In companies, public authorities, schools, archives and healthcare facilities, the question is rarely just “what looks nicer?” anymore. Much more often the real question is: what will keep working predictably for years, with many users, with documents, binders, files, records and operational supplies.
This article answers one specific purchasing question:
For storing documents and work resources in an office, public authority or institution, should you choose metal storage furniture or wood-based board furniture?
This is not going to be a lazy “metal is always better” sales piece. That would be nonsense. There are environments where board furniture still makes sense. But there are also environments where choosing board instead of metal usually ends the same way: earlier wear, weaker standardization, messier organization and faster replacement.
If your goal is to build a durable storage standard for documents, files, records and operational resources, the most practical starting points are usually:
- SBM metal filing cabinets,
- closed shelving units,
- filing cabinets / record cabinets,
- and, in administrative and archival projects, the sector paths for public authorities and administration and archives and documentation.
The short answer: when to choose metal and when board still works
If you are buying furniture for a back office, records room, secretariat, registry office, compact archive, administrative department or any shared space with high user rotation, metal usually wins clearly in practice.
If you are furnishing a low-load executive office, a representative front office, a quiet managerial space or a light built-in arrangement with limited daily use, board furniture can still be a rational choice.
Quick decision table
| Purchasing situation | Better choice | Why |
|---|---|---|
| active documents, binders, daily access | Metal | better predictability, more robust structure, easier standardization |
| compact archive or administrative unit with many users | Metal | intensive use exposes the limits of board furniture quickly |
| hanging files, record systems, fast retrieval | Metal | specialist families such as record cabinets work better |
| representative office, low load, emphasis on warm aesthetics | Board or a hybrid layout | visual integration may matter more than operational durability |
| rollout across many rooms, departments or sites | Metal | easier to keep dimensions, interior logic and model families consistent |
| shared rooms, back-of-house spaces, controlled or sensitive environments | Metal | better resistance to impact, wear, user error and repeated opening |
What you are really comparing: not just materials, but how the furniture is expected to work
In procurement, “metal vs board” is not really an argument about taste. It is a question about how the furniture will be used:
- how many times it will be opened every day,
- how many people will use it,
- whether it stores active files, archived documents or mixed resources,
- whether the priority is front-office aesthetics or back-office durability,
- whether the project covers one room or many,
- whether locking, access control and a consistent storage policy matter,
- whether you may need to add more units in two or three years and keep the same standard.
This is where metal very often beats board — not because it is automatically more “premium”, but because it usually handles real corporate and institutional workloads better.
Metal vs board — compared by purchasing criteria
| Criterion | Metal cabinets | Board furniture |
|---|---|---|
| Durability under heavy use | usually very good over many years and many users | good in lighter use, but limitations appear faster under heavier work |
| Consistency across rooms and locations | high, easy to standardize | more likely to end up with mixed dimensions, fittings and collections |
| Resistance to everyday impacts and user mistakes | usually better | edges, surfaces, front panels and connections are more vulnerable over time |
| Working with binders and files | very good, especially in dedicated filing families | possible, but often less efficient when document volume grows |
| Hanging files and record management | very good due to specialist solutions | usually weaker or less predictable |
| One clear locking and access standard | easier to maintain | depends more heavily on joinery, fittings and collection continuity |
| Project scalability | high, easier to expand with the same family logic | often more dependent on one collection or one supplier line |
| Executive / warm visual character | more technical, though still professional | usually stronger in softer, more representative interiors |
| Entry cost | often higher or similar, depending on the unit | often lower at the start |
| Lifecycle value | often better in heavy use | often good only in low-intensity environments |
| Order and process discipline | very strong in institutional environments | acceptable in some offices, but less convincing in higher-pressure workflows |
The most important conclusion from this table
If you are buying for an environment where documents and resources move between people, rooms and procedures, metal does not win because of “style”. It wins because of operational logic.
Where metal wins with very little debate
1. When storage is not decoration, but part of a process
In many organizations, the furniture is not there primarily to “look good”. It has to:
- organize files,
- keep a repeatable resource structure,
- support several users,
- work for years,
- and allow later expansion without chaos.
