Revision of EU ecolabel and EU green public procurement criteria for furniture products : preliminary report.
Date: 2016-11-16
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: consumer behaviour, eco-label, environmental impact, environmental policy, environmental protection, furniture industry, green public procurement, metal furniture, product life, public contract, quality standard, raw material, report, wood product

Revision  of  EU  Ecolabel  and  EU 
Green Public Procurement criteria for 
furniture products 

Preliminary Report 

Shane  Donatello,  Hans  Moons,  Mauro 
Cordella, Malgorzata Kowalska, Renata Kaps, 
Oliver Wolf (JRC). 
Carme Hidalgo, Natalia Fuentes (LEITAT) 

2014  

 
 
 
 
 
This publication is a Science for Policy report by the Joint Research Centre, the European Commission’s  in-house 
science  service.  It  aims  to  provide  evidence-based  scientific  support  to  the  European  policy-making  process. 
The  scientific  output  expressed  does  not  imply  a  policy  position  of  the  European  Commission.  Neither  the 
European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might 
be made of this publication. 

Contact information 
Name: Shane Donatello 
Address: Edificio Expo. c/ Inca Garcilaso, 3. E-41092 Seville (Spain) 
E-mail: JRC-IPTS-FURNITURE@ec.europa.eu 
Tel.: +34 954 488 318 
http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/furniture/  

JRC Science Hub 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc 

JRC103217 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-79-63494-9 

doi:10.2791/075599 

© European Union, 2014 

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

How  to  cite:  Donatello  S.,  Moons  H.,  Cordella  M.,  Kowalska  M.,  Kaps  R.,  Wolf  O.,  Hidalgo  C.  and  Fuentes  N.; 
2014;  Revision  of  EU  Ecolabel  and  EU  Green  Public  Procurement  criteria  furniture  products.  Preliminary  Report; 
doi:10.2791/075599 

All images © European Union 2014, except: cover page furniture photos which are courtesy of photostock, David 
Castillo  Dominici,  John  Casawa,  Arvind  Balaraman,  Keerati,  Renjith  Krishman  and  stockimages  at 
FreeDigitalPhotos.net and also courtesy of Anne Stokvad Madsen from Duba B8 A/S..  

Abstract 
The  main  environmental  impacts  of  furniture  products  are  reviewed  from  a  life  cycle  assessment  perspective, 
considering relevant legal, technical and policy frameworks.  
Title Preliminary Report for the revision of EU Ecolabel and EU GPP criteria for furniture products. 
The  furniture  sector  is  dominated  by  small  to  medium  enterprises.  The  dominant  life  cycle  impacts  of  furniture 
are associated with the raw materials required for their production and the chemicals used during processing. The 
main materials used are wood, plastic, metal, glass and, for upholstered furniture, upholstery materials such as 
leather,  textiles  and  polyurethane  foam.  This  report  forms  the  basis  for  proposals  for  EU  Ecolabel  and  EU  GPP 
criteria for furniture products.

Table of contents

List of abbreviations and definitions .................................................................................................................................................................... 6 

List of figures ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 

List of tables ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 

Executive summary ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 

1.1. Legal instruments, standards and relevant schemes .............................................................................................................. 12 

1.2 Relevant European environmental policy and legislation ....................................................................................................... 12 

1.3 European Standards ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 

1.4 Other environmental labelling and sustainable products procurement schemes ................................................... 15 

1.5 Comparison of the scope and specifications established for the most recognized European Ecolabels . 18 

1.6 Number of ecolabelled products established for the most relevant European Ecolabels ................................. 23 

2 Market analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25 

2.1 Objective ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 25 

2.2 World furniture overview ............................................................................................................................................................................. 25 

2.3 European furniture market and trade ................................................................................................................................................. 27 

2.4 EU furniture production ................................................................................................................................................................................ 28 

2.4.1 EU Furniture production by geographical area .................................................................................................................... 29 

2.4.2 EU furniture production by materials ........................................................................................................................................ 31 

2.4.3 EU furniture production by type .................................................................................................................................................... 33 

2.4.4 EU furniture trade: imports and exports .................................................................................................................................. 36 

Intra and Extra EU-27 furniture trade .............................................................................................................................................. 36 

Extra-EU furniture trade ............................................................................................................................................................................ 38 

Consumption ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 40 

Forecasts ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 43 

2.5 Structure of EU furniture sector.............................................................................................................................................................. 43 

2.5.1 Industry background ............................................................................................................................................................................. 43 

2.5.2 Key actors .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 45 

2.5.3 Competitive strategies ........................................................................................................................................................................ 48 

2.5.4 Current and future potential for market penetration of EU Ecolabel and GPP ............................................... 50 

2.5.5 Consumer behaviour ............................................................................................................................................................................. 53 

2.6 Factors that influence consumer preferences ............................................................................................................................... 53 

2.6.1 Environmental factor, a new trend affecting consumer behaviour ........................................................................ 54 

2.7 Concluding remarks on the furniture market analysis ............................................................................................................. 57 

3 LCA screening ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 58 

3.1 Number and type of publications / lca studies analysed ........................................................................................................ 58 

3.1.1 Product Category Rules and Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) for furniture. ........................... 59 

3.1.2 LCA and environmental studies ..................................................................................................................................................... 59 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

2 

3.1.3 Screening of the quality of LCA studies ................................................................................................................................... 60 

3.2. Preliminary identification of key environmental issues .......................................................................................................... 60 

3.2.1 Recommendations on broadness and appropriateness of impact assessment metrics ........................... 61 

3.2.2 Analysis of Product Category Rule documents for furniture products ................................................................. 61 

3.2.3 Normalisation results from LCA studies .................................................................................................................................. 62 

Selected list of key environmental indicators .............................................................................................................................. 64 

3.3. Screening of potentially relevant LCA studies .............................................................................................................................. 64 

3.3.1 Quality of indicators/impact categories ................................................................................................................................... 65 

3.4 Selection of LCA studies .............................................................................................................................................................................. 66 

3.4.1 Qualitative scoring and summary of selected LCA studies ......................................................................................... 71 

3.4.2 Critical review and summary on selected LCA and EPDs .............................................................................................. 92 

Functional unit ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 95 

Inventory data & materials covered by LCA studies and related impacts ................................................................ 96 

Environmental impact categories and methods......................................................................................................................... 96 

Identification of key environmental impacts and hot-spots for furniture products ............................................ 97 

Distribution of impacts along life cycle stages and hot spot identification .......................................................... 101 

Upstream processes: Material and component production .............................................................................................. 102 

Transport of raw materials ............................................................................................................................................................. 104 

Manufacturing stage ........................................................................................................................................................................... 104 

Distribution ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 104 

Use .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 105 

End of life ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 105 

Analysis of environmental improvement options ................................................................................................................... 105 

Sensitivity analysis on different ecodesign measures in furniture case studies ............................................... 110 

3.4.3 Conclusions of selected LCA and EPDs .................................................................................................................................. 111 

4 Technical analysis ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 112 

4.1 Raw materials .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 112 

4.1.1 Wood and wood-based products ............................................................................................................................................... 113 

Geographic origin of timber54 .............................................................................................................................................................. 114 

Use of wood from protected species ............................................................................................................................................. 115 

Use of certified wood ............................................................................................................................................................................... 115 

Recycled wood .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 116 

Wood-based panels ................................................................................................................................................................................... 118 

Content of recycled fibres ................................................................................................................................................................ 120 

Use of resins ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 120 

Genetically modified organisms ........................................................................................................................................................ 121 

Non-Wood Forest Products (NWFP)................................................................................................................................................. 122 

Bamboo ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 122 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

3 

4.1.2 Metals ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 124 

Recycled metals ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 124 

Aluminium .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 124 

Steel ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 125 

Iron ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 126 

4.1.3 Plastics ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 126 

Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 126 

Polyolefins (PE and PP) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 127 

Recycled plastics .................................................................................................................................................................................... 127 

Bio-Plastics (Polymers made with renewable resources) ............................................................................................ 128 

4.1.4 Glass ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 130 

4.1.5 Textiles and leather ............................................................................................................................................................................ 131 

4.1.6 Padding materials ............................................................................................................................................................................... 132 

4.2 Manufacturing ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 132 

4.3 Packaging ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 133 

4.4 Distribution ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 134 

4.5 Use .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 135 

4.6 End-of-life .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 136 

4.6.1 Reusing – Remanufacturing .......................................................................................................................................................... 136 

