EN 14682: Cords and Drawstrings on Children's Clothing

Much of what is said about this standard in sourcing conversations is a simplification of it. Drawstrings are banned. Cords have to be short. Kids' hoodies cannot have hood cords. Each contains something true and none of them is the requirement, and working from the simplification produces designs that either fail or are needlessly constrained.

Specify the age group, intended use and component design before sampling. Check the finished product against the applicable safety requirements and current standards.

Where the standard sits

EN 14682:2014, Safety of children's clothing, Cords and drawstrings on children's clothing, Specifications, is listed in Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2026/901 of 17 April 2026, which sets out the European standards supporting the general product safety framework and replaced the previous decision.

It is the only children's clothing standard in that list. Other children's entries concern child use and care articles, high chairs, cycle seats and similar, which are different product categories. What that means, and what the standard therefore does not cover, is set out in children's apparel safety.

Scope, and what it excludes

The scope is narrower than often assumed in one direction and broader in another, and both matter for a range plan.

Two consequences worth drawing out. Costumes are frequently assumed to sit outside ordinary clothing rules and do not here. And the exclusions are exclusions from *this* standard, not from safety assessment generally, a scarf or a hat is still a product that has to be safe, assessed under the general framework rather than against this specification.

Why there is no single answer about drawstrings

The standard does not contain one rule that applies to every cord on every garment. It treats requirements as depending on several things at once, and that is the structural fact a buyer needs, even without the values.

No dimension or requirement value appears here. The point is that four things determine the answer, and changing any one of them can change it.

The age group

The standard distinguishes a younger group of children from an older group, with the division around age seven, and treats them differently. That is why a range spanning both can genuinely need two constructions rather than one design in more sizes.

The exact definitions, including any height criteria the standard uses, come from the standard itself. A size chart is not a substitute for them, and inventing a conversion from your own sizing to the standard's groups is how a range ends up assessed against the wrong requirements. How size and age ranges are built is a separate subject, covered in apparel sizing.

The area of the garment

Requirements differ by where on the garment a cord sits. The standard addresses the hood and neck area, the chest and waist, the lower edge of a garment, the back and the sleeves separately, because the hazard each creates is different.

The practical consequence is one designers often miss: the same cord configuration can be treated quite differently depending on where it is. A design decision that is unremarkable at a hem is a different question at a neckline, and moving a feature during development is not a neutral change.

The type of cord

The standard works with defined terms rather than the everyday word string, and the distinctions carry consequences. A functional drawstring that adjusts a garment, a cord or tab used to fasten it, a fixed loop and a purely decorative cord are different things, and a design brief that says cord without saying which has not specified anything.

How it is terminated

What happens at the end of a cord is part of the configuration, not a detail. Free ends, knots, toggles, stoppers, bows and loops all change what the feature is, and the presence of a toggle is a design decision with consequences rather than a trim choice made at the last minute.

Designing around it, not against it

The productive way to use the standard is as a design input at the start rather than a hurdle at the end. Several ordinary construction choices achieve the same functional result a cord was there for.

• Elasticated construction in a hood, waist or hem, where the adjustment was the point rather than the cord.
• Internal or enclosed systems, where an adjustment mechanism does not present free ends.
• Tabs and fastenings, including hook-and-loop and press fasteners, where the garment needs adjusting rather than drawing in.
• Sizing that fits without adjustment, which is often the honest answer on a children's garment and is worth considering before the cord is designed in.

This is not a route around the requirements, and it should not be treated as one. It is the ordinary observation that a cord is a means to an end, and that on children's garments the end is frequently achievable another way with less to assess.

The mistakes that recur

These come up repeatedly in development, and every one of them is cheaper to catch in a design review than in a size set.

• Grading an adult design down and treating the cord as a dimension that scales with the pattern.
• Moving a feature during fitting, a cord repositioned for appearance is a change to what was assessed.
• Adding a toggle late, often for aesthetics, after the configuration was decided.
• Extending the size range downward into a younger group after approval, without revisiting the design.
• Substituting the cord for a visually identical one from another supplier, changing its construction.
• Treating a decorative bow or tie as not a cord, on the basis that it is not functional.
• Assuming the standard covers the whole garment, and stopping the safety work once cords are handled.

Evidence, specification and change control

Because there is no certificate, what exists is a record. What that record contains depends on the programme, and the useful question is what will demonstrate that the design meets the specification and that production matched the design.

Where those items belong is the technical package and the bill of materials, see what a factory actually needs, and the risk analysis behind them belongs in the product's safety documentation, covered in product safety documentation.

And any change to a cord, a toggle, a position, a supplier or the age range means the existing assessment is reviewed rather than assumed to carry over. Not every change matters; the point is that somebody looks.