That is where families such as:
- SBM metal filing cabinets,
- closed shelving units,
- record cabinets
usually make more sense than general-purpose board units.
2. When access control and locking logic matter
This does not mean that every metal cabinet automatically provides “high security”. It does not. But in real projects, metal is easier to fit into a coherent standard of locks, access rules and consistent use than a set of visually matched board units chosen room by room.
If the project requires more than a standard lockable cabinet, stop comparing metal to board and move directly to safes and reinforced cabinets.
3. When the project covers many rooms or many sites
This is where many buyers underestimate the problem at the start.
With one room, almost anything can be made to “work somehow”. The real trouble starts when:
- more rooms are added,
- more departments need the same logic,
- new cabinets have to match earlier ones,
- different people buy furniture in different project phases.
Metal usually wins here because it gives you:
- more predictable product families,
- clearer dimensional logic,
- easier standardization,
- and simpler comparisons between models.
4. When cleanliness, order and long-term appearance matter
In offices and institutions, furniture has to age well, not just arrive looking good.
In practice that means:
- handling frequent cleaning,
- avoiding highly visible edge damage,
- keeping a consistent look over time,
- and reducing the visual drift that happens when projects are expanded in stages.
5. When documents are heavy and interior logic matters
Working with binders, case files, folders and mixed office materials requires:
- practical depth,
- shelves or drawers suited to the stored media,
- a clear interior structure,
- and a repeatable layout.
That is why in archives, administrative environments and registry workflows, it is usually better to start with resource-specific families rather than “nice looking office furniture”.
When board furniture still makes sense
To be fair: board furniture is not bad by definition. It is just not the best tool in every environment.
Board furniture makes sense most often when:
- the workload is light,
- the number of users is small,
- document volume is limited,
- the space is more executive than operational,
- the warm or representative visual character of the room matters most,
- and the furniture does not need to become a long-term multi-room standard.
Typical environments where board can still work well:
- a managerial office with limited document circulation,
- reception and front-office zones with lighter storage demands,
- quiet administrative workstations without heavy filing pressure,
- built-in interiors where integration with desks or other furniture matters more than rugged performance.
The biggest mistake is different: using the logic of an executive office in an environment that actually works like an authority, secretariat, registry or archive back office.
Comparing decision variants: full metal, full board or a hybrid setup?
In real projects, there are three sensible decision models.
| Variant | When it makes sense | Biggest advantage | Biggest risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full metal standard | administration, archives, registries, schools, public institutions, back offices | durability, standardization, easy expansion | more technical visual language if someone expects a soft executive look |
| Full board standard | small offices, light storage, representative management rooms | visual warmth and often lower initial cost | lower durability in intensive use and weaker standardization later |
| Hybrid layout | organizations that want a representative front and a durable back office | best function-to-space fit | requires discipline and a clear role split |
My practical verdict
For many organizations, the best answer is not “the same material everywhere”, but:
- metal in back office, archives, document workflows and shared spaces,
- board in representative rooms with lighter use.
But if the project is mainly about corporate or institutional storage, not about furnishing an executive lounge, metal is usually the stronger choice.
Standards and technical reference points in 2026
This matters because many organizations do not ask only about look and size. They also ask which technical reference points should be used when evaluating storage furniture.
There is no single standard that says “you must choose metal instead of board”. The decision should be based on the use environment, load, access, durability expectations and storage logic. Still, for non-domestic storage furniture it is useful to know the current standards landscape.
Standards and reference table
| Document / reference point | What it covers | Why it matters in procurement | Practical takeaway |
|---|---|---|---|
| EN 16121:2023 | non-domestic storage furniture: safety, strength, durability, stability | this is the current baseline reference for many office and institutional projects | ask for technical data, intended-use logic and fit to the environment |
| EN 16122:2012 (normatively referenced by EN 16121) | test methods for strength, durability and stability of storage furniture | it moves the discussion from marketing slogans to testing logic | “solid cabinet” is not enough; test logic matters |
| CEN/TR 14073-1:2004 | dimensional recommendations for office storage furniture | useful for thinking about dimensions in relation to the stored media | cabinet dimensions should follow the resource, not the other way around |
| EN 14073 series | older references for office storage safety and testing | still appears in older tender documents and specifications | if you see it, check whether a newer reference should now be used instead |
| Project requirements, access logic and document workflow | the real use scenario | even a good standard cannot fix a poorly described project | define the resource, users, access frequency and project scale first |
What you should remember from this section
-
A standard does not replace a purchasing decision.
