Abstract
Furniture is a crucial sector for sustainable development due to its high environmental impact and substantial potential for sustainable improvement. Despite many existing furniture Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), they often provide fragmented data, hindering a comprehensive understanding of the environmental impact across different furniture groups due to methodological disparities. This study employs LCA as the primary method to evaluate 25 furniture pieces across 8 groups. Using the Environmental Footprint method and the Ecoinvent 3.7 database within Simapro 9.1.1.1 software, it generates a comprehensive database with all 25 furniture pieces’ environmental performance data, including the environmental impacts of furniture with different characteristics within the same furniture group, the impacts of various life cycle stages for each piece, and the impacts of different materials/processes within each stage. The database highlights several trends: furniture groups with higher material weight generally exhibit greater environmental impact; the pre-production stage generally has the highest impact, followed by the production, distribution, end-of-life and use stage. For environmental data interpretation, the study provides valuable design priorities, suggestions, and opportunities for improving the environmental performance, supported by case studies. By uncovering common trends, this research informs and guide the pursuit of more sustainable furniture design and production practices.
Subject terms: Environmental impact, Sustainability
Introduction
The furniture sector is significant not only due to its close connection with human life1 and its substantial contributions to employment and the economy but also because of its huge environmental impact. For example, the European furniture sector employs around 1 million workers in 130,000 companies, generating an annual turnover of approximately 96 billion Euros2. Globally, furniture production in 2021 was valued at US$ 490 billion, with exports worth US$ 160 billion and consumption at US$ 477 billion3. However, these impressive numbers indicate a deepening sustainability crisis. About 51 million tonnes of furniture are consumed annually worldwide, with 48.6 million tonnes discarded4,5. Regarding primary materials used in production, wood furniture constitutes 57% of the European Union (EU) furniture production value, followed by 20% for upholstery furniture and 12% for metal furniture6. Consequently, the furniture sector has been identified as a critical area needing proactive measures and improvements for sustainability7,8. Addressing the furniture sector’s environmental impacts and resource consumption is essential for a more sustainable future.
As much as 80% of a product’s environmental impact is determined during the design stage7,9, emphasising the importance of conducting a specific Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for each furniture piece to address environmental challenges during (re)design. LCA is a structured, comprehensive, and internationally standardised method used to quantify the environmental impacts associated with a product (goods or services) throughout its entire life cycle. While some LCAs have been undertaken for certain furniture products/materials to identify environmental hotspots and establish design priorities, it’s important to note that LCA is resource-intensive10, costly11, and time-consuming10,11. This poses significant challenges for small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up a considerable portion of the furniture sector and often have limited resources and expertise12. This study’s three primary objectives centre around developing comprehensive furniture Life Cycle (LC) profiles that include detailed life cycle activities and environmental impacts. The first aim is to present quantitative data that offers valuable insights for designers. Secondly, we seek to provide a comprehensive overview of environmental trends applicable to general furniture. Finally, we aspire to furnish researchers with insights and suggestions, aiding them in identifying design priorities based on different furniture Life Cycle Design (LCD) strategies.
To obtain the environmental impacts data of furniture, this study conducted a literature review of 165 articles from Scopus and Google Scholar. Among these, 46 were highly relevant. Of these, 24 papers explicitly outlined their system boundaries: 4 used a 'cradle to grave’ approach covering all life cycle stages, 15 used a 'cradle to gate’ perspective focusing on two stages, and 5 evaluated a single stage, such as production. The literature review revealed that most existing furniture LCAs lack comprehensiveness, often omitting partial life cycle stages. This fragmented approach hinders the identification of broader environmental trends in the industry. Additionally, these LCAs typically focus on individual materials, processes, components, or single furniture items, which, while valuable for specific improvement strategies, fail to provide a holistic perspective. The literature review provided several key insights regarding materials, processes, individual furniture pieces, comparative studies and business models:
Studies compared the environmental impacts of different materials and processes. For example, standard particleboard has a 72% lower impact than fibreboard13–16, and particleboard with low formaldehyde content performs better environmentally17. Bio-composites like those made from hemp fibre and polylactide showed better environmental performance due to lower resource consumption18. Evaluations of wood surface coatings found that 100% UV lacquer is the most environmentally friendly option among four different wood surface coatings—two based on wax and two on ultraviolet (UV) lacquers (which harden under UV light)19. Low-density laminate outperformed high-density laminate by 36% in environmental impact13. Studies also evaluated the environmental impact of different production process. The milling saw step was found to have the highest impact in wood production20. Metal and leather production processes were also assessed; for instance, switching from epoxy-based to polyester-based powder coatings reduced health risks and environmental impacts21. Wet-white tanning was found to have a lower environmental impact than traditional chrome tanning22. LCAs of specific furniture items, such as baby cots, study desks, and wardrobes, identified key environmental hotspots like the production of wooden boards and electricity consumption23. The environmental hotspot of a school desk is the production of solid wood panels and the processing of iron parts24. The most significant environmental impact of a wardrobe stemmed from the transportation and the production of the Medium-Density Particleboard (MDP)25. Comparisons of different furniture pieces showed that cleaner production methods and innovative materials can significantly reduce environmental impacts. For example, wardrobes made from hybrid-modified ammonium lignosulfonate/wood fibre composites performed better than those made from medium-density fibreboard26. Another study evaluated two models of LIFE office chairs and found that the version with an aluminium base had a higher GWP impact27. Moreover, a comparison of 11 seating solutions revealed that minimizing energy and materials usage significantly improved environmental performance28. Lastly, one innovative study delved into the environmental performance of different business models, and showed that adaptive remanufacturing is both environmentally preferable and economically viable29.
This review is a foundational step toward grasping the environmental performance of specific furniture types. However, to discern a more generalized trend concerning the overall environmental performance, a more thorough investigation of comprehensive environmental data of furniture is crucial.
The results present the environmental impacts associated with various life cycle stages, materials, and processes. The discussion emphasises the key environmental trends identified in the furniture industry. It pinpoints specific groups, life cycle stages, processes, and materials with the most significant environmental impacts. This section highlights the main innovation of this research and suggests future research directions to explore these findings further. In addition, this research also acknowledges limitations that should be addressed.
Methodology
In simpler terms, LCA involves compiling and evaluating inputs, outputs, and potential environmental impacts of a product system from raw materials acquisition or generation to final end-of-life (ISO 14044; ISO 14040). In this study, a comprehensive LCA was performed for 25 pieces of furniture across 8 different groups, originating from 15 companies. These furniture groups and codes of furniture pieces is shown in Table 1. This analysis adhered to the methodology outlined in ISO 14044 and ISO 14040, which is structured into four main phases: (1) defining the goal and scope, (2) conducting the inventory analysis, (3) assessing the environmental impact, and (4) interpreting the results.