4.7 Life-cycle costing considerations ........................................................................................................................................................ 137 

5 Analysis of hazardous substances used in the furniture sector according to REACH ................................................. 139 

5.1 Background........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 139 

5.2 Methodology ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 142 

Phase 1: Identification of substances and mixtures used in the furniture production processes ........... 143 

Phase 2: Obtaining information on composition (Safety Data Sheets) .................................................................... 143 

Phase 3: Assessing the risk .................................................................................................................................................................. 144 

5.3 Identification of substances in the furniture sector ................................................................................................................ 144 

5.3.1 Wood ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 145 

Biocides ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 145 

Flame retardants ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 150 

Adhesives and resins ................................................................................................................................................................................ 151 

Paints varnishes and inks ...................................................................................................................................................................... 152 

5.3.2 Plastic .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 156 

5.3.3 Metal ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 158 

5.3.4 Padding materials ............................................................................................................................................................................... 158 

5.3.5 Glass ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 159 

5.3.6 Packaging materials .......................................................................................................................................................................... 159 

5.3.7 Nanomaterials ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 159 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

4 

 
Definition of nanomaterials ................................................................................................................................................................. 159 

Concerns related to nanomaterials ................................................................................................................................................. 160 

Legislative framework ............................................................................................................................................................................. 161 

6. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 162 

Appendices ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 163 

Appendix I. Market data for production, exports and imports. .................................................................................................. 163 

Appendix II. Full LCA screening data and tables ................................................................................................................................. 165 

Appendix III: Candidate list of substances of very high concern .............................................................................................. 173 

Appendix IV: Hazard statements according to article 6(6) of EU Ecolabel legislation EC/66/2010 .................. 179 

Appendix V: Overview of transformation production processes in the wood furniture sector .............................. 181 

7. References .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 183 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

5 

 
 
 
 
 
List of abbreviations and definitions  

ABS 

AP 

ATP 

CLP 

DSD 

DPD 

EEA 

EP 

EPD 

EoL  

Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene 

Acification Potential 

Adaptation Technical Progress 

Classification, Labelling and Packaging 

Dangerous Substance Directive 

Dangerous Preparations Directive 

European Economic Area 

Eutrophication Potential 

Environmental Product Declaration 

End of Life 

EXPVAL   

Export value 

GWP  

GDP 

GPP 

HS  

HTP 

Global Warming Potential 

Gross domestic product  

Green Public Procurement  

Codes Harmonized System Codes 

Human Toxicity Potential 

IMPVAL   

Import value 

LCA  

MDA 

MDF  

MSs  

ODP 

PCR  

PE 

PEF  

PET 

PLA 

POCP 

PP 

Life Cycle Assessment 

4,4-Diaminodiphenylmethane 

Medium Density Fibreboard 

Member States 

Ozone Depletion Potential 

Product Category Rules 

Polyethylene  

Product Environmental Footprint  

Polyethylene terephthalate 

Polylactic acid  

Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential 

Polypropylene 

PRODCOM  

PRODuction COMmunautaire (Community Production) 

PRODVAL 

Production value 

PS 

PVA 

PVC 

Polystyrene 

Polyvinyl acetate 

Polyvinyl chloride 

REACH 

Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals 

SME  

tbd 

VOC 

Small and Medium Enterprise 

to be defined 

Volatile Organic Compound 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
List of figures  

Figure 1. Percentage of world furniture production (2010) ................................................................................................................ 25 
Figure 2. Main world furniture importers (2011) ....................................................................................................................................... 26 
Figure 3. Main world furniture exporters (2011) ........................................................................................................................................ 26 
Figure 4. Evolution of the furniture production value in the EU 27 from 2003 to 2011 ................................................. 28 
Figure 5. Production value of furniture in the EU-27 countries (2010-2011)......................................................................... 29 
Figure 6. Number of furniture products produced in the EU-27 countries (2010-2011) ................................................. 30 
Figure 7. Evolution of the furniture production in the top 6 EU manufacturing countries (2003-2011) ............... 30 
Figure 8. Production of metal furniture in the EU-27 countries, (2010-2011)....................................................................... 31 
Figure 9. Furniture production in the EU-27 classified by materials (2011) ............................................................................ 32 
Figure 10. Market value of EU-27 furniture by materials (2011) ................................................................................................... 33 
Figure 11. Furniture production in the EU-27 classified by type (2011) .................................................................................... 34 
Figure 12. Market value in the EU-27 by type of furniture (2011) ................................................................................................ 35 
Figure 13. Evolution of furniture imports in the EU-27 ......................................................................................................................... 36 
Figure 14. Imports of furniture by the EU-27 countries ........................................................................................................................ 36 
Figure 15. Evolution of furniture exports in the EU-27 .......................................................................................................................... 37 
Figure 16. Exports of furniture by the EU-27 countries ......................................................................................................................... 37 
Figure 17. Top 10 EU suppliers of furniture products (codes 9401 and 9403) ..................................................................... 38 
Figure 18. Import values coming from outside EU (codes 9401 and 9403) ............................................................................ 39 
Figure 19. Main EU exports destination of furniture (codes 9401 and 9403) ........................................................................ 39 
Figure 20. Export values outside the EU 27 area ...................................................................................................................................... 40 
Figure 21. Apparent consumption of furniture in the EU 27 (2010-2011) ............................................................................... 40 
Figure 22. Apparent consumption (% by value) by type of furniture in the EU 27 (2011) ............................................. 41 
Figure  23.  Evolution  of  price  level  index  in  some  EU27  countries for  furniture  and  furnishings,  carpets  and 
other floor coverings (2011) ................................................................................................................................................................................... 42 
Figure 24. Sectoral breakdown of EU-27’s furniture manufacturing companies in 2010 .............................................. 43 
Figure 25. Value chain in furniture manufacturing ................................................................................................................................... 46 
Figure 26. Sales in million € of the top 10 European office furniture manufacturers (2011) ..................................... 47 
Figure 27. Number of furniture contracts (%) by country including at least one GPP core criterion or all GPP 
core criteria ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 52 
Figure 28. Characteristics that consumers are willing to pay 10% more for furniture products ................................ 55 
Figure 29. Normalised results for 3 wood furniture studies (different functional unit). .................................................. 62 
Figure 30. Normalised results for 3 upholstered chairs studied ...................................................................................................... 63 
Figure 31. Total normalized impacts of desk per impacts category .............................................................................................. 64 
Figure 32. General flowchart for furniture product systems (Source: own elaboration based on LCA studies) 94 
Figure 33. Supply of solid timber in EU-25 (imports and production) ....................................................................................... 115 
Figure 34. Types of forest certified by FSC. (source: FSC facts and figures July 2013).149 ......................................... 116 
Figure 35. Scheme of types of wood-based panels152 ........................................................................................................................ 119 
Figure 36. Evolution of the use of bioplastics in Europe .................................................................................................................... 129 
Figure 37. Methodology approach based on LCA and REACH ......................................................................................................... 142 
Figure 38. Plastic products .................................................................................................................................................................................... 156 
Figure 39. Sawmill: 1st transformation production processes in wood furniture sector ............................................... 181 
Figure  40.  Wood  panels:  Particleboard  and  fibreboard:  1st  transformation  production  process  in  wood 
furniture sector ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 181 
Figure 41. Wood panels: Plywood: 1st transformation production process in wood furniture sector ................... 182 
Figure 42. 2nd transformation production process in wood furniture sector ....................................................................... 182 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

7 

 
 
 
 
