustainability information. According to him, that call remains relevant. The more often clients ask for MKI scores, EPDs and sustainability labels, the greater the incentive for manufacturers to actually calculate the environmental impact of their products. 'That should be the incentive for manufacturers to start doing it.' More and more municipalities are including sustainability in tenders. This increases the need for reliable information about the environmental impact of sports products.

'There needs to be a balance between environmental performance and sports-technical durability.'

At the same time, Kieft warns against looking at figures too narrowly. A lower MKI score does not automatically mean that a product is more sustainable in practice. For artificial turf, there can be a tension between material use and lifespan. Using less plastic may result in a better environmental score. But if the product then needs to be replaced sooner, the overall environmental impact may actually be less favourable. 'There needs to be a balance between environmental performance and sports-technical durability.' The current Dutch calculation rules are based on a fixed lifespan of eight years. According to Kieft, future assessments should better consider the actual lifespan of products. A product that uses slightly more material but lasts many years longer may ultimately be more sustainable than a product with an excellent MKI score that needs replacing sooner.

Taking control

What should manufacturers do during this period of uncertainty? According to Kieft, the answer is clear: do not wait, but make sure the basics are in place. Kiwa ISA Sport therefore advises producers to take control of their own LCA data and calculations. The company provides software that allows manufacturers to manage models themselves, calculate products and process changes. 'Make sure you have control yourself,' says Kieft. 'If the rules change, you can respond much faster.' Producers can do this independently or receive support from Kiwa ISA Sport. Because the European direction has not yet been finalised, Kieft sees this as the best way to prepare for future changes.

This article was previously published on 21 August 2026 on the website of Fieldmanager.

Kiwa ISA Sport

NOC*NSF

COMMENTS

There are no comments yet.

tip the editors

Dit is een premium artikel

Artikelen op de NWST sites zijn gratis en zullen altijd gratis blijven. Voor de meest recente artikelen heb je een account nodig om verder te lezen.

Klik hier om te registeren of in te loggen.