Table 1.
All evaluated furniture groups and codes of furniture pieces.
| Furniture groups | Task chair | Chair | Sofa | Stool | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Code of furniture pieces | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.4 | 5.1 | 5.2 |
| Furniture group | Coffee table | Closet | Table | Workspace | – | – | ||||||||
| Code of furniture pieces | 6.1 | 6.2 | 7.1 | 7.2 | 7.3 | 8.1 | 8.2 | 8.3 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 9 | – | – | |
Method, tools and database
The LCA was executed using the Environmental Footprint (EF) method (with toxicity) and utilised the Ecoinvent 3.7 database with the cut-off system model within the Simapro 9.1 software version. This research considered all 14 environmental impact categories within the EF method defined by the European Commission, including climate change, ozone depletion, ionizing radiation (human health), photochemical ozone formation (human health), particulate matter, human toxicity (non-cancer and cancer), acidification (terrestrial and freshwater), eutrophication (marine and terrestrial), ecotoxicity (freshwater), land use, water use, and resource use (both fossils and minerals and metals).
The EF method encompasses normalisation and weighting factors, enabling the integration of impact assessments into an end point single-score result. This simplifies the presentation and interpretation of results by reducing the number of indicators required to encompass all relevant environmental impact categories. These life cycle data provide designers with actionable insights to reduce the overall environmental impact through informed design decisions. Moreover, the end-point single score results account for the interactions and trade-offs among different environmental impact categories.
Impact values are expressed in relative percentages to aid in understanding the relative impact within each comparison group. This involves standardising a specific furniture piece, phase, or process to 100% and rescaling the impacts of other pieces, phases, or processes to correspondingly lower or higher percentages accordingly. For example, to illustrate the environmental impact of 5 life cycle stages of chair 2.2, the standardisation process is detailed as follows: first, the environmental impact (expressed as a single score) of each furniture piece/life cycle stage/material/process can be acquired by inputting all inventory data into the Simapro software; Subsequently, it is essential to decide which furniture piece/life cycle stage/material/process is the reference for calculating the standardisation factor. This allows for calculating the environmental impact of each furniture piece/life cycle stage/material/process in relative percentages.
Another critical aspect of LCA is the selection of the database and system models. This study employed the Ecoinvent 3.7 database with the “Allocation, cut-off by classification system” model. This system model applies a straightforward yet fundamental approach to distinguish between primary and secondary use stages32. Its simplicity and effectiveness have also contributed to its widespread adoption in Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs)33, further establishing it as the preferred system model for this study. However, it is essential to acknowledge the influence of database models on environmental impact values. In the cut off model, recyclable materials are cut off from the producing product system, meaning they are removed burden-free from the producing activity, and no impacts or benefits are allocated to them32. Instead, the full burdens of waste treatment is attributed to the producing activity generating the waste. Consequently, recycled materials and energy recovered from incineration become burden-free resources available for subsequent consuming activities, i.e. recycled aluminum in pre-production stage in our cases32.
Goal and scope definition
Goals
This study aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the environmental profiles of both office and household furniture across various groups, utilising quantitative LCA methodologies. The objectives of this study are detailed as follows:
To build a comprehensive furniture system boundary.
To compare the environmental impacts across 8 furniture groups and identify the group that exhibits the highest environmental impact.
To assess furniture pieces within each group, comparing the environmental impacts of products with different characteristics.
To evaluate the environmental impact across different life cycle stages for each furniture product, pinpointing the stage that contributes the highest environmental impact.
To examine the environmental impact of different materials and processes within each life cycle stage for each furniture item, determining the materials and processes that incur the highest environmental impact.
Through these environmental evaluations and comparisons, the ultimate goals of this study are to:
Establish a comprehensive life cycle profile for general furniture.
Establish a comprehensive environmental trend that applies universally to general furniture, facilitating a broader understanding of environmental impacts across the furniture industry.
Identify opportunities for enhancing the environmental performance of furniture at different stages of their life cycles, offering support for decision-making, strategic planning, and priority setting in the design and redesign of furniture products.
The study aspires to advance sustainable practices within the furniture industry by meeting these objectives and promoting an eco-friendly and more environmentally conscious approach to furniture production and consumption. The research entailed performing LCAs for 25 pieces of furniture, including office and household items, across various types such as task chairs (3 cases), chairs (5 cases), stools (2 cases), sofas (4 cases), tables (5 cases), coffee tables (2 cases), storage units (3 cases), and workspaces (1 case).
Functional unit (FU)
The FU is defined as the "quantified performance of a product being assessed, serving as a reference unit in the environmental impact assessment across all its life cycle stages"36. Within the realm of furniture LCA, the focus shifts from the furniture piece itself to the function it delivers22.
The functions of furniture encompass both objective and subjective dimensions, including their aesthetic appeal and extra functionalities37. Defining a FU that considers these diverse factors poses a challenge. Nonetheless, quantifying the function offered by a furniture piece is achievable. In this study, the FU for furniture is specified as "the usage of one piece of furniture, based on a typical frequency, over a span of 15 years in an office and/or household setting." To furnish more precise information for each group of furniture:
Task chair, chair, stool, table
The FU is defined as “the usage of one task chair/chair/stool/table for one average person based on a general frequency over a period of 15 years in an office/household environment."
Sofa, coffee table
The FU is defined as “the usage of one 3-seat sofa/coffee table/working space based on a general frequency over a period of 15 years in an office/household environment.”
Storage
The FU is defined as "the usage of one storage with 0.8 m3 storage space for files over a period of 15 years in the office/housing environment."
System boundary
The system boundary of furniture considered within this study includes all activities (both direct and indirect) related to furniture, covering its entire life cycle from pre-production, production, distribution, use, to end-of-life, along with all pertinent processes within these stages.
The pre-production stage
The furniture industry utilizes diverse raw materials, including wood-based panels, metals (such as aluminium and steel), plastics, fabrics, leather, and glass6. The pre-production stage includes the environmental impacts of acquiring these raw materials, transporting them to the production site, and producing raw materials or energy required for their transformation. For example, particle board, frequently used in furniture production such as desks, tables, storage units, and bed frames, undergoes a multi-step manufacturing process. This process includes the transportation of resources and the production of wood shavings, which encompasses wood chipping, shaving, and storage. The next phase is the drying and sorting section, which involves drying, sorting, milling, and storing the materials. Following this, the gluing section includes modulating, weighing glue and shavings, and mixing. This is followed by the paving and hot-pressing section. The final phase is the sawing and sanding section, including cooling, weighing, sawing, sanding, and inspecting the boards34,35. Moreover, furniture production incorporates various other materials such as aluminium, steel, textile, leather, paper, stone, marble, glass, glue, adhesives, paints, and varnishes. When examining the pre-production phase for furniture, it is essential to apply a consistent methodology to analyse the environmental impacts and production processes of these materials, akin to the approach taken for the main materials discussed.