List of tables  

Table 1. Summary of other ecolabels applicable to furniture ........................................................................................................... 15 
Table 2. Comparison of the scope established for the most recognized European ecolabels ...................................... 18 
Table 3. Main environmental criteria areas covered by different European ecolabels ...................................................... 21 
Table 4. Licenses and furniture products covered by the most relevant European ecolabels ...................................... 23 
Table 5. PRODCOM classification for furniture products to be studied ....................................................................................... 27 
Table 6. Other furniture products and parts thereof classified in code 9403 ......................................................................... 28 
Table 7. Furniture production in the EU-27 classified by materials (2011) .............................................................................. 32 
Table 8. Furniture production in the EU-27 classified by type (2011) ......................................................................................... 34 
Table 9. Price level index for furniture & furnishings, carpets and other floor coverings (2011)............................... 42 
Table 10. Key indicators of EU-27 furniture manufacturing (2010) ............................................................................................. 44 
Table 11. Percentage change from 2006 to 2011 of production, consumption, exports and imports in the EU-
27 for total furniture and RTA furniture .......................................................................................................................................................... 44 
Table 12. Top 10 European furniture retailers (2011) ........................................................................................................................... 47 
Table 13. Comparing a traditional business model and a one based on added value generation............................. 48 
Table 14. Percentage of weight of the component materials in different types of furniture ....................................... 51 
Table 15. Roles of the appearance factor for consumers .................................................................................................................... 54 
Table 16. Environmental preferences of the Italian furniture consumers ................................................................................. 56 
Table 17. Categories and impact methods recommended by the PEF guidelines. ............................................................... 61 
Table 18: Methods for the categorization of impact categories ...................................................................................................... 62 
Table 19. Key environmental indicators for furniture products according to a study by ADEME................................ 63 
Table 20. Evaluation of environmental studies gathered according to cut-off criteria..................................................... 67 
Table 21. Functional units defined in PCRs .................................................................................................................................................... 95 
Table 22. Average composition of representative furniture products .......................................................................................... 96 
Table 23. Distribution of Global warming potential impact category for selected studies ............................................. 97 
Table 24. Distribution of Eutrophication potential impact category for selected studies ................................................ 99 
Table 25. Distribution of Acification potential impact category for selected studies ......................................................... 99 
Table 26. Distribution of Ozone layer depletion potential impact category for selected studies ............................ 100 
Table 27. Distribution of Photochemical oxidant creation potential impact category for selected studies ...... 100 
Table 28. Average life stages contribution for the different impact categories ................................................................. 101 
Table 29. Energy embodied in some materials used in furniture (average and indicative values)52 .................... 104 
Table 30. Sustainable management forestry systems. ....................................................................................................................... 116 
Table 31. Maximum limits for contaminants according to EPF standard for recycled wood ...................................... 117 
Table 32. Comparison of the migration limit of the controlled elements in EN 71-3:2013, EN 71-3:1994 with 
those for the EPF standard for delivery conditions of recycled wood ....................................................................................... 118 
Table 33. Materials present in the different panel boards studied (LCA reports and EPDs) ....................................... 119 
Table 34. Energy consumption in manufacturing processes (core processes) ..................................................................... 133 
Table 35. Composition and environmental impacts of packaging ............................................................................................... 134 
Table 36. Average life span and maintenance operation by type of furniture .................................................................... 135 
Table 37. Differences in purchasing cost for green and non-green furniture. ..................................................................... 138 
Table 38. Authorisation list ................................................................................................................................................................................... 140 
Table 39. List of approved substances to be used for product type 8: wood preservatives ....................................... 146 
Table 40. List of approved substances to be used for product type 18: insecticides, acaricides and products to 
control other arthropods ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 148 
Table 41. Main flame retardants included in the candidate and authorisation list .......................................................... 150 
Table 42. Self-classifications of DecaBDE notified to the CLP inventory ................................................................................ 151 
Table 43 CLP harmonised classifications of main concern organic solvents........................................................................ 153 
Table 44 CLP harmonised classifications of main concern pigments........................................................................................ 154 
Table 45. Substances included in the Candidate list used in plastic materials ................................................................... 156 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

8 

 
Table 46. List of Product Category Rules for furniture........................................................................................................................ 165 
Table 47. List and characteristics of EPDs .................................................................................................................................................. 166 
Table 48. LCA and environmental studies gathered ............................................................................................................................. 167 
Table 49. Cut-off and scoring criteria for LCA studies evaluation ............................................................................................... 170 
Table 50. Classification of midpoint (M) and endpoint(E) Impact category methods ...................................................... 172 
Table 51. Candidate list Substances of Very High Concern .............................................................................................................. 173 
Table 52. Hazard statements according to article 6(6) of EU Ecolabel legislation EC/66/2010 .............................. 180 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

9 

 
 
 
 
Executive summary  

Policy context  

The environmental impacts of products throughout their lifecycle are highly variable from one product group 
to  another  and  even  within  a  particular  product  group  itself.  It  is  extremely  challenging  to  address  or 
influence  all  the  life  cycle  stages of  different  product  groups  with  a  single  policy  tool.  For this  reason,  the 
Commission has developed an Integrated Product Policy (IPP) which comprises  a number of different policy 
instruments address the life cycle impacts of products from different angles. 

As part of the Commission's IPP, the EU Ecolabel (Regulation (EC) No 66/2010) is a voluntary tool led by DG 
JRC  on  behalf  of  DG  Environment  of  the  European  Commission.  Other  policy  tools  relevant  to  IPP  include 
Green Public Procurement (COM 2008/400), Energy Labelling (Directive 2010/30/EU), Ecodesign for energy-
related  products  (Directive  2009/125/EC),  End-of-Waste  criteria  (related  to  the  Waste  Framework  Directive 
2008/98/EC) and the Industrial Emissions Directive (Directive 2010/75/EU). 

The revision of EU Ecolabel criteria and EU Green Public Procurement (GPP) criteria for all product groups are 
carried out on a periodic basis, prioritising product groups where criteria may have become outdated or  have 
recently  been  influenced  by  external  factors  such  as  innovation  by  industry,  market  changes  and  new 
minimum legal, technical or environmental standards. 

In terms of environmental performance, the EU Ecolabel  criteria should target the top 10-20% of products 
available on the market. The EU GPP criteria should be developed in such a way as to ensure that enough 
products  are  available  on  the  market  to  that  can  meet  them  in  order  to  facilitate  a  competitive  tendering 
process  in  responses  to  calls  for  tenders  by  public  authorities.  A  close  relationship  between  EU  Ecolabel 
criteria and EU Green Public Procurement criteria is desirable so that both policy tools can mutually support 
each other in order to increase awareness and market uptake of the EU Ecolabel. 

Main findings  

The  EU27  accounts  for  around 20% of  global  furniture  production  with  wood  being  the  dominant  material 
(56%  of  pieces  and  56%  of  production  value).  Other  quantified  materials  were  metal  (12%  of  pieces  and 
17% of production value), plastic (6% of pieces and 1% of production value) and bamboo/cannier/osier/glass 
(combined 1% of pieces and <1% of production value). The remaining 25% of market products did not have 
a dominant material specified. Around 55% of all furniture imports to the EU27 come from  China, which is 
intensifying pressure on furniture prices for EU producers. 

There are many "ecolabel" schemes which apply to furniture or at least materials that are highly relevant to 
furniture  products.  Examples  include:  ANAB  Architettura  Naturale;  CertiPUR;  Eco3Home;  Ekolabel  Indonesia; 
Global  Green  Tag  Certified;  Green  Circle;  Indoor  Air  Comfort;  Level;  Milieukeur;  NF  Environnement  Mark; 
NSF/ANSI 336 Sustainability assessment for commercial furnighing fabric; OkoControl; PEFC; FSC; SCS Indoor 
Advantage;  SFC  Member  Seal;  UL  Environment;  Nordic  Ecolabel;  Blue  Angel  and  Osterreichische 
Umweltzeichen.  

A  broad  screening  of  109  life  cycle  assessment  (LCA)  publications  in  the  literature,  including  35 
Environmental Product Declarations revealed that the dominant source of environmental impacts was from 
the materials used in the furniture product. Manufacturing can also be significant source of impacts for some 
impact categories where coatings, adhesives and other chemical treatments were applied which resulting  in 
significant VOC emissions and the need for heat or UV curing. The impacts at the End-of-Life of furniture will 
largely  depend  on  whether  furniture  is  dismantled  into  separate  material  streams  for  optimised  recycling 
prior to be disposal at landfill, incineration or energy for waste plants. 

The technical framework for furniture standards at the EU level is managed by CEN/TC 207, which focus on 
setting standards for fitness for use a wide range of different furniture products, focussing mainly on issues 
related to safety, durability and ergonomics. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

10 

 
Legal  requirements  are  predominantly  related  to  chemicals  used  in  the  production  process  (i.e.  REACH 
Regulation 1907/2006, the CLP Regulation 1272/2008 and the Biocidal Products Regulation 528/2012) or to 
wood  (i.e.  The  EU  Timber  Regulation  995/2010  and  the  FLEGT  Regulation  2173/2005).  A  major  topic  of 
discussion  has  been  the  definition  of  sustainable  forest  management,  which  is  not  legally  defined  but  is 
instead  subject  the  voluntary  Forest  Europe  initiative  which  all  EU  Member  States  have  signed  up  to  and 
private certification schemes (namely FSC and PEFC). 

