How to Read an IMO Certified Fabrics Catalog: Key Ratings and What They Mean

Recent Trends in Marine Fabric Specifications

Shipowners, interior outfitters, and naval architects are paying closer attention to how upholstery and drapery fabrics are specified in newbuild and refurbishment projects. As regulatory scrutiny around fire safety and smoke toxicity tightens across international shipping, catalogs that carry IMO certification markers have become a routine reference point—but the way those markers are presented varies widely from supplier to supplier.

In recent years, manufacturers have moved toward publishing more granular technical tables alongside their product imagery. This shift reflects demand from specifiers who want to compare materials side by side without requesting individual test reports. Yet the presence of an IMO reference on a catalog page is not a single, uniform claim; it can point to different test methods, different scopes of approval, and different acceptable end-uses.

Background: What IMO Certification Actually Covers

The International Maritime Organization does not run a centralized certification scheme for textiles. Instead, the IMO’s Fire Test Procedures Code and related resolutions establish performance criteria that national flag administrations and classification societies then reference when approving materials for use on board ships. When a fabric is described as “IMO certified,” the practical meaning is that it has been tested by an accredited laboratory against specific protocols and found to meet the thresholds set out in relevant IMO instruments, typically the FTP Code Part 5 or Part 7, depending on the application.

For upholstered seating and bedding, the relevant standard is generally Part 5 of the FTP Code. For curtains and drapes, Part 7 applies. Both test for resistance to flame spread, but they differ in specimen preparation and acceptance criteria. Catalog tables that only list “IMO FTP Code” without naming a part can leave the specifier without enough information to determine whether the fabric is actually suitable for the intended location.

Key Ratings and How to Interpret Them

A well-prepared IMO-certified fabrics catalog will typically present the following ratings in an accessible format:

• IMO FTP Code Part 5 – applies to upholstery, mattresses, and bedding; tests a complete composite, including the filling material, not just the face fabric.
• IMO FTP Code Part 7 – applies to vertical textiles such as curtains and drapes; tests flame spread characteristics of the material as hung.
• Smoke and toxicity data – often reported separately under the same FTP Code chapter; relevant because fire-retardant treatments can affect combustion by-products.
• Test method reference – details like ISO 9705 or EN ISO 6941 may appear in the fine print; these underpin the IMO test protocol and help confirm the test scope.
• Classification society approval – acceptance notes from bodies such as Lloyd’s Register, Bureau Veritas, or DNV are sometimes shown as an additional layer, reflecting a broader or narrower scope than a laboratory test certificate alone.

Ratings should be read in context. A fabric that passes Part 7 as a curtain is not automatically acceptable for use in upholstered seating, because Part 5 evaluates the entire seating composite and considers additional factors such as smoldering behavior. Conversely, a fabric listed as Part 5 compliant should not be assumed to meet drapery requirements unless the catalog explicitly states it.

Attention should also be given to the date and validity of test certificates. Some catalogs reference test reports that are several years old, which may still be valid but are worth checking against the specific project’s requirements. Likewise, a flame-retardant finish applied to a fabric after testing can alter its performance; catalogs that do not clarify whether the rating applies to the finished or unfinished material leave room for ambiguity.

User Concerns and Common Pitfalls

Buyers and specifiers express recurring concerns when working with these catalogs. The most common is patchiness of information: one product page lists a full FTP Code reference while another simply says “IMO approved.” Another frequent issue is the mix-up between the certificate holder and the actual manufacturer, especially when fabrics are imported through trading houses and then re-sold under a distributor’s product code.

Specifiers also report uncertainty about whether the certified sample matches the production batch. Upholstery lines, dye lots, and finishing treatments can change subtly between batches, and a certification obtained on one lot does not automatically guarantee identical performance on the next. The safest approach is to request a copy of the current test certificate and verify that the catalog product name, fabric construction, weight, and finish are all reflected in the report.

Fire-retardant coatings introduce another layer of caution. Many fabrics are treated with back-coatings that can degrade over time, particularly with repeated cleaning or exposure to sunlight. A catalog that gives no indication of durability or cleaning compatibility leaves an operational gap that the shipowner must manage after installation. Practical checkpoints to keep in mind include:

• Confirm which FTP Code part applies to your specific installation.
• Check whether the certificate covers the composite rather than only the face fabric.
• Ask for the underlying laboratory report, not just the catalog summary.
• Verify whether the stated rating is current and traceable to the actual supplied product.
• Ask about factors that can nullify the rating during installation, such as vinyl backing, sewing threads, or over-printing.

Likely Impact on Purchasing and Specification Decisions

The way IMO ratings are presented in catalogs is likely to have a growing influence on decision-making, partly because designers and purchasing teams are increasingly expected to self-verify compliance before an order reaches the classification stage. Projects that rely on opaque or incomplete certification data may face costly delays during inspection, because a fabric that cannot be traced back to a valid test certificate can be rejected on board despite looking identical to an approved sample.

There is also an emerging emphasis on total-cost assessment. A fabric with a stronger certification package may be slightly more expensive per meter, but it can reduce the administrative burden of re-testing, documentation review, and potential reordering. Buyers who understand the difference between a full FTP Code Part 5 classification and a narrowly scoped test report can negotiate more effectively, particularly in multi-vessel projects where the same fabric specification is applied repeatedly.

The broader trend points toward consolidation: suppliers that present their IMO certifications transparently, with clear references and current dates, are better positioned for repeat specification. Those that rely on generic approval statements may be consulted for concept work but dropped at the detailed engineering stage.

What to Watch Next

Monitoring developments in a few areas will help stakeholders stay ahead of catalog interpretation issues. First, revisions or clarifying issuances around the FTP Code’s fire-testing provisions could alter which parts apply to which applications, affecting the validity of older certificates.

Second, the publication of environmental product declarations and sustainability indices alongside fire ratings is becoming more common. This does not replace IMO certification, but it adds a second layer of data that procurement teams may weigh, especially in the cruise and ferry segments where interior aesthetics and environmental credentials both matter.

Third, the use of digital catalogs and interactive technical data sheets is spreading. These platforms often allow specifiers to filter products by FTP Code part, smoke production, and class approval, making it easier to compare offerings. However, they also increase the risk of automation errors, such as a filter displaying a Part 7 product when the specifier is actually looking for Part 5. The human read of the certificate remains the final checkpoint.

Finally, watch how manufacturers respond to demand for clearer labeling. If major textile suppliers begin to standardize their catalog entries around a common set of fields—test standard, part number, report date, laboratory, certificate holder, and tested composite—the overall reliability of the supply chain improves. Until then, the responsibility stays with the reader to look past the certification badge and examine the fine print carefully.