-
(2)
The production stage
The production stage of furniture manufacturing involves a wide range of activities essential for transforming raw materials into finished furniture pieces and their packaging. This stage includes the processing of raw materials to produce various furniture components, as well as the assembly of these components into complete items. For solid wood-made furniture, finishing processes such as polishing and painting are crucial steps that enhance the aesthetic appeal and durability of the products. Beyond the physical creation of furniture, this stage also encompasses critical activities such as furniture design, research and development, quality inspection, equipment maintenance, and overall management operations.
-
(3)
Distribution stage
The distribution phase entails transporting furniture from the manufacturing location to a warehouse or directly to the end-users via diverse modes of transportation, including trucks, trains, ships, and planes. This process not only consumes energy and generates emissions during transit but also considers the entire lifecycle of the packaging materials employed to protect furniture during transportation.
-
(4)
Use phase
The use phase centres on the environmental impacts tied to furniture maintenance, encompassing cleaning activities that consume water and detergent. Additionally, this phase includes repairing or replacing damaged parts and upgrading components, like changing the cover of upholstered furniture.
-
(5)
End-of-life phase
The end-of-life phase evaluates the environmental impacts of various furniture end-of-life treatments, including collection, delivery, reuse, remanufacturing, recycling, composting, energy recovery/incineration, and landfilling. These activities delineate the system boundaries for furniture, as illustrated in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
The system boundary of a general furniture product.
The subsequent sections delves into a more detailed analysis of the environmental impacts associated with these phases.
Inventory analysis
Data collection and assumption
The inventory data for this study primarily comes from Environmental Product Declarations (EPD), which are voluntary documents presented by companies or organisations to provide transparent information about the life cycle environmental impact of their goods or services. The EPDs used in this study are obtained mainly from the Norwegian EPD Foundation (https://www.epd-norge.no/?lang=en_GB), and the International EPD System (https://www.environdec.com/library?search_type=simple&Category=9492).
Some data assumptions are made based on Product Category Rules (PCR). PCRs are specific requirements for conducting LCA studies and reporting findings through EPD, following international standards ISO 14025 and ISO 14044. They are essential for ensuring transparency and comparability between EPDs. Some data is assumed based on the previous experience of the LeNS lab.
Specifically, the utilised data for each stage of the furniture life cycle is as follows:
Pre-production: Actual materials used for furniture are obtained from EPDs provided by manufacturers for all 25 cases.
Production: The data for the production stage is assumed based on materials used in the pre-production stage, referring to the Product Category Rules (office chair, office table, seats, furniture except seats and mattresses38–41. The contribution of capital goods to the overall impact is relatively small, so the infrastructure of the foreground processes is considered negligible42.
Transportation: Data for the transportation stage is actual transportation distances and vehicle types from EPDs. If not available, the data are calculated as the average distance of a piece of furniture transported by certain means of transport modes from EPDs. If still not available, the data are calculated as a 1000 km distance by lorry, which is defined as an average scenario in PCRs38,39.
Use: The maintenance scenario includes cleaning with energy and water consumption. Vacuum cleaning is used for upholstered parts once a month, while wet cloth cleaning is used for wood/plastic/metal components. Assumptions are made about the type of cleaning equipment used and the duration of cleaning for different furniture types. Specifically, the research assumes the use of a common vacuum cleaner (900 W) for vacuum cleaning upholstered furniture. 20 s of vacuum cleaning is used for the upholstery parts of one chair per month, while 80 s of cleaning is considered for a three-seat sofa per month. Consequently, the energy consumption is estimated to be 0.06 kWh per year for upholstered chairs and 0.24 kWh per year for textile-covered sofas (assumed by LeNs lab). For other types of furniture without upholstery, cleaning is done with a wet cloth. The estimated water consumption is 1.5 litters per year for chairs and tables40,41, and 3 litters per year for sofas and storage units (assumed by LeNs lab). The use of detergent is only considered if mentioned in the EPD.
End of life: End-of-life scenarios are modelled considering average conditions of waste disposal43. In this study, an average end-of-life scenario is chosen, where 55% of furniture is disposed of in landfills as municipal solid waste, and 45% goes to incineration31.
Table 2 shows an example of inventory data for task chair 1.1.
Table 2.
The inventory data for task chair 1.1.
| Pre-production (EPD) | Production | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Materials | Weight (kg) | Processes | |
| Steel | 6.39 | Impact extrusion of steel | |
| Aluminium | 2.48 | Impact extrusion of aluminium | |
| Recycled aluminium | 1.88 | Injection moulding (PP, PA, PAGF 30, POM) | |
| Polypropylene (PP) | 2.13 | Polymer foaming (Synthetic rubber) | |
| Polyurethane (PUR) | 1.25 | Extrusion (PE) | |
| Nylon (PA) | 0.59 | ||
| Rubber. synthetic | 0.45 | ||
| Polyamide with glass fibre (PAGF 30) | 0.28 | ||
| Polyethylene (PE) | 0.27 | ||
| Polyoxymethylene (POM) | 0.21 | ||
| Total product | 15.93 | ||
| Distribution (EPD) | Use | ||
| Distance | Electricity (assumed) | 0.9 KWH | |
| 1000 km | Tap water41 | 22.5 L | |
| Packaging | Weight (kg) | End-of-life31 | |
| Cardboard (cutting) | 3.32 | Processes | (%) |
| Plastic—PE (extrusion) | 0.07 | Landfill | 55% |
| Total packaging | 3.39 | Incineration | 45% |
The inventory data for the other 24 pieces of furniture is attached in the supplementary file.
Limitations
This research represents a screening LCA conducted in accordance with the processes outlined in ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. The primary inventory data were sourced from Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), supplemented by assumptions based on Product Category Rules (PCRs) where inventory data were unavailable. For instance, transportation data for certain cases were calculated based on a 1000 km distance by lorry, which is defined as an average scenario in PCRs38,39. When necessary, additional data were obtained from scientific publications or reports, such as adopting a common scenario for the end-of-life stage. It is important to note that the reliability of data from these sources may be lower than that of data obtained through field investigations. Furthermore, this LCA excludes data on furniture repair, refurbishment, or upgrading through business model innovation—practices that could significantly mitigate the environmental impact of furniture products.