Related and future JRC work  

The work presented in this report will form the basis for initial discussions and criteria proposals during the 
revision process for EU Ecolabel and EU GPP criteria for furniture. The revision process will eventually result in 
the publication of two final Technical Reports, one for EU Ecolabel criteria and one for EU GPP criteria.  

The  final  EU  Ecolabel  criteria  will  be  officially  published  as  a  Commission  Decision  and  translated  in  all 
Member  State  languages.  The  revision  process  will  be  closely  related  to  ongoing  work  by  the  JRC  for  the 
revision  of  several  other  EU  Ecolabel  product  groups  such  as  Textiles,  Mattresses,  Wooden  Floor  Coverings 
and Footwear, due to common materials involved. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

11 

 
 
 
 
1 Introduction  

1.1. Legal instruments, standards and relevant schemes 

There  is  no  specific  EU  legislation  for  furniture.  However,  several  legislation  and  standards  related  to  the 
environment,  chemicals,  health  and  safety  directly  affect  these  products  and  have  been  identified  in  this 
report. 

Regarding  voluntary  approaches,  a  growing  number  of  furniture  manufacturers  are  implementing 
environmental  management  schemes  (e.g.  EMAS)  in  order  to  improve  their  environmental  performance. 
Standards,  which  also  have  a  voluntary  nature,  are  an  important  aspect  to  take  into  account.  There  is  a 
Technical  Committee  on  Furniture  (CEN/TC  207)  which  develops  standards  on  terminology  issues,  safety 
issues  (e.g  test  methods  on  flammability  and  fire  behaviour),  test  methods  and  requirements  for  end 
products,  components,  surfaces  as  well  as  standards  on  dimensional  coordination.  Over  70  EN  standards 
have been published so far and there are a number of standards in development. 

During  the  revision  of  the  European  Ecolabel  for  furniture  a  comparison  was  made  between  the  following 
main  national  ecolabels  in  order  to  introduce  measures  to  encourage  harmonisation  with  other  Ecolabel 
schemes: 

-  Milieukeur, Stichting Milieukeur, The Netherlands 

-  Marque NF Environnement, AFNOR, France 

-  ÖkoControl, Gesellschaft für Qual.Standards ökologischer Einrichtungshäuser, Germany 

-  Nordic Swan, Nordic Ecolabelling board, Nordic countries 

-  RAL-UZ 38, Blaue Engel/RAL, Germany 

-  UZ 06, UZ 34, Österreichische Umweltzeichen, Austria 

A detailed table with all the specifications and scope established for these labels for the main materials or 
characteristics can be found in sections 1.4 and 1.5 of this report. 

1.2 Relevant European environmental policy and legislation 

Several Directives and Regulations exist that may be relevant when defining criteria for furniture in order to 
prevent  the  potential  harmful  impacts  for  human  health  and environment. The  main  regulatory  framework 
which may be relevant when defining criteria for furniture is described briefly in this section: 

  Regulation  66/20101  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  EU  Ecolabel.  The 
European Union Ecolabel is a voluntary environmental labelling system. It enables consumers to 
recognize high quality eco-friendly products.  

  Regulation  (EU)  995/20102  of  the  European  parliament  and  of  the  Council  laying  down  the 
obligations of operators  who place timber and timber products on the market. Main obligations 
are: 

1) 

2) 

It prohibits the placing on the EU market for the first time of illegally harvested timber 
and products derived from such timber; 

It requires EU traders who pace timber products on the EU market for the first time to 
exercise  'due  diligence'.  The  core  of  the  'due  diligence'  notion  is  that  operators 
undertake  a  risk  management  exercise  so  as  to  minimize  the  risk  of  placing  illegally 
harvested  timber, or timber  products  containing  illegally  harvested  timber, on  the  EU 
market. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

12 

 
 
3)  Once  on  the  market,  the  timber  and  timber  products  may  be  sold  on  and/or 
transformed  before  they  reach  the  final  consumer.  To  facilitate  the  traceability  of 
timber  products  economic  operators  in  this  part  of  the  supply  chain  (referred  to  as 
traders  in  the  regulation)  have  an  obligation  to  keep  records  of  their  suppliers  and 
customers. 

This Regulation covers a  wide range of timber  products listed in its Annex including solid wood 
products, flooring, plywood, pulp and paper. Not included are recycled products, as well as printed 
papers such as books, magazines and newspapers. 

The  application  of  the  Regulation  has  started  on  3rd March  2013.  Timber  and  timber  products 
covered by valid FLEGT or CITES licenses are considered to comply with the requirements of the 
Regulation. 

  Council  Regulation  (EC)  N⁰  2173/20053  of  20  December  2005  on  the  establishment  of  a 

FLEGT licensing scheme for imports of timber into the European Community. 

  The Council Resolution of 15 December 1998 on a Forestry Strategy for the European 
Union4  with  subsequent  communications5-8  established  a  framework  for  forest-related 
actions in support of sustainable forest management (SFM). It states that forest policy lies in the 
competence of the Member States, but that the EU can contribute to the implementation of SFM 
through  common  policies,  based  on  the  principle  of  subsidiarity  and  the  concept  of  shared 
responsibility. 

  Regulation (EC) N⁰ 1107/20099 of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection 
products on the market. This Regulation lays down rules for the authorisation of plant protection 
products  in  commercial  form  and  for  their  placing  on  the  market,  use  and  control  within  the 
Community.  This  Regulation  increases  the  level  of  health  and  environmental  protection, 
contributes  to  better  protection  of  agricultural  production,  and  enlarges  and  consolidates  the 
internal market for plant protection products. 

  REACH. Regulation (EC) No 1907/200610 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 
December  2006  concerning  the  Registration,  Evaluation,  Authorisation  and  Restriction  of 
Chemicals  (REACH),  establishing  a  European  Chemicals  Agency  (ECHA),  amending  Directive 
1999/45/EC  and  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EC)  N°  1488/94  as  well  as  Council  Directive 
76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. 
REACH  does  not  allow  marketing  of  a  chemical  substance  if  it  does  not  have  appropriate 
registration, which has to  be carried out  by every legal entity that manufacture or import from 
outside of the European Union substances on their own, in preparations or in articles in quantities 
of 1 tonne or above  per year. REACH places responsibility on industry to  manage the risks that 
chemicals may pose to human health and environment, as well as to provide safety information 
that  would  be  passed  down  the  supply  chain.  The  companies  that  do  not  undertake  this 
procedure,  will  not  be  able  to  produce,  sell  or  use  their  products  and  would  consequently  be 
forced to stop their activity. 

In addition to registration, REACH regulates other procedures such as the management of the risk 
and  hazardous  properties  of  the  substance,  authorisatry  High  Concern  (SVHC).  REACH  aims  at 
ensuring that the risks resulting from the  use of SVHCs are controlled and that the substances 
are replaced where possible. A Member State, or ECHA on request of the European Commission, 
can  propose  a  substance  to  be  identified  as  an  SVHC.  Placing  on  the  market  and  use  of  SVHC 
included  in  the  Authorisation  List  (Annex  XIV  of  REACH  regulation),  requires  authorisation.  A 
manufacturer,  importer  or  downstream  user  can  apply  for  the  authorisation.  Applications  for 
authorisation  are  submitted  to  ECHA.  At  the  end of  the  authorisation  process,  which  includes  a 
public consultation and the development of opinions by ECHA´s Committees on Risk Assessment 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

13 

 
and Socio-economic  Analysis, the  European  Commission  decides  on  the  granting  or  refusing  of 
authorisations. 

The  identification  of  a  substance  as  Substance  of  Very  High  Concern  and  its  inclusion  in  the 
Candidate  List  is  the  first  step  of  the  authorisation  procedureion  of  substances  of  very  high 
concern  (carcinogenic,  mutagenic  and/or  toxic  for  reproduction,  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and 
toxic  or  very  persistent  and  very  bioaccumulative)  and  the  restriction  on  the  manufacturing, 
placing on the market and use of certain dangerous substances, preparations and articles when 
an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment exists. 