You still need to know what you are storing and how the furniture will be used. -
Do not compare products only on the label “meets a standard”.
Construction, interior logic, family structure and suitability for the stored resource matter just as much. -
A standard metal cabinet is not automatically fire resistant or reinforced.
If you need more than standard lockable storage, compare safes and reinforced cabinets separately.
Which dimensions make sense for documents and operational resources?
Below are practical starting points based on current Metaf models.
Dimensions and use-case table
| Storage logic | Family / starter model | Dimensions (H × W × D) mm | Practical parameters | Best-fit environment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| binders, case files, office documents | SBM 203 M lx | 1990 × 1000 × 435 | 4 shelves, 62 kg, sheet steel: 1.0 mm base / 0.8 mm other parts | offices, authorities, registries, schools, public organizations |
| documents and mixed office materials in closed storage | RZ 203 lx | 1990 × 1000 × 435 | 4 shelves adjustable every 25 mm | compact archives, admin departments, office back rooms |
| hanging files and active records | SZK 201st | 1008 × 415 × 633 | 3 drawers, inner drawer size 244 (front 280) × 330 × 585 mm, A4 hanging files landscape | active records, quick retrieval, registry work |
| resources requiring a higher protection level | Safes and reinforced cabinets | model-dependent | higher protection than standard storage cabinets | confidential files, media, procedurally sensitive resources |
Why these dimensions matter
- 435 mm depth is very practical for classic binder and case-file storage in filing cabinets and closed shelves.
- Record cabinets follow a different logic than ordinary shelves — that is why SZK 201st is not just a “small cabinet”, but a tool for fast retrieval in active filing workflows.
- If you try to force binders, active files, hanging folders and sensitive resources into one generic furniture type, this is usually where the expensive mistakes begin.
Concrete cabinet photos as solutions to specific problems
The three examples below are not here as decoration. Each one answers a different purchasing problem.
1. When you need a durable standard for binders, case files and everyday document storage
Model: SBM 203 M lx metal filing cabinet
Family: SBM metal filing cabinets
Dimensions: 1990 × 1000 × 435 mm
This is a very good starting point when you want to replace improvised board-based storage with one predictable standard for documents.
Why this model makes sense:
- it is designed for documents, binders and case files,
- it has 4 shelves and a clear interior structure,
- it works well in offices, authorities, registries and public units,
- it is easy to compare with other models in the same family during multi-room rollouts.
When it beats board:
when durability, repeatability and standardization matter more than purely decorative appearance.
2. When you want a closed shelving unit with more flexible shelf positioning
Model: RZ 203 lx closed shelving unit
Family: Closed shelving units
Dimensions: 1990 × 1000 × 435 mm
If documents are mixed with office materials, forms, print stock or working supplies, this route can be more practical than a typical board office cabinet.
Why this model makes sense:
- it has 4 shelves adjustable every 25 mm,
- it is well suited to offices, registries and compact archives,
- it keeps the resource in a closed and orderly structure,
- it offers more reconfiguration flexibility than many generic office cupboards.
When it beats board:
when shelf layout changes, consistency and closed durable storage matter more than furniture styling.
3. When fast retrieval of hanging files is the priority
Model: SZK 201st record cabinet
Family: Record cabinets
Dimensions: 1008 × 415 × 633 mm
This is the right route when you need fast access to active files, not just “some closed furniture”.
Why this model makes sense:
- it has 3 drawers,
- the drawers are designed for A4 hanging files stored horizontally,
- the maximum document size is 275 × 328 mm,
- the product page includes technical parameters that matter in real comparisons.
When it beats board:
when you need a working record system, not a compromise that looks office-like but does not handle retrieval well.