Results_Life cycle impact analysis and result interpretation
The assessment results below outline the environmental impact of furniture across various dimensions. Within the next section, the study compares the environmental impacts of different furniture groups. The following sections narrow the focus to compare environmental impacts within a single furniture group, to evaluate and compare different life cycle phases for each piece, and to analyse the impacts of various processes and materials at each life cycle stage, illustrated with examples. Detailed results are compiled into 156 tables in the supplementary information file, providing a comprehensive view of furniture’s environmental impact and serving as a valuable resource for designers and researchers.
Comparison of all cases
Firstly, the environmental impacts of all furniture products were compared to identify overall trends. Figure 2 shows that sofas (group 3), storage units (group 6), desks (group 7), and workspaces (group 8) generally have higher environmental impacts than task chairs (group 1), chairs (group 2), stools (group 4), and coffee tables (group 5). A plausible reason for this difference is that the former groups consume significantly more materials than the latter. This research further reveals a positive correlation between the environmental impact of furniture and its weight, with a few exceptions (chair 2.1, sofa 3.4, and storage 6.2).
Fig. 2.
The overall environmental impacts comparison of 25 cases. Each value in the table is a single score value. The environmental impact of sofa 3.2 has been standardised as 100%. The other furniture pieces’ impacts are rescaled to lower/higher percentages.
The environmental impacts of 25 pieces of furniture across 5 life cycle stages are presented in Tables 3 and 4 (standardised). The pre-production stage exhibits the highest impact for all 25 cases, ranging from 42.25 to 99.98%, with an average impact of 76%. The production stage is the second highest, contributing 0.01–24% of the total impact, with an average of 13%. The distribution stage ranges from 0.01 to 27%, averaging 9%. The end-of-life stage impact ranges from 0.01 to 8%, averaging 2%. The use stage has the lowest impact, ranging from 0.004 to 2%, with an average of 0.46%.
Table 3.
The environmental impact of 25 cases along the life cycle (unit: mpt).
| Furniture code | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 2.1–1 | 2.1–2 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-production | 6.52 | 5.51 | 6.89 | 221.12 | 1.03 | 2.02 | 1.62 | 0.93 | 33.64 | 19.55 | 7.24 | 20.08 | |
| Production | 1.37 | 1.73 | 2.16 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.55 | 0.45 | 0.53 | 4.88 | 2.45 | 2.04 | 2.96 | |
| Distribution | 0.29 | 0.80 | 1.00 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.56 | 0.07 | 0.57 | 4.10 | 3.26 | 1.07 | 0.83 | |
| Use | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.25 | 0.18 | 0.18 | |
| End-of-life | 0.27 | 0.67 | 0.84 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.19 | 0.09 | 0.17 | 2.02 | 0.24 | 0.51 | 0.69 | |
| SUM | 8.50 | 8.71 | 10.89 | 221.17 | 1.07 | 3.33 | 2.24 | 2.20 | 44.66 | 25.74 | 11.04 | 24.74 | |
| Furniture code | 4.1 | 4.2 | 5.1 | 5.2 | 6.1 | 6.2 | 6.3 | 7.1 | 7.2 | 7.3 | 7.4 | 7.5 | 8 |
| Pre-production | 5.68 | 2.02 | 1.92 | 1.30 | 33.62 | 14.48 | 5.76 | 17.25 | 14.48 | 9.18 | 4.37 | 3.27 | 184.93 |
| Production | 0.67 | 0.05 | 0.28 | 0.02 | 5.72 | 3.29 | 1.62 | 3.40 | 3.02 | 1.78 | 0.84 | 0.04 | 29.57 |
| Distribution | 0.45 | 0.23 | 0.24 | 0.48 | 0.96 | 1.59 | 1.73 | 0.80 | 0.94 | 0.79 | 0.53 | 0.05 | 39.71 |
| Use | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.18 |
| End-of-life | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.22 | 0.13 | 0.03 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 4.29 |
| SUM | 6.96 | 2.33 | 2.46 | 1.82 | 40.58 | 19.50 | 9.15 | 21.56 | 18.55 | 11.83 | 5.81 | 3.38 | 258.68 |
Each value in the table is a single score value, two decimal places.
Table 4.
The environmental impact of 25 pieces of furniture in 5 life cycle stages (unit: %).
| Furniture code | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 2.1–1 | 2.1–2 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.4 | – |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-production | 76.70 | 63.23 | 63.23 | 99.98 | 96.19 | 60.69 | 72.18 | 42.25 | 75.33 | 75.92 | 81.16 | 65.60 | – |
| Production | 16.14 | 19.82 | 19.82 | 0.01 | 1.20 | 16.54 | 20.15 | 23.99 | 10.93 | 9.52 | 11.97 | 18.49 | – |
| Distribution | 3.41 | 9.16 | 9.16 | 0.01 | 1.45 | 16.95 | 3.07 | 25.74 | 9.18 | 12.66 | 3.36 | 9.65 | – |
| Use | 0.63 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.004 | 0.33 | 0.26 | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.04 | 0.97 | 0.74 | 1.66 | – |
| End-of-life | 3.13 | 7.69 | 7.69 | 0.01 | 0.83 | 5.56 | 4.20 | 7.61 | 4.52 | 0.93 | 2.77 | 4.60 | – |
| SUM | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | – |
| Furniture code | 4.1 | 4.2 | 5.1 | 5.2 | 6.1 | 6.2 | 6.3 | 7.1 | 7.2 | 7.3 | 7.4 | 7.5 | 8 |
| Pre-production | 81.66 | 89.17 | 78.09 | 71.49 | 82.86 | 74.27 | 62.92 | 80.01 | 78.06 | 77.56 | 75.30 | 96.70 | 71.49 |
| Production | 9.63 | 5.39 | 11.21 | 1.37 | 14.10 | 16.85 | 17.67 | 15.76 | 16.26 | 15.08 | 14.44 | 1.04 | 11.43 |
| Distribution | 6.46 | 2.63 | 9.92 | 26.57 | 2.36 | 8.13 | 18.87 | 3.73 | 5.06 | 6.66 | 9.13 | 1.41 | 15.35 |
| Use | 0.95 | 2.41 | 0.36 | 0.49 | 0.12 | 0.09 | 0.19 | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.15 | 0.31 | 0.52 | 0.07 |
| End-of-life | 1.29 | 0.40 | 0.42 | 0.08 | 0.55 | 0.65 | 0.34 | 0.42 | 0.52 | 0.55 | 0.83 | 0.33 | 1.66 |
| SUM | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
The value is a single score value, standardised based on the sum value for each piece of furniture (the environmental impact of each piece of furniture has been standardised as 100%, and each life cycle stage’s impact is rescaled to lower percentages).
