As a result of the implementation of the CE- marking in the European Union, the testing method as defined in prEN 16516 is about to become the new volatile organic compounds (VOC) testing standard and replace a multitude of testing methods and regulative systems in Europe that assess the existence of VOC in building materials, including wood-based materials. The aim of this study is, first, to compile expert positions regarding testing methods and regulative systems for VOC in wood-based materials, and second, to examine the suitability of using an Argument-Delphi approach to point out consent or dissent regarding testing methods for VOC. A systematic content analysis of initial interviews with 13 experts produced 130 arguments which were subscribed to 13 categories, resulting in 6 potential positions of which 5 were actively taken by experts. While the second step was undertaken as a cross verification of the analysis, the experts were asked to choose a final position as a last step. It was observed that several experts changed their initial position to testing methods and regulative systems for VOC, but still without a consensus arising within the expert panel. Hence, the results of the study reveal that no verifiable consent exists within the group of expertsneither concerning testing methods, nor regulative systems. The Argument-Delphi approach applied constitutes a useful method in pointing out dissent between the experts towards a legal requirement like a European standard.