Certain substances that may cause  serious and often irreversible effects on  human health and 
the  environment  can  be  identified  as  Substances  of  Very  High  Concern..  Companies  may  have 
immediate legal obligations following such inclusion which are linked to the listed substances on 
its own, in preparations and articles. Chemicals that are restricted are referred to under Article 57 
and  listed  in  Annex  XVII  of  REACH,  while  Article  59  (1)  sets  out  a  procedure  for  the 
recommendation of chemicals considered posing risks to human health and/or the environment. 

  Directive  1999/13/EC11  of  11  March  1999  on  the  limitation  of  emissions  of  volatile  organic 

compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations. 

  Directive 2004/42/EC12 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the 
limitation  of  emissions  of  volatile  organic  compounds  due  to  the  use  of  organic  solvents  in 
certain  paints  and  varnishes  and  vehicle  refinishing  products  and  amending  Directive 
1999/13/EC. 

  Directive  2010/75/EU13  of  24  November  2010  on  industrial  emissions  (integrated  pollution 

prevention and control). 

  Directive 1999/44/EC14 of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and 

associated guarantees. 

  Directive  2008/98/EC15  on  waste.  Furniture  production  generates  waste,  for  example  waste 
from wood processing and the production of panels and furniture, wood preservation wastes and 
wastes from the use of paints and varnishes. This Directive lays down measures to protect the 
environment and human health by preventing or reducing the adverse impacts of the  generation 
and management of waste, and by reducing overall impacts of resource use and improving the 
efficiency of such use. 

  Directive 94/62/EC16 of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste. This Directive 
aims to prevent or reduce the impact of  packaging and packaging waste on the environment. It 
contains provisions on the prevention of packaging waste, on the re-use of packaging and on the 
recovery and recycling of packaging waste.  

  CLP:  Regulation  1272/200817 on  classification,  labelling  and  packaging  of  substances 
and  mixtures.  On  20  January  2009  this  regulation  entered  into  force.  It  aligns  existing  EU 
legislation  to  the  United  Nations  Globally  Harmonised  System  (GHS).  The  date  from  which 
substance classification and labelling must be consistent with the new rules was December 2010 
and  for  mixtures  will  be  June  2015.  At  that  time,  the  CLP  Regulation  will  replace  fully  the 
Dangerous  Substance  Directive 
(67/548/EC)  and  the  Dangerous  Preparations  Directive 
(1999/45/EC). 

  Regulation  EU  528/201218  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  concerning  the 
making available on the market and use of biocidal products. It repealed and replaced Directive 
98/8/EC as of September 2013. The Regulation maintains the two-step process of approval while 
providing for the possibility that some biocidal products are authorised at the Union level. A key 
element  in  this  new  Regulation  is  the  extension  of  the  scope  to  cover  articles  and  materials 
treated with biocidal products (e.g. treated wooden furniture) imported from third countries;  

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

14 

 
1.3 European Standards 

Different  European  standards  are  of  relevance  for  the  furniture  sector.  A  full  list  of  standards  will  be 
completed in the next draft of this report. The following committees and organizations have been identified 
so far: 

 CEN Committee CEN TC 136 Sports, playground and other recreational facilities and equipment  
 CEN Committee CEN TC 38 Durability of wood and wood-based products  

  CEN Committee CEN TC 207 Furniture 
 
 
  CEN Committee CEN TC 112 Wood-based panels 
  European Panel Federation’s (EPF) “Industry Standard for delivery conditions of recycled wood " 
 

 EOTA  –  European  Organization  for  Technical  Approvals  (Endorsed  ETAGs:  European  Technical 
Approvals )  

1.4  Other  environmental  labelling  and  sustainable  products 
procurement schemes 

A  significant  number  of  ecolabel  schemes  exist  that  are  relevant  to  furniture  products.  These  differ  in  their 
scope,  applicable  regions  and  specific  requirements.  Some  schemes  are  simply  third  party  verification  of 
certain claims while others actively define criteria in the first place. A summary of relevant ecolabel schemes, 
many of which were listed in the Ecolabel Index online, is provided below.  

Table 1. Summary of other ecolabels applicable to furniture 

ECOLABEL NAME 

CertiPUR (EU)

CertiPUR-US (US)

Cradle to Cradle Certified 
(US) 

BRIEF DESCRIPTION 

CertiPUR is a voluntary standard to advance the safety, health and environmental (SHE) performance 
of  flexible  polyurethane  foams  used  in  bedding  and  upholstered  furniture  by  EUROPUR,  the 
association  of  European  flexible  polyurethane  foam  block  manufacturers.  The  scheme  takes  into 
account  existing  standards  and  scientific  studies  related  to  emanations  from  foams,  product  criteria 
and risk assessments. 

CertiPUR-US  is  an  extension  of  the  European  CertiPUR  program  developed  in  2002  to  the  United 
States. Home furnishings items, such as upholstered furniture and mattresses, that carry the CertiPUR-
US  seal  contain  flexible  polyurethane  foam  products  that  have  been  tested  and  certified  by  an 
independent  laboratory  to  meet  specific  criteria  for  physical  performance,  indoor  emissions  and 
environmental stewardship. 

Cradle to Cradle Certified is a third-party certified sustainability label that requires achievement across 
multiple attributes: (i) use materials that are safe for human health and the environment through all 
use phases; (ii) product and system design for material reutilization, such as recycling or composting; 
(iii) use of renewable energy; (iv) efficient use of water, and maximum water quality associated with 
production; (v) company strategies for social responsibility. 
A  four-tiered approach to  certification is taken,  consisting  of  Basic,  Silver,  Gold,  and Platinum  levels. 
This certification program applies to materials, sub-assemblies and finished products.  

Eco3Home (US) 

Eco3Home is a label for home furnishings in the USA. Products are manufactured by companies that 
commit to all three initiatives (health, safety and environment) to achieve the label.  

Ekologicky setrny vyrobek 
/ Environmentally Friendly 
Product (CZ) 

Ekologicky  setrny  vyrobek  /  Environmentally  Friendly  Product  is the  official  registered  label  of  The 
Czech ecolabelling programme (National Programme for Labelling Environmentally Friendly Products). 
In 2004 the scope of the programme was extended by  the  opportunity  to certify services, beginning 
with  tourist  accommodation  services.  At  the  same  time,  a  new  version  of  the  ecolabel  (Ekologicky 
setrna sluzba / Enviromentally Friendly Service) was introduced. The EU Ecolabel is actively promoted. 
Currently more than 100 companies have their products or services promoted via this initiative. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ECOLABEL NAME 

BRIEF DESCRIPTION 

Environmental Product 
Declaration (INT) 

Global GreenTag Certified 
(Australia) 

Good Environmental 
Choice Australia (GECA) 

Good Shopping Guide 
Ethical Award (UK) 

Greencircle (US) 

Indoor Air Comfort 

Level (US) 

Environmental  Product  Declaration.  The  overall  goal  of  the  International  EPD  System  is  to 
communicate  the  environmental  performance  of  their  products  (goods  and  services) 
in  an 
understandable  way.  Under  the  system,  a  basic  module  set  of  Product  Category  Rules  has  been 
published  for  Central  Product  Classification  381  (Furniture)  and  more  specifically  3811  (Seats),  3812 
(Other furniture, of a kind used in offices and Other furniture not elsewhere classified) and 3816 (Parts 
of furniture).  

Global GreenTag Certified is a third party, green product rating and certification system, underpinned 
by scientific and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) processes. The program assesses products against worst 
case business as usual products in the same functional category and with the same functional purpose, 
based  on  the  following  impacts/benefits:  (i)  Product  synergy;  (ii)  Greenhouse  emission  point  (ISO 
14067); (iii) Human health & eco-toxicity (REACH and US EPA); (iv) Life cycle assessment (ISO 14040-
44); (v) Biodiversity and resource consumption and (vi) Corporate social responsibility (Ethics, ILO, ISO 
8000 & Devel Programs). 
The Global Green Tag ecolabel rating differentiates a product within the top end of the green product 
market  by  scoring,  weighting  and  developing  and  EcoPOINT  Score  (-1  to  +1).  The  system  provides 
metrics for sustainability that include “Net Positive” impacts such as carbon sequestration, net positive 
biodiversity or health impacts of products. 

Good Environmental Choice Australia (GECA). The GECA scheme provides a mark of recognition for a 
wide range of products and services that are sensitive to environmental  pressures. The program has 
been developed for general compliance to ISO 14024 and is managed by a not-for-profit organisation 
utilising a national network of registered assessors.  