The data indicate that the overall environmental impact is significantly influenced by the weight per functional unit (FU). Heavier furniture tends to have a higher overall impact. Designers should aim to minimize the weight per FU to reduce environmental impact. On the other hand, the definition of FU is closely related to the lifespan and use intensity, other strategies extending furniture lifespan and increasing usage frequency should also be conducted. Pre-production consistently accounts for the largest share of environmental impact across all furniture items, as shown in Tables 3 and 4. Therefore, reducing pre-production impacts should be a priority in compare to other stages like production, distribution, use or end-of-life, during the design stage.
Comparison of all cases within each group
The environmental impacts of furniture pieces from 7 groups (except the workspace one) were compared. In this chapter, the comparison of furniture pieces within the same group helps to identify what characteristics lead to higher/lower impacts, with the comparison among three task chairs as an example to give some design insights. The comparisons of the other 7 groups have been detail recorded in the supplementary information file.
Figure 3 reveals that Task Chair 1.3 has the highest environmental impact compared to the other task chairs. This is potentially attributed to its substantial material usage, weighing 20.26 kg per FU, even though it incorporates over half of the recycled materials. Therefore, a potential strategy to enhance its environmental performance is to reduce the materials consumption per FU, which can be achieved by reducing the materials consumption, or by extending the lifespan of furniture or, by intensifying the furniture use.
Fig. 3.
The overall environmental impacts comparison of 3 task chairs (single score, standardised). The environmental impact of task chair 1.3 has been standardised as 100%. The other task chairs’ impacts are rescaled to lower percentages. Colour should be used in print.
When further examining the environmental impacts of each of the 3 task chairs in terms of the different life cycle stages (Fig. 4), some specific findings are revealed. Surprisingly, by comparing the inventory data of task chair 1.1 (14.05 kg per FU with 27% recycled materials) and 1.3 (20.26 kg per FU, with 52% recycled materials), although task chair 1.3 has higher percentage of recycled materials, it still has higher impact. One possible reason for this is assumed that material consumption (per FU) has a greater impact on environmental performance than material recyclability. It becomes evident that designers should prioritise “reducing the materials consumption” per FU, rather than “using recycled materials”, as it significantly diminishes the environmental impact.
Fig. 4.
The environmental impacts comparison for each life cycle stage of 3 task chairs (single score, standardised). The environmental impact of task chair 1.1_pre-production stage has been standardised as 100%. The other life stages’ impacts are rescaled to lower percentages. Colour should be used in print.
In the distribution stage, Task Chair 1.2 exhibits a higher impact compared with Task Chair 1.3, even though Task Chair 1.3 has a higher weight to be transported. Arguably, it may suggest that employing the sea shipment method (Task Chair 1.3) helps reduce environmental impact better than using lorries. Similarly, Task Chair 1.1 presents a higher impact than the others during the use stage. This is because the electricity consumption associated with cleaning the upholstery part plays an important role in furniture’s environmental performance during the use stage. In summary, we recommend the potential for mitigating environmental impact not only through reducing materials consumption and carefully selecting materials, but also considering the use of different modes of transportation and users’ maintenance activities (i.e., cleaning methods) at the design phase.
Comparison of all life cycle stages for a single piece of furniture
After conducting a comparative analysis of the environmental impacts of furniture pieces within the same group, we proceeded to conduct the analysis of the environmental impact of each individual piece. This involved comparing the environmental impact at each stage of the life cycle (including pre-production, production, distribution, use, and end-of-life stages), as well as assessing the materials and processes involved in each stage for each furniture piece. The goal was to identify the most critical stages, materials, and processes that could be targeted for intervention to mitigate the environmental impact of each furniture piece. This analysis delves into a higher level of detail, encompassing all 25 furniture pieces. The corresponding data can be found in the supplementary information file. To illustrate the significance of these findings and their relevance to design decision-making, we will use Case Task Chair 1.3 and 1.1 as illustrative examples.
Figure 5 presents the environmental impacts of Task Chair 1.3 across its five life cycle phases, considering the FU. The analysis reveals that the pre-production stage has the highest impact, amounting to three times the impact of the production stage. Comparatively, the distribution stage contributes only 2% of the pre-production stage’s impact, the end-of-life stage accounts for 6%, and the use stage registers 0.2%. Detailed explanations of the impacts of each stage of Task Chair 1.3 (as an example) are provided separately in the subsequent paragraphs (chapter 4.4). These explanations aim to provide designers with evidence-based guidance, empowering them to make environmentally beneficial decisions with informed judgment.
Fig. 5.
The environmental impacts comparison for Task Chair 1.3’s each life cycle stage (single score, standardised). The environmental impact of the pre-production stage has been standardised as 100%. The other life stage’s impact is rescaled to lower percentages.
Comparison of all materials and/or processes per life cycle stage
Pre-production stage
The pre-production stage significantly influences the environmental impact of task chair 1.3, and the Fig. 6 provides a detailed breakdown of each material’s contribution. The environmental burden during this stage primarily stems from the complex processes of primary materials extraction, transportation, and production. Therefore, minimizing material consumption is crucial for designing environmentally sustainable furniture at the pre-production stage. Designers can adopt several effective strategies to achieve this goal. For instance, they can avoid designing over-dimensioning furniture. Additionally, employing reinforced structures and eliminate non-functional components are effective to reduce material use30.
Fig. 6.
The environmental impacts comparison for Task Chair 1.3’s pre-production stage (single score, standardised). The environmental impact of Polyimide has been standardised as 100%. The other materials’ impacts are rescaled to lower percentages). PP represents Polypropylene in materials related impact. When talking about life cycle stages, PP represents Pre-production, P represents Production, DIS represents Distribution, U represents Use, EOL represents End-of-Life.
Another highly beneficial avenue is to select materials carefully. First, designers are strongly advised to prioritise recycled materials, such as those derived from discarded products, over virgin materials to substantially reduce the environmental burdens associated with furniture pre-production. For instance, in the case of Task Chair 1.3, recycled aluminium, despite being the most extensively used material (6.58 kg), presents impact of zero. To validate the environmental benefit of recyclability, the research compared the impact of 1 kg of virgin aluminum and 1 kg of recycled aluminum. The results demonstrated that the consumption of 1 kg of recycled aluminium resulted in zero impact, whereas 1 kg of primary aluminium exhibited a substantially higher environmental impact. However, it is essential to consider the influence of database system models on these environmental impact values. Under the “allocation, cut-off by the classification system” model, recycled aluminum is treated as burden-free within the furniture pre-production. This is because it primarily avoids extraction and production, resulting in a significantly lower environmental impact during the pre-production stage.
