[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.27.8″ _module_preset=”default” custom_padding=”0px||6px|||” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″][et_pb_row admin_label=”Introduction and list 1″ _builder_version=”4.27.8″ _module_preset=”default” custom_padding=”6px|||||” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.18.0″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/longtimelabel.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Article-actualite\u0301-blog-LTL-1.png” alt=”Schema illustrating the news of the LONGTIME\u00ae V2.1 standard” title_text=”Article blog news LTL (1)” align=”center” admin_label=”Image” _builder_version=”4.27.8″ _module_preset=”default” custom_margin=”|||14px||” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.8″ _module_preset=”default” header_font=”|700|||||||” header_text_color=”#009541″ header_2_font=”|800|||||||” header_2_text_color=”#5CC4E7″ header_3_font=”||||||||” header_3_text_color=”#009541″ custom_padding=”||0px|||” hover_enabled=”0″ inline_fonts=”Abel,Aboreto,Abhaya Libre,Abril Fatface,Abyssinica SIL” global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n
LONGTIME\u00ae V2.1: a strengthened standard for better product durability assessment<\/strong><\/p>\n With Version 2.1 of its standard, LONGTIME\u00ae is evolving its assessment methodology to better reflect the technical characteristics of each product category and strengthen the verifiability of its requirements.<\/p>\n This new version introduces additional Product-Specific Rules (PSRs), a clearer hierarchy of evidence, and a distinction between operational evidence and evidence relating to commitments or processes. It also provides a more structured framework for the preliminary product analysis, with dedicated sections covering product system boundaries, product functions and the identification of priority parts. The objective remains unchanged: to assess, in a relevant and verifiable way, the characteristics that genuinely contribute to product reliability, repairability and a longer product lifespan.<\/p>\n A product durability standard needs to evolve alongside the products it assesses. Technologies, industrial practices, the regulatory landscape and lessons learned from audits all change over time. The methodology must therefore evolve as well to ensure that assessments remain relevant and consistent. Version 2.1 addresses this need without changing the purpose of the LONGTIME\u00ae label. Instead, it strengthens the methodology: defining the product being assessed more precisely, identifying the functions and parts that genuinely matter to its lifespan, adapting requirements to sector-specific characteristics, and clarifying the evidence expected. <\/span><\/p>\n In other words, the aim is not to add more criteria for the sake of it, but to better target, substantiate and verify what is being assessed.<\/p>\n Version 2.1 strengthens an essential stage of the assessment process: gaining a precise understanding of the product, its scope and the factors that influence its lifespan. The standard provides a more structured framework for defining product system boundaries, functions, the parts involved and the analysis of environmental impacts. <\/span><\/p>\n A product may be used with accessories, peripherals or complementary equipment. Version 2.1 therefore defines product system boundaries more precisely, making it clear what is and is not included within the scope of the assessment. <\/span><\/p>\n This helps reduce ambiguity and clearly establishes which elements are covered by LONGTIME\u00ae certification.<\/span><\/p>\n Version 2.1 also provides a more detailed functional analysis of the product. Its different functions are identified and linked to the parts that enable them to be performed. This approach goes beyond a simple list of components. Each part is considered according to the role it plays in the product\u2019s operation. The standard distinguishes between primary, secondary and tertiary functions. <\/span><\/p>\n Identifying priority parts : <\/b><\/p>\n Not all parts have the same influence on a product\u2019s lifespan. Based on functional analysis and failure analysis, Version 2.1 enables priority parts to be identified more accurately, particularly critical, vulnerable and consumable parts. <\/span><\/p>\n The aim is to focus certain reliability and repairability requirements on the elements that genuinely determine product lifespan, rather than applying the same assessment approach indiscriminately to every part of the product.<\/span><\/p>\n Version 2.1 also strengthens the role of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in order to better account for the environmental impacts associated with the different stages of a product\u2019s life cycle. This approach puts design choices and their environmental impacts into perspective across the entire product life cycle, enabling this dimension to be integrated more precisely into the LONGTIME\u00ae assessment. <\/span><\/p>\n The LONGTIME\u00ae standard is built on a common set of requirements, complemented by requirements specific to each product category: Product Specific Requirements (PSRs). These requirements enable the assessment to reflect the technical characteristics, usage conditions and failure modes specific to each product family. <\/span><\/p>\n PSRs complement the common criteria whenever a requirement needs to be further specified or adapted to a