On this page
Which published edition should you check?
Genorma lists EN 388:2016+A1:2018 as published. The EVS catalogue confirms the amended European reference. Genorma's lifecycle also shows revision work; that is not the same as a published replacement. Check the status and the reference required by the technical reviewer before ordering.
The public scope addresses abrasion, blade cut, tear, puncture and, where applicable, impact. It also places the document alongside general glove requirements. Use the licensed text and the supplier's evidence to interpret the actual claims; this guide does not supply rating thresholds or reproduce tests.
Compare the work before comparing the ratings
| Purchase question | Relevant distinction | Evidence to request |
|---|---|---|
| Which mechanical properties matter? | Different work can require different selected properties. | A task-specific brief from the responsible reviewer. |
| Does the exact glove meet that brief? | A brand can include several constructions. | Model-specific claims and supporting evidence. |
| Are other hazards present? | Mechanical evidence does not settle every protective function. | The additional evidence selected for those hazards. |
| Is an alternative construction acceptable? | A revised coating or liner is a product change to review. | A documented comparison before substitution. |
Do not turn a set of ratings into a single “best glove” score. Start with the tasks and properties selected by the competent safety reviewer, then compare each offered glove against that brief. The buyer can organise the comparison without deciding technical acceptance criteria. An attractive property in one column should not conceal an unanswered question in another.
Make the offered glove identifiable. Record the model code, liner and coating description, available sizes and any options that affect the claimed product. Ask whether the documentation covers the exact construction proposed. If a distributor provides a generic report, request an explanation connecting it to the model on the quotation. That explanation is more useful than a repeated assertion that the whole range is “EN 388 compliant”.
Keep additional protection and usability visible
A job description may include mechanical risks alongside thermal, chemical or other concerns. Present the full description to the responsible reviewer so those subjects are not lost in a mechanical-rating comparison. The presence of one standard reference should not be read as a claim for every hazard, and a glove suitable for one task should not automatically be transferred to another.
Also ask how sizing, dexterity and the intended handling task will be considered in the selection process. These are practical purchasing questions, not reasons to weaken the protective specification. A sample evaluation should have an agreed purpose and responsible oversight. This guide does not recommend exposing users to hazards to try a glove or conducting informal protective-performance tests.
Evidence questions before a repeat order
- Is the delivered model identical to the one on the accepted technical offer?
- What mechanical claims are actually made, and which selected task properties do they address?
- Does the supporting evidence cover all quoted sizes and construction variants?
- Are other protective functions supported by separately identified evidence?
- How will a coating, liner, supplier or model change be reviewed during the contract?
A simple approved-model register can hold the relevant evidence references and limitations. It helps purchasing notice a change without claiming that a previous approval remains valid for every future product sold under the same brand.
A fictional glove-contract decision
A metal-parts distributor uses a glove selected for particular handling tasks. At renewal, the supplier proposes a version with a different palm coating and describes it as equivalent because both products cite EN 388. The commercial comparison contains price and pack quantity but does not distinguish the constructions.
The buyer separates the two model codes and asks for a property-by-property comparison against the existing task brief. The responsible reviewer considers the revised product and any other hazards before accepting it. This fictional example does not prescribe a rating or assert that either glove is safe for a specific operation.
Buy the amended document
Check the language, consolidated contents, licence and seller's checkout terms before purchase.
Common buying questions
Does EN 388 cover all glove hazards?
Its subject is mechanical risks. Have the responsible reviewer identify the complete evidence needed for the actual task.
Can two gloves with the same reference be treated as identical?
No. Compare the exact product identities and relevant claims, including the scope of their evidence.
Is a revision project a published replacement?
No. Confirm publication status rather than infer it from a project name or search-result year.
Public catalogue sources checked on 7 October 2026. See the standards directory for other product guides.
Explore more standards buying guides
Browse standards by reference and subject to compare related document choices.