Good  Shopping  Guide  Ethical  Award:  The  aim  of  the  Ethical  Company  Organisation  is  to  set  and 
independent  benchmark  for  corporate  social  responsibility.  The  Ethical  Accreditation  scheme  is 
focussed on UK companies and enables them to display an independently-verified bill of health across 
the fields of people, animal welfare and the environment. A total of 17 companies that manufacture 
and sell furniture are rated.  

GreenCircle  provides  third-party  certification  of  sustainable  aspects  of  products  and  manufacturing 
operations. Manufacturers, suppliers, regulators, and consumers can be assured that products labeled 
with the GreenCircle Certified mark have been thoroughly assessed and their claim verified. 
Claims  are  validated  for  recycled  content,  rapidly  renewable  resource  content,  carbon  footprint 
reductions, and renewable energy use. Certifications are also available for a closed loop product, life 
cycle assessment (LCA) optimized products, and sustainable manufacturing practices. 

Indoor  Air  Comfort.  Eurofins  "Indoor  Air  Comfort"  product  certification  is  an  innovative  tool  for 
showing compliance with low VOC emission requirements from construction products and furniture of 
all  relevant  European  specifications  on  two  levels:  Standard  level  "Indoor  Air  Comfort  -  certified 
product" shows compliance of product emissions with all legal specifications  issued by authorities in 
the European Union. Higher level "Indoor Air Comfort GOLD - certified product" shows compliance of 
product  emissions  with  the  voluntary  specifications  issued  by  all  relevant  ecolabels  and  similar 
specifications in the EU. 

Level: The level brand identifies that a product has been evaluated to the multi-attribute BSR/BIFMA 
e3 Furniture Sustainability Standard by an independent third party certifier and its numeric marking 1, 
2, or 3 indicates what threshold of certification it has achieved. 
It has been created to deliver the most open and transparent means of evaluating and communicating 
the  environmental  and  social  impacts  of  furniture  products  in  the  built  environment.  Taking  into 
account a company’s social actions, energy usage, material selection and human and ecosystem health 
impacts, level addresses how a product is sustainable from multiple perspectives. 

Milieukeur: the Dutch 

Milieukeur: Milieukeur is the Dutch environmental quality label for products and services. There are 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ECOLABEL NAME 

environmental quality 
label (NL) 

NF-Environnement Mark 
(FR) 

ÖkoControl (DE) 

Programme for the 
Endorsement of Forest 
Certification (PEFC) 
schemes (INT) 

SCS Indoor Advantage 
(US) 

SCS Sustainable Choice 
(US) 

SFC Member Seal (US) 

UL Environment (US) 

Nordic Ecolabel (DK, FI, IS, 
NO, SE) 

BRIEF DESCRIPTION 

Milieukeur criteria for a wide variety of consumer products and services. 
The  Milieukeur  criteria  relate  to  the  entire  life  cycle  of  the  product  or  service  and  represent  an 
integrated  approach  to  sustainability.  The  Milieukeur  certification  schemes  cover  a  diverse  range  of 
sustainability  issues,  including  raw  materials,  energy  and  water  consumption,  noxious  substances, 
packaging  and  waste,  plant  protection,  fertilizers,  animal  welfare,  nature  management,  food  safety 
and employee care. 

NF-Environnement Mark: A voluntary certification mark issued by AFNOR Certification. To get the NF 
Environnement mark, the product must comply with ecological and fitness for purpose criteria.  
These  criteria  are  the  result  of  negotiations  between  representatives  of  manufacturers,  consumers, 
environmental  protection  and  distributor  associations  and  public  authorities.  This  MF-Mark  is 
recognized by the French ministry of environment. 

ÖkoControl:    The  ÖkoControl  Label  is  given  to  furniture,  bedding  or  mattresses  made  of  natural, 
sustainable  materials  after  strict  tests  made  by  independent  and  accredited  test  laboratories.  It's  a 
label that guarantees low emissions of dangerous substances. 

Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC). The PEFC scheme is an international 
non-profit,  non-governmental  organization  dedicated  to  promoting  Sustainable  Forest  Management 
(SFM) through independent third-party certification. It works throughout the entire forest supply chain 
to promote good practice in the forest and to ensure that timber and non-timber forest products are 
produced with respect for ecological, social and ethical standards. 

SCS  Indoor  Advantage.  The  SCS  Indoor  Advantage  and  SCS  Indoor  Advantage  Gold  certifications 
demonstrate  that  products  meet  indoor  air  quality  standards  pertaining  to  emissions  that  may  be 
harmful  to  human  health  and  the  environment.  SCS  Indoor  Advantage  applies  to  furnishings  and 
qualifies  for  the  BIFMA  furniture  emissions  standard,  while  SCS  Indoor  Advantage  Gold  certification 
applies  to  furniture  plus  a  broader  range  of  interior  building  materials  such  as  paint,  carpet,  and 
insulation.  Gold-level  certification  meets  California  Section  01350  IAQ  standards  for  both  residential 
and commercial application. Both certifications help products qualify for low-emitting material credits 
within the LEED rating systems. 

SCS  Sustainable  Choice.  This  certification  ensures  that  carpet  products  meet  measurable 
environmental  performance  and  social  responsibility  criteria  for  continuous  improvement.  The 
certification  is  based  on  the  internationally  recognized  standard  NSF/ANSI  140  Sustainable  Carpet 
Assessment Standard (2010). Sustainable Choice is awarded on three certification levels (Silver; Gold; 
Platinum) through points achieved in five requirement areas (i) public health and community impact; 
(ii)  energy  usage  and  efficiency;  (iii)  material  content;  (iv)  responsible  manufacturing  and  (v) 
reclamation and end-of-life management. 

SFC Member Seal: The Sustainable Furnishings Council (SFC) Member Seal is a label representing those 
companies  which  have  made  a  public  and  verifiable  commitment  to  sustainability  and  to 
improvement. These companies are involved in the home furnishings industry. The Exemplary status is 
voluntary - all members make a public & verifiable commitment to sustainability, to transparency, and 
to continuous improvement. 

UL  Environment:  It  supports  the  growth  and  development  of  sustainable  products,  services  and 
organizations  in  the  global  marketplace  through  standards  development,  educational  services  and 
independent  third-party  assessment  and  certification.  Specific  environmental  solutions  services  UL 
Environment  provides  include  environmental  claims  validation,  sustainable  products  certification, 
energy efficiency certification, environmental product declarations and advisory services.  

Nordic  Ecolabel:  Is  a  voluntary  ecolabelling  scheme  that  evaluates  a  product´s  impact  on  the 
environment  throughout  the  whole  life  cycle.  The  label  guarantees  among  other  that  climate 
requirements  are  taken  into  account  and  CO₂  emissions  (and  other  harmful  gasses)  are  limited  – 
where it is most relevant. The Nordic Ecolabel is available for 65 product  groups including: furniture 
and fitments, outdoor furniture and playground equipment and panels for the building, decorating and 
furniture industry. The label ensures that products fulfil certain criteria using methods such as samples 

17 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ECOLABEL NAME 

BRIEF DESCRIPTION 

from independent laboratories, certificates and control visits.  

Blue Angel (DE) 

ÖSTERREICHISCHE 
UMWELTZEICHEN (AT) 

Blue Angel is the first and oldest environment-related label for products and services in the world. It 
was  created  in  1978  on  the  initiative  of  the  Federal  Minister  of  the  Interior  and  approved  by  the 
Ministers of the Environment of the federal government and the federal states. It considers itself as a 
market-conform 
the  positive 
environmental features of products and services on a voluntary basis. A number of Blue Angel criteria 
are for products with low emissions to indoor air and thus potential impact on human health including: 
RAL-UZ 38 for furniture and slatted frames and RAL-UZ 117 for upholstered furniture. 

instrument  of  environmental  policy  designed  to  distinguish 

ÖSTERREICHISCHE  UMWELTZEICHEN:  The  Austrian  Ecolabel  addresses  itself  primarily  to  consumers 
but also to manufacturers and public procurement. The ecolabel provides consumers with guidance in 
order to choose products or services with least hazardous to the environment or health. The ecolabel 
draws the consumers’ attention to aspects of environment, health and quality (fitness for use). 

As  per  Article  4(3f)  of  the  EU  Ecolabel  Regulation  (EC)  No  66/2010,  when  considering  EU  Ecolabel  criteria 
revision, possible synergies with other existing ISO Type I ecolabels should be evaluated.  