Moreover, all wood materials demonstrate relatively low impact, so it is suggested to incorporate renewable materials (see Fig. 181 in the supplementary file). For instance, incorporating certified wood as a renewable resource is an environmentally sound practice that should be considered30. Additionally, the supplementary information file provides a comparative analysis of the environmental impacts of commonly used raw materials for furniture production during the pre-production stage. Designers are encouraged to select alternative materials with low environmental impact while maintaining the same functionality. For example, the environmental impact of 1 kg of polyamide is much higher than 1 kg of polypropylene. With the same function, polypropylene is recommended as a more sustainable alternative.
Production stage
For task chair 1.3, In the production stage, the ’injection moulding’ process emerges as the most impactful, closely trailed by impact extrusion of aluminium, polymer foaming, and extrusion, see Fig. 7. The magnitude of impact during this stage is intricately linked to the energy consumed during these processes. Accordingly, the possible design measures could include selecting processing technologies with the lowest energy consumption possible; or engage efficient machinery (Vezzoli, 2018).
Fig. 7.
The environmental impacts comparison for Task Chair 1.3’s Production stage (single score, standardised). The environmental impact of ‘Injection moulding’ has been standardised as 100%. The other process’s impacts are rescaled to lower percentages.
Distribution stage
At the distribution stage of Task Chair 1.3, the greatest environmental impact is primarily attributed to the preparation and treatment of packaging materials (particularly the corrugated board box), as well as transportation activities, representing 100% and 80% respectively, see Fig. 8. It is therefore important to minimize the impact of packaging materials during design, with the possible measures including avoiding packaging, applying materials only when necessary (e.g. packaging solely for safeguarding essential components), or designing the package to be part of the final products30, etc.
Fig. 8.
The environmental impacts comparison for Task Chair 1.3’s distribution stage (single score, standardised). The environmental impact of ‘corrugated board box’ has been standardised as 100%. The other processes’ impacts are rescaled to lower percentages. (I) represents incineration; (L) represents landfill.
For transportation, if compare various transportation means based on the same FU, the data indicates that aircraft transportation has the highest environmental impact, followed by lorries, trains, and barges, as illustrated in Fig. 9. This insight can inform companies in their decision-making process when selecting a transportation method. On the other hand, minimizing or eliminating transportation is also a recommended strategy for reducing environmental burdens, which can be achieved in a variety of methods, such as optimizing logistics, incorporating on-site assembly for furniture, and designing compact, stackable, and lightweight furniture, among other measures, etc.
Fig. 9.
The environmental impacts comparison of four different means of transportation (weight: 1000 kg, distance: 1000 km). Colour should be used in print. The environmental impact of ‘transportation by aircraft’ has been standardised as 100%. The other processes’ impacts are rescaled to lower percentages.
Use stage
The environmental impacts of furniture during the use stage results mainly from user maintenance activities, which is related to design (e.g. material selection and structure design). For example, Task Chair 1.1 is designed with upholstered components, which is cleaned by the user with a vacuum cleaner that consumes electricity. Therefore, for the same FU, it is recommended to avoid the use of upholstered and textile-made components, in order to avoid electricity consumption during maintenance such as cleaning which is identified as a major factor in the environmental impact of furniture in use stage for task chair 1.1, see Fig. 10.
Fig. 10.
The environmental impacts comparison for Task Chair 1.1’s use stage (single score, standardised). The environmental impact of ‘electricity’ has been standardised as 100%. The other process’s impact is rescaled to lower percentages.
End-of-life stage
The end-of-life stage is modelled based on an average scenario, where 55% of furniture is disposed of in landfills as municipal solid waste, while the remaining 45% undergoes incineration31. The model used for this stage is the allocation, cut-off by the classification system, which considers the environmental burden during incineration but not any credits generated from the process (such as heat or electricity). This modelling approach may contribute to the fact that all incineration processes exhibit a higher environmental impact than the landfill process for the end-of-life of the same material, see Fig. 11. Nonetheless, certain components, such as those made of metal, may have a significantly longer lifespan compared to components made of materials like plastic. Hence, it is worth for designers to consider the differing durability of various components and striving to maximize their longevity comprehensively in the design process. For example, incorporating features that facilitate easy disassembly and separation for further use can promote notable environmental advantages.
Fig. 11.
The environmental impacts comparison for Task Chair 1.3’s end-of-life stage (single score, standardised). The environmental impact of ‘waste plastic (I)’ has been standardised as 100%. The other processes’ impacts are rescaled to lower percentages. (I) represents incineration; (L) represents landfill.
As a conclusion, this chapter gives some examples. All other furniture life cycle data such as the comparison among different furniture from each same group; different life cycle stages for each furniture and different processes/materials for each life cycle stage were detailed recorded in the supplementary information file. Designers are encouraged to explore in detail these valuable data to guide the design process.
Discussion
This research makes a significant contribution to the furniture sector by establishing a comprehensive environmental profile and database. Unlike previous studies with fragmented data, this project utilizes a comprehensive LCA encompassing 25 furniture pieces from 8 diverse groups. The database includes: the overall impact of each furniture piece; the overall impact of each stage for each furniture piece; and the impact of each material/process for each life cycle stage. This comprehensive data allows for: the identification of general environmental impact trends across furniture groups (e.g., confirming the pre-production stage as the most impactful, aligning with prior research26–28; the comparison of furniture with the same function to understand factors influencing environmental impact; and obtain informed design decisions based on comparisons between materials and processes within each life cycle stage. All life cycle data and comparisons for all cases are documented in the supplementary information file. This rich database offers valuable insights for: improving furniture’s environmental performance at various life cycle stages and supporting strategic planning and priority setting in furniture design and redesign.
Another limitation of existing furniture LCAs stems from inconsistent system boundaries and FUs, hindering comparisons across studies. Our research addresses this issue by establishing a comprehensive system boundary and standardised FU, ensuring consistent and comparable results for all 25 furniture pieces. While some existing LCAs encompass the entire life cycle, others only cover partial stages, leading to incomplete data that limits comparisons and hinders a nuanced understanding of environmental impact. To overcome this challenge, we leveraged data from EPDs and filled missing information using assumptions guided by Product Category Rules. Consequently, this research considers all life cycle stages: pre-production, production, distribution, use, and end-of-life. This holistic view not only provides a clearer picture of environmental burdens but also identifies areas for potential impact reduction. Ultimately, our methodology facilitates more comprehensive decision-making during design or redesign processes to minimize environmental impact.