How to make a good purchasing decision without wasting money
The biggest mistake is not choosing metal or choosing board. The biggest mistake is comparing the options using the wrong criteria.
Start by answering these questions
-
What exactly will be stored?
Binders, case files, hanging folders, mixed supplies, confidential resources? -
How often will the resource be accessed?
A few times per week or dozens of times per day? -
How many users will use the furniture?
One person, a team, several rooms, an entire department? -
Do you need one standard across multiple rooms?
If yes, the advantage of metal families becomes much stronger. -
Is representational appearance more important than operational resilience?
Those are two different priorities. -
Is a standard lockable cabinet enough, or do you need a higher protection level?
If the latter, compare safes and reinforced cabinets from the start.
Checklist before sending an inquiry
This checklist genuinely shortens the path to a meaningful quotation.
- Define what resource will go inside: binders, records, hanging files, mixed materials, sensitive resources.
- Decide whether you need a filing cabinet, a closed shelving unit or a record cabinet.
- Decide whether the project covers one room or several rooms / locations.
- Determine whether executive appearance or operational durability matters more.
- Confirm the required external dimensions and the clearance for doors or drawers.
- Decide whether a standard locking solution is enough or whether you need a higher protection class.
- Note the preferred RAL colour, if a building standard applies.
- Build a shortlist of 2–3 models instead of starting with a vague “please quote some cabinets”.
- If the project is administrative or archival, review the sector path for authorities or archives.
- Once the shortlist is ready, move to the Metaf inquiry process.
The most common mistakes when choosing between metal and board
1. Looking only at the purchase price
Entry price is not the whole story. In intensive environments, lifecycle value matters more.
2. Buying based on appearance instead of the stored resource
Active files, records and binders should not end up in generic furniture simply because it looks attractive in a visualization.
3. Forcing multiple storage logics into one generic furniture type
Binders, hanging records and sensitive resources often require different storage logic.
4. Ignoring future expansion
If the project will grow, metal families usually win on standardization and later add-ons.
5. Assuming that a standard metal cabinet automatically solves high-security needs
It does not. Standard metal storage solves durability and organization. Higher protection requires a separate comparison of safes and reinforced cabinets.
FAQ
Is metal always better than board furniture?
No. Metal usually wins in high-use, multi-user, long-life environments. Board still makes sense in lighter and more representative spaces.
Does metal also make sense in a standard office?
Yes — especially if the office actually works with files, binders and records, rather than storing only a few occasional items.
What should I choose for a public authority or a secretariat?
A very practical starting point is usually SBM metal filing cabinets or closed shelving units, and for file systems — record cabinets.
What if documents must be retrieved very quickly?
Then record-cabinet solutions such as SZK 201st usually make more sense than ordinary shelf-based cabinets.
Are metal cabinets only for archives?
No. They are also very effective in daily document work, administration, registries, schools, laboratories and shared-use environments.
Does a standard metal cabinet provide a high level of protection?
You should not assume that. A standard metal cabinet improves durability and organization. If you need more than that, compare safes and reinforced cabinets.
Is full metal always the best answer?
Not always. A hybrid setup is often best: metal in operational spaces, board in representative spaces.
Can I prepare one inquiry for several models?
Yes — and that is usually the best route. Build a shortlist first, then use the Metaf inquiry process.
Related internal paths
Sectors
- Metal storage for public authorities and administration
- Metal storage for archives and documentation
Product families
Starter models to compare
CTA: move from comparison to inquiry
If, after reading this, you can already see that metal makes more sense than board for your project, do not start with a vague email saying “please quote some cabinets”.
Do it in a more useful order:
- choose a family: SBM, Closed shelving or Record cabinets,
- compare 2–3 models,
- review the sector path for authorities or archives,
- then move into the Metaf inquiry process.
The simplest shortlist to start this topic with:
SBM 203 M lx + RZ 203 lx + SZK 201st
That is already a serious, procurement-ready starting point for a first conversation.
Sources and reference points
Standards and references
- EN 16121:2023 — Non-domestic storage furniture
- CEN/TR 14073-1:2004 — Office furniture. Storage furniture. Dimensions
- BS EN 14073 — Office furniture. Storage furniture (series)