As  ISO  14024  Type  I  ecolabels  that  operate  in  the  EU  market,  the  Blue  Angel,  Nordic  Ecolabel,  NF 
Envirronnement,  Osterreichische  Umweltzeichen  and  Milieukeur  are  the  most  relevant  to  the  EU  Ecolabel 
revision process.  

A  comparison  of  the  relevant  scopes  and  definitions  for  furniture  products  under  these  schemes  is 
summarised in the next section.  

1.5  Comparison  of  the  scope  and  specifications  established 
for the most recognized European Ecolabels 

A comparison of the scope established for the most relevant European ecolabels and their main criteria areas 
are given in Table 2 and Table 3 respectively below. 

Table 2. Comparison of the scope established for the most recognized European ecolabels 

ECOLABEL NAME 

SCOPE 

CONDITIONS TO BE FULFILLED 

EU ECOLABEL FOR 
WOODEN FURNITURE 

Free-standing  or  built-in  units  used  for 
storing,  hanging,  lying,  sitting,  working  and 
eating of domestic furniture (indoor and 
outdoor  use)  or  business  purposes 
(office, school, restaurants and hotels) 
(indoor use). 

The  product  shall  be  made  of  at  least  90  % 
w/w  solid  wood  or  wood-based  materials. 
Glass,  if  easily  replaceable  may  be  excluded 
from  the  weight  calculation  as  may  technical 
equipment and fittings. 

The weight of any individual material, other 
than  solid  wood  and  wood-based  materials, 
shall not exceed 3 % of the total weight of the 
product.  The  total  combined  weight  of such 
materials shall not  exceed  10  %  of the total 
weight of the product. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NORDIC SWAN FOR 
FURNITURE AND 
FITMENTS 

NORDIC SWAN FOR 
OUTDOOR FURNITURE 
AND PLAYGROUND 
EQUIPMENT

NORDIC SWAN FOR 
PANELS FOR THE 
BUILDING, 
DECORATION AND 
FURNITURE 
INDUSTRIES 

BLUE ANGEL FOR 
WOOD PRODUCTS 
AND WOOD-BASED 
PRODUCTS (RAL-UZ 
38) 

Furniture,  fitments,  doors  and  lamps  for 
indoor use may be Nordic Ecolabelled. 

Outside  the  definition  of  this  product 
group  are:  Building  products  (e.g.  walls, 
stairs,  mouldings,  plates  and  boardsplate 
materials),  sanitary  equipment,  carpets, 
textiles,  office  equipment  and  other 
that  primary  have  another 
products 
function  than  a  piece  of  furniture,  as  well 
as furniture for outdoor use. 

This  label  applies  to  outdoor  furniture 
(garden  furniture)  and  play  and  park 
equipment  (domestic  use  and  for  public 
play areas) 
Outdoor furniture includes : 
tables; movable chairs; armchairs; benches; 
sofas. 
Playground equipment includes: 
swings;  slides;  play  houses;  other  outdoor 
equipment for play. 
Park equipment includes: 
railing/fences; window boxes; flag poles; 
Refuse  baskets  and  outdoor  furniture  left 
outdoors on a permanent basis. 
This product group does not include: 
outdoor  furniture  featuring  padding  or 
textiles;  swing  seats;  hammocks;  safety 
surfaces  for  playground  equipment,  cycles 
or toys for outdoor use. 

Products that can be labelled include: 
Wood-based panels made up of a least 
85%  wood  in  terms  of  weight,  with  or 
without  laminate  finishes;  plasterboards; 
mineral-based  acoustic  panels;  solid  wood 
(with  finish)  that  has  been  assembled  in 
panel form (for instance, by the consumer). 
Materials  for  panels  for  both  indoor  and 
outdoor  use  can  carry  the  Nordic  Ecolabel. 
Uses for the panels can be found in interior 
lining  of  ceilings,  walls  and  floors,  in  the 
exterior wind-proofing of walls and ceilings 
and  in  the  manufacture  of  furniture  and 
fittings, such as desks, cabinets, etc. 
The  criteria  do  not  pertain  to  metal  panels 
or  facing  panels  and  panels  that  are  used 
primarily  to  insulate against heat/cold  loss, 
irrespective  of  the  materials  used  in  these 
panels.  Neither  do  the  criteria  pertain  to 
pure  HPL  (High  Pressure  Laminate)  panels 
nor to plastics-based panels, such as those 
used in bathrooms. 
Ordinary  untreated  planed  and  unplaned 
wood  panels  are  not  eligible  to  carry  the 
Nordic Ecolabel. 

The  German  “Blauer  Engel”  does  not  have 
an  eco-label  for  furniture  in  general,  but  it 
does  have  a  label  for  objects  made  out  of 
wood  and/or  wood-based  material  (RAL-UZ 

The  whole  product  shall  be  approved,  for 
example  a  bed  may  only  be  marketed  as 
ecolabelled,  if  both  the  mattress  and  the  bed 
end are approved. 

The  different  materials  (wood,  wood-base 
panels,  metal,  plastic,  padding  materials, 
textiles  and  glass)  in  the  products  may  be 
approved  on  the  basis  of  a  specific  list  of 
materials. Combination of materials must fulfil 
the requirements of the criteria and in the case 
of  the  individual  products,  all  requirements 
must be fulfilled. 

The different materials in the products may be 
approved  on  the  basis  of  a  specific  list  of 
materials. 

The  different  materials  (wood,  bamboo  and 
willow, 
cardboard  and 
minerals) in the products may be approved on 
the basis of a specific list of materials. 

paper  and 

this 

relatively 

Despite 
percentage 
requirement leaving space for other materials, 
this label does not include any requirement for 
it 
non-wood  materials.  This  means 

that 

low 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
indoor  use 

38).  The  label  applies  to  ready-to-use 
final  products  for 
(e.g. 
furniture,  interior  doors,  panels,  floorings 
with  painted  surfaces,  laminate  floorings, 
prefabricated  parquet/linoleum)  which  are 
made  for  more  than  50%,  from  wood 
and/or  wood-based  materials  (chipboards, 
coreboards,  fibreboards,  veneer  panels, 
each non-coated or coated). 
This product group does not include: 
window frames; semifinished products. 

The  label  applies  to  ready-to-use  indoor 
upholstered  furniture 
(RAL-UZ  117) 
according  to  DIN  68880,  which  are  not 
mainly  made  from  wood  and/or  wood-
based materials (allocated to the RAL-UZ 
38), i.e less than 50%. 

BLUE ANGEL FOR 
UPHOLSTERED 
FURNITURE (RAL-UZ 
117) 

appears as a label of wood in furniture rather 
than  of  furniture  made  from  wood-based 
materials. 

The different materials (e.g leather, textiles, 
foams)  in  the  products  may  be  approved  on 
the basis of a specific list of materials. 

MILIEUKEUR FOR 
FURNITURE 

and 

furniture. The 
Indoor 
outdoor 
certification scheme includes the following 
types of furniture: 
chairs  (for  offices,  dining  rooms,  gardens 
and cantine), seats, sofa’s and stools; tables 
and  desks;  cupboards,  shelves,  worktops; 
kitchens  (excl.  equipment  and  accessories); 
beds,  bedsteads  and  cradles  (excluding 
mattresses); bathroom furniture. 

Excluded are: 
medical  furniture,  like  dentist’s  chairs  and 
the 
wheelchairs;  chairs  connected 
surroundings,  like  street  furniture,  train-
seats and cinema-seats. 

to 

resin,  urea 

resin,  epoxy 

Eligible  furniture  must  consist  of  one  or  more 
of the materials mentioned in the scheme. The 
list contains a broad range of materials, i.e.: 
• ligneous materials, such as solid wood, cane, 
bamboo,  chipboard,  plywood,  MDF,  softboard, 
hardboard, paper; 
• metals, such as iron and steel, stainless steel, 
aluminium; 
• plastics, such as polyolefin,  acrylic polymers, 
polystyrene  and  ABS,  polyurethane,  polyester, 
polyamide, polycarbonates; 
•  rubbers, NR, NBR, SBR, EPM/EPDM 
•  resin  and  synthetic  resin  such  as  bakelite, 
melamine 
resin, 
alkyd resins; 
• wool, cotton and other natural fibres 
• leather. 
Combined  materials  (like  boards  made  of 
plastic/wood  fibre)  are  included  provided  that 
the  separate  components  comply  with  the 
stipulated material criteria (unless the material 
constitutes  less  than  5%  of  the  piece  of 
furniture, see below). Composite stone material 
(plastics/minerals) is also included. 
In  total  95%  (w/w)  of  the  material  used  in  a 
piece  of  furniture  should  comply  with  the 
criteria.  Glass  and  mirrors  can  be  applied 
without  further  requirements.  Materials  that 
make  out  a  small  percentage  (to  a  maximum 
of  5%  (w/w))  of  the  total  weight  of  the 
furniture are exempted from the criteria. These 
materials  need  to  be  specified.  The  use  of 
adhesives  and  coatings  falls  outside  the  5% 
(m/m)  exception  rule.  Lead  should  not  be 
applied  (lead  materials  do  not  fall  within  the 
exemption rule). For all materials for which no 
material  requirements  are  drawn  up,  these 
materials may contain no cadmium or mercury 
compounds. 