Understanding the environmental impact of furniture throughout its life cycle is crucial for sustainable design. This research presents an LCA of 25 pieces of office and household furniture from 8 different groups. The LCA data reveals a clear trend: the pre-production stage has the highest environmental impact, with an average of 76% contribution to the total life cycle impact, considering the 25 cases evaluated in this study. In most cases (15 out of 25), the production stage follows as the second most impactful, although with a significantly lower impact than pre-production (with an average contribution of 13% in this evaluated 25 cases). Distribution plays a secondary role in the environmental impact of some furniture items (9 out of 25). The end-of-life phase exhibits a notably lower impact compared to the earlier stages. The use phase presents a significant opportunity for design strategies to minimize overall environmental impact, with an average impact of only 0.2% compared to the total life cycle impact.
Upon analysing each stage, some insights become evident. First, the LCA highlighted the environmental impact sources in the pre-production stage, offering insights into material selection, and the use of alternative materials. Aluminium one of the most commonly used metals in furniture production, demonstrated a significantly lower environmental impact when recycled compared to its primary counterpart This finding underscores the importance of prioritizing recycled materials over virgin ones. Wood furniture stands out as the most environmentally friendly option compared to materials such as metals and plastics. Another important insight is the significant environmental impact of wool, which suggests avoiding wool in upholstered furniture can be a strategy for reducing environmental burden. In addition, the study also found a positive correlation between the material weight and impact, so it is suggested to design furniture with less material. In the transportation stage, the LCA data revealed that packaging can have a greater environmental impact than transportation itself, though this depends on travel distance and mode of transportation. Designers should consider using minimal packaging materials and explore eco-friendly alternatives. Among different transportation methods, air travel has the highest environmental impact, followed by truck, train, and water transportation means. When designing furniture for lower impact during distribution, considering factors like reducing weight and disassembly/assembly design can help minimize transportation impact. During the use phase, water, electricity and soap are commonly used resources. Among these, soap has the highest impact, followed by electricity and water. Designers can explore surface treatment that requires less cleaning or uses more easily cleanable materials. In the end-of-life stage, the study found that incineration has a greater environmental impact than landfilling at the end-of-life stage. Additionally, plastic treatment showed a higher environmental impact than other materials. Selecting materials with established recycling infrastructure is also important. Designing for disassembly and recyclability are crucial strategies to minimize impact and gain benefits.
The key value of this research lies primarily in its rich database which contribute significantly to both furniture research and design practices. These results are instrumental in understanding the environmental profile of each furniture piece, encompassing all materials and processes throughout its life cycle. For researchers, these data serves as a benchmark, enabling the development of design strategies and guidelines to address environmental concerns. Governments can use this data to inform scientific decision-making, such as the formulation of regulations, laws, and guidelines. For practitioners like furniture companies and designers, conducting an LCA for each project requires considerable time and expertise. However, they can use data from similar furniture groups as a reference for their own product designs, helping them identify better and worse practices. Additionally, this research outlines general trends and design strategies that are applicable to all furniture, offering valuable insights for designers.
Building upon the comprehensive data provided, future research can focus on developing specific LCD strategies and guidelines for furniture. While there are broadly contextualized design guidelines available, they have been found to be less effective or inefficient in furniture-related applications. It is advisable to create furniture-specific LCD guidelines tailored to enhance efficiency based on the life cycle profiles and environmental impact of furniture. Additionally, it is important to define the priorities of furniture LCD strategies. This priority setting should be based on the furniture life cycle data, acknowledging that designers often face scenarios where alternative solutions prioritise different aspects of sustainability.
This research acknowledges some limitations. First, the research referred to the EPDs supplemented by assumptions based on PCRs for inventory data. Such data may be lacking credibility and precision of data obtained from field investigations. To enhance accuracy, future studies could incorporate input and output inventories directly sources from producers, rather than relying on screening data. At the same time, this LCA did not include any data on furniture repair, refurbishment, or upgrading through business model innovation. These practices can significantly extend furniture lifespan and reduce environmental impact. Further research on incorporating these business practices into design and user behaviour is recommended. In addition, we used the single score end point result, which aligns more closely with our research goals compared to the midpoint result. This was chosen because our focus is primarily on the whole life cycle stages and the overall environmental impact of furniture across different categories and made of different materials. In our study, we decided to overlook the effects of this data model. However, we acknowledge its limitation, like reduced transparency for audience, diminished effectiveness and credibility in communication. Moreover, the single score results do not allow for identifying the specific impact categories that contribute the most. In conclusion, this research addresses the gap in comprehensive furniture LC data by conducting an LCA for 25 furniture pieces across 8 groups. The study’s contributions are twofold: it refines the LCA methodology for furniture, particularly in defining system boundaries and FU, and it provides rich LCA results. Overall, this research facilitates informed decision-making for a diverse audience, including researchers, governmental bodies, furniture companies, and designers.
Supplementary Information
Author contributions
All authors revised the manuscript. This article was a collaborative effort of all the authors, and each author’s specific contributions are as follows: D.Y. conducted the conception and design of the work, the analysis and interpretation of data, D.Y. drafted the work, and substantively revised it. C.V. contributed to the discussion of the conception and design of the work and contributed to data interpretation; C.V. and H.S. substantively revised the manuscript.
Data availability
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its Supplementary information material].
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Contributor Information
Dongfang Yang, yang_dongfang@email.tjut.edu.cn.
Carlo Vezzoli, Email: carlo.vezzoli@polimi.it.
Hang Su, Email: hang1.su@polimi.it.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-024-84025-8.
References
- 1.Xiong, X., Ma, Q., Yingying, Y., Wu, Z. & Zhang, M. Current situation and key manufacturing considerations of green furniture in China: A review. J. Clean. Prod.267, 121957 (2020). [Google Scholar]
- 2.European Commission. A Blueprint For The Eu Forest-Based Industries (Woodworking, Furniture, Pulp & Paper Manufacturing And Converting, Printing). 41 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013SC0343&from=EN (2013).
- 3.CSIL. World Furniture Outlook 2022. (2022).
- 4.CSIL & CNFA. World Furniture Outlook 2020 (2020).
- 5.Forrest, A., Hilton, M., Ballinger, A. & Whittaker, D. Circular economy opportunities in the furniture sector. 55 (2017).