particular product category. This makes it possible to maintain a consistent assessment methodology while taking sector-specific characteristics into account. <\/span><\/p>\n An electric oven, a battery or a heating appliance does not have the same architecture, usage conditions or potential failure modes. PSRs allow these differences to be incorporated into the assessment without compromising the overall consistency of the LONGTIME\u00ae standard. <\/span><\/p>\n With Version 2.1, PSRs are now divided into mandatory PSRs and complementary PSRs. To meet the sector-specific requirements, products must comply with 100% of the applicable mandatory PSRs and at least 80% of the applicable complementary PSRs. <\/span><\/p>\n This change provides a clearer hierarchy for requirements specific to each product category. Mandatory PSRs cover essential requirements, while complementary PSRs enable certain technical considerations or functionalities to be assessed in greater depth when relevant to the product, including areas that are not yet extensively covered by existing standards and regulatory frameworks. <\/span><\/p>\n The objective is twofold: to maintain a robust set of sector-specific requirements while enabling a more nuanced product durability assessment.<\/p>\n Assessing a requirement is not simply a matter of checking that it is included in the standard: it is also necessary to determine how compliance with that requirement can be demonstrated. Version 2.1 therefore provides a clearer structure for the evidence expected for each criterion and each Product Specific Requirement (PSR). <\/span><\/p>\n Evidence is now assigned one of three priority levels: <\/span><\/p>\n Certain types of evidence may also be considered \u201cNot applicable\u201d, depending on the product or requirement concerned.<\/span><\/p>\n This structure distinguishes the evidence that is essential to the assessment from evidence that complements or strengthens the demonstration of compliance. The aim is to clarify expectations and ensure greater consistency across assessments. <\/p>\n Version 2.1 also distinguishes between two categories of evidence. Operational evidence demonstrates that a requirement has actually been implemented, while evidence relating to commitments and processes documents the measures put in place by the company to ensure ongoing compliance with that requirement. <\/span><\/p>\n This distinction helps differentiate between what is planned or formally established and what is actually implemented in practice. It therefore strengthens the verifiability of requirements and contributes to more consistent audits. <\/span><\/p>\n Version 2.1 also raises the level of requirements for obtaining the LONGTIME\u00ae label. At the initial audit, the proportion of T1 criteria that must be met increases from 50% to 70%. <\/span><\/p>\n This change raises the level of compliance expected from the very beginning of the certification process, while maintaining the standard\u2019s progressive approach. It reflects a clear objective: to ensure that, from the initial audit onwards, a product meets a greater proportion of the requirements that contribute to its durability. <\/span><\/p>\n Version 2.1 does not represent a departure from the LONGTIME\u00ae methodology, but rather an evolution towards greater precision and more robust requirements. More detailed product analysis, a clearer hierarchy of sector-specific requirements, more structured evidence and a more comprehensive life cycle assessment: all these developments pursue the same objective \u2014 to better characterise the actual durability of the products being assessed.<\/p>\n The standard will continue to evolve alongside technical knowledge, lessons learned from audits, industrial practices and the regulatory landscape. This continuous improvement approach enables LONGTIME\u00ae to <\/span>maintain a rigorous, verifiable methodology that reflects the realities of the products being assessed.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" D\u00e9couvrez la V2.1 du r\u00e9f\u00e9rentiel LONGTIME\u00ae : PSR compl\u00e9mentaires, preuves hi\u00e9rarchis\u00e9es et exigences renforc\u00e9es pour \u00e9valuer la durabilit\u00e9 des produits.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":40,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[448],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-32840","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"
<\/span><\/p>\nWhy is the LONGTIME\u00ae standard evolving?<\/strong><\/h2>\n
<\/span><\/p>\nA more detailed analysis of the product and its life cycle<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Defining product system boundaries<\/span><\/h3>\n
Identifying product functions and priority parts<\/span><\/h3>\n
Taking life cycle assessment further<\/span><\/h3>\n
Sector-specific requirements better tailored to each product category<\/strong><\/h2>\n
The role of PSRs in the LONGTIME\u00ae standard<\/span><\/h3>\n
Introducing complementary PSRs<\/span><\/h3>\n
Better defined and prioritised evidence for a more robust assessment<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Prioritising the required evidence<\/span><\/h3>\n
\n
Distinguishing operational evidence from commitments and processes<\/span><\/h3>\n
Higher requirements from the initial audit<\/span><\/h2>\n
A methodology that evolves with products and product durability challenges<\/span><\/h2>\n
<\/h2>\n
<\/ul>\n