- 6.Renda, A. et al. The Eu furniture market situation and a possible furniture products initiative. 307 https://www.ceps.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Final%20report_en.pdf (2014).
- 7.Commission, E. Circular Economy Action Plan: For a Cleaner and More Competitive Europe (Publications Office of the European Union, 2020). [Google Scholar]
- 8.Joint Research Centre of the European Commission. Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation—Preliminary Study on New Product Priorities (Draft). (2023).
- 9.Design Council. Design Council Annual Review 2002. Review Literature and Arts of the Americas. (2022).
- 10.Bjorklund, A. E. Survey of approaches to improve reliability in lca. 9 (2002).
- 11.Gonzalez, B., Adenso-Dıaz, B. & Gonzalez-Torre, P. L. A fuzzy logic approach for the impact assessment in LCA. 19 (2002).
- 12.Handfield, R., Sroufe, R. & Walton, S. Integrating environmental management and supply chain strategies. Bus. Strat. Environ.14, 1–19 (2005). [Google Scholar]
- 13.Çinar, H. Eco-design and furniture: Environmental impacts of wood-based panels, surface and edge finishes. For. Prod. J.55, 27–33 (2005). [Google Scholar]
- 14.European Commission & Joint Research Centre. ILCD Handbook: General Guide for Life Cycle Assessment: Detailed Guidance (Publications Office of the European Union, 2010). [Google Scholar]
- 15.Klöpffer, W. & Grahl, B. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): A Guide to Best Practice. (Wiley, 2014).
- 16.Panameño, R., Gutiérrez-Aguilar, C. M., Angel, B. E., Fábio-César, S. & Kiperstok, A. Cleaner production and LCA as complementary tools in environmental assessment: discussing tradeoffs assessment in a case of study within the wood sector in Brazil. Sustainability (Switzerland)11, (2019).
- 17.Bovea, M. D. & Vidal, R. Materials selection for sustainable product design: A case study of wood based furniture eco-design. Mater. Des.25, 111–116 (2004). [Google Scholar]
- 18.Smoca, A. Hemp fibres reinforced bio-composites for sustainable design. 19, 471–478 (2019).
- 19.Gustafsson, L. M. & Börjesson, P. Life cycle assessment in green chemistry: A comparison of various industrial wood surface coatings. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.12, 151–159 (2007). [Google Scholar]
- 20.Phungrassami, H. & Usubharatana, P. Life cycle assessment and eco-efficiency of para-rubber wood production in Thailand. Pol. J. Environ. Stud.24, 2113–2126 (2015). [Google Scholar]
- 21.Askham, C. Environmental product development: Replacement of an epoxy-based coating by a polyester-based coating. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.16, 819–828 (2011). [Google Scholar]
- 22.Shi, J., Puig, R., Sang, J. & Lin, W. A comprehensive evaluation of physical and environmental performances for wet-white leather manufacture. J. Clean. Prod.139, 1512–1519 (2016). [Google Scholar]
- 23.González-García, S. et al. Eco-innovation of a wooden childhood furniture set: an example of environmental solutions in the wood sector. Sci. Total Environ.426, 318–326 (2012). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Mirabella, N., Castellani, V. & Sala, S. LCA for assessing environmental benefit of eco-design strategies and forest wood short supply chain: a furniture case study. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess19, 1536–1550 (2014). [Google Scholar]
- 25.Medeiros, D. L. & do Carmo Tavares, A. O., e Silva, Á. L. Q. R. & Kiperstok, A.,. Life cycle assessment in the furniture industry: the case study of an office cabinet. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.22, 1823–1836 (2017). [Google Scholar]
- 26.Li, S., Yuan, Y., Wang, J. & Guo, M. Do novel wooden composites provide an environmentally favorable alternative for panel-type furniture?. BioResources14, 2740–2758 (2019). [Google Scholar]
- 27.Babarenda Gamage, G., Boyle, C., McLaren, S. J. & McLaren, J. Life cycle assessment of commercial furniture: a case study of Formway LIFE chair. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.13, 401–411 (2008). [Google Scholar]
- 28.Askham, C. et al. Strategy tool trial for office furniture. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.17, 666–677 (2012). [Google Scholar]
- 29.Krystofik, M., Luccitti, A., Parnell, K. & Thurston, M. Adaptive remanufacturing for multiple lifecycles: A case study in office furniture. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.135, 14–23 (2018). [Google Scholar]
- 30.Vezzoli, C. Design for Environmental Sustainability (Springer, 2018). [Google Scholar]
- 31.Castellani, V. et al. Consumer Footprint: Basket of Products Indicator on Household Goods. 177 https://op.europa.eu/publication/manifestation_identifier/PUB_KJNA29710ENN (2019).
- 32.Wernet, G. et al. The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.21, 1218–1230 (2016). [Google Scholar]
- 33.Saade, M. R. M. et al. Investigating transparency regarding ecoinvent users’ system model choices. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.24, 1–5 (2019). [Google Scholar]
- 34.González-García, S. et al. Cross-country comparison on environmental impacts of particleboard production in Brazil and Spain. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.150, 104434 (2019). [Google Scholar]
- 35.Ministry of Ecology and Environment of China. Clean Production Standard—wood-based panel (particle board). 28 (2010).
- 36.ISO. ISO 14025:2006(En), Environmental Labels and Declarations—Type III Environmental Declarations—Principles and Procedures (2006).
- 37.Wenker, J. L., Richter, K. & Rüter, S. A methodical approach for systematic life cycle assessment of wood-based furniture: systematic LCA of wood-based furniture. J. Ind. Ecol.22, 671–685 (2018). [Google Scholar]
- 38.EPD International AB. Product Category Rules: Seats. 2009:02, version 3.0 26 (Version 3.0).
- 39.EPD International AB. Product Category Rules: Furniture, Except Seats and Mattresses. 26 (Version 2.01).
- 40.Irene Bartolozzi on behalf of the Life EFFIGE Sectorial Technical Group of Working Station. Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules—Office Table (Draft). 41 (2018).
- 41.Irene Bartolozzi on behalf of the Life EFFIGE Sectorial Technical Group of Working Station. Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules—Office Chair (Draft). 40 (2018).
- 42.Medeiros, D. L., Braghirolli, F. L., Ramlow, H., Ferri, G. N. & Kiperstok, A. Environmental improvement in the printing industry: the case study of self-adhesive labels. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.26, 13195–13209 (2019). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Cordella, M. & Hidalgo, C. Analysis of key environmental areas in the design and labelling of furniture products: Application of a screening approach based on a literature review of LCA studies. Sustain. Prod. Consum.8, 64–77 (2016). [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its Supplementary information material].