ÖSTERREICHISCHE 
UMWELTZEICHEN 
FOR WOODEN 
FURNITURE (UZ06) 

types  of  furniture  are 

The  following 
covered: 
Furniture  for  the  living  area:  for  sleeping 
and living rooms, teenagers ‘and children´s 
rooms,  antechambers  and  wardrobes, 

The  main  material  carrying  the  Austrian  Eco-
label  shall  be  made  of  wood.  Wood-based 
panels specified in ÖNORM EN  13986 may  be 
used for eco-labelled furniture: 
Solid  wood  panels;  Plywood;  Oriented  strand 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

20 

 
 
 
 
 
kitchens  and  bathrooms;  Office  furniture; 
Furniture  for  public  buildings:  for  schools, 
nurseries  and  kindergartens,  hospitals  and 
laboratories,  workshops, 
sanatoriums, 
commercial 
(shopfittings), 
premises 
restaurants,  hotels  and  boarding  houses, 
boarding  schools  and  homes,  barracks, 
function halls, theatres, cultural and sacred 
buildings, 
libraries,  bathing  and  sports 
facilities and meeting rooms. 

This product does not include: 
Outdoor  furniture;  Upholstered  furniture 
(UZ54); Office chairs (UZ34) 

coatings  with 

(OSB);  Resin-bonded  particleboard; 

boards 
Fibreboards. 
For  surface  treatment  stains,  oils  and  waxes, 
varnishes and glazes are permitted. 
Furthermore, 
non-
also 
halogenated  plastic,  non-halogenated  plastic 
lamination or edge protection are permitted. 
The following non-wood materials can be part 
of the furniture: 
Metals  –  also  with  chromium  plated  or 
anodised  surface;  Glass;  Natural  stone  slabs; 
Resin-bonded mineral panels; Leather provided 
compliance  with  the  criteria;  Textiles  provided 
compliance  with  the  criteria  and  HPL  boards 
(high-pressure laminate boards). 
The use of plastic components shall be limited 
to 
functionally 
necessary  (e.g.  slide  bearings).  The  use  of 
halogenated synthetics is prohibited. 

the  minimum  which 

is 

ÖSTERREICHISCHE 
UMWELTZEICHEN 
FOR OFFICE CHAIRS 
(UZ34) 

ÖSTERREICHISCHE 
UMWELTZEICHEN 
FOR UPHOLSTERED 
FURNITURE (UZ54) 

NF-ENVIRONNEMENT 
MARK FOR  
FURNITURE (NF 217) 

Desk-chairs and swivel-chairs 

Upholstered  furniture  according  to  DIN 
68880 and ÖNORM A 1681-2, which is less 
than  50%(v/v)  wood  and/or  wood–based 
materials 
blockboards, 
fiberboards and veneer sheets). 

(particleboards, 

Furniture  products 
professional use 

for  domestic  and 

- 

- 

- 

Table 3. Main environmental criteria areas covered by different European ecolabels 

Milieuke
ur 

NF 
Environne
ment Mark 
NF217 

Forestry 
Use of hazardous 
substances 
Heavy metals in 
coatings 
Coating 
VOC emissions by 
coating 
Formaldehyde 
emissions 

Raw material 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Öko 
Control 

Wood 
x 

x 

x 

x 

Metals 

Nordic Swan 
(furniture 
and 
fitments) 

Blue 
Angel 
RAL-
UZ 38 

Österreichische 
Umweltzeichen 
UZ 06 
UZ 34 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Milieuke
ur 

NF 
Environne
ment Mark 
NF217 

Öko 
Control 

Nordic Swan 
(furniture 
and 
fitments) 

Blue 
Angel 
RAL-
UZ 38 

Österreichische 
Umweltzeichen 
UZ 06 
UZ 34 

Recycled material 
Galvanic 
processing 
VOC emissions by 
coating 
Coating process 
Heavy metals in 
coating 

Material choice 
CFCs 
Certain flame 
retardants 
Heavy metals 
Marking 
Recycling 

Toxic compounds 
Chlorinated fibres 
Certain halogen. 
flame 
retardants 
Certain pigments 
Heavy metals 
VOC, 
formaldehyde 
emiss. 

Chromium 
Azo-dyes 
Heavy metals 

Limitation of 
certain types 
Replaceability 

Winning 
Heavy metals 

VOC emissions 

Max. energy 
defined 

Quality 
Health and safety 
Reparability, 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
x 

x 

x 
x 
x 

x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
x 
x 

x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Plastics 
x 

Textiles 
x 

x 

x 
x 

Leather 

Glass 

Stone (like) materials 

Glues and adhesives 

Energy use 

x 

Functional aspects 

x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
x 
x 

x 
x 

x 

x 
x 

x 
x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
x 

x 
x 

x 

x 

x 
x 

x 
x 
x 

x 

x 
x 
x 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Milieuke
ur 

NF 
Environne
ment Mark 
NF217 

Öko 
Control 

Nordic Swan 
(furniture 
and 
fitments) 

Blue 
Angel 
RAL-
UZ 38 

Österreichische 
Umweltzeichen 
UZ 06 
UZ 34 

durability 
(Artificial) leather 
quality 
Textile quality 
Packaging 
materials 
Take-back 
guarantee 
Waste at 
production sites 
Maintenance 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Source: GPP Training Toolkit Background product report 

The  data  in  Table  3  reveal  that  the  Milieukeur,  Nordic  Ecolabel  and  Österreichische  Umweltzeichen  criteria 
cover a broad range of criteria areas. The current EU Ecolabel criteria, by focusing only on wooden products, 
have a relatively limited criteria scope, similar to that of the Blue Angel RAL UZ 38 criteria. 

If the scope of EU Ecolabel criteria for furniture is to be expanded to non-wooden materials, it is likely that 
the complexity of the criteria would increase substantially.  

1.6 Number of ecolabelled products established for the most 
relevant European Ecolabels 

In  Table  4  below,  the  number  of  licensed  companies  and  products  that  are  on  the  covered  by  the  most 
relevant European eoclabels for furniture are summarised. 

Table 4. Licenses and furniture products covered by the most relevant European ecolabels 

Ecolabel scheme 

Licenses 

No. Ecolabel products 

EU Ecolabel for wooden furniture 
Nordic Ecolabel for furniture and fitments 
Nordic Ecolabel for outdoor furniture and playground 
equipment 
Nordic Ecolabel for panels for the building, decoration 
and furniture industries 

2 

39 

TOTAL > 357 

Blue Angel for Wood Products and Wood-Based 
Products (RAL-UZ 38) 

177 

floor coverings made of wood (103) 
furniture (49) 
furniture for children (10) 
Indoor doors (5) 
laminate flooring (59) 
lath frames (3) 
lath frames (7) 
living furniture (25) 
office furniture (24) 
Panels of wood (9) 

TOTAL: 294 

23 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ecolabel scheme 

Licenses 

No. Ecolabel products 

Blue Angel for upholstered furniture (RAL-UZ 117) 

29 

Milieukeur for furniture 
Österreichische Umweltzeichen for wooden furniture 
(UZ06) 
Österreichische Umweltzeichen for office chairs 
(UZ34) 
NF-Environnement Mark (NF217) 

2 

6 

tbd 

low-emission upholstery (28) 
office chairs upholstered (18) 
seats upholstered (25) 
upholstery (22) 

TOTAL: 93 

2 

≥ 46 

tbd 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

24 

 
 
2 Market analysis 

2.1 Objective 

The objective of this report is to characterize the relevant European furniture market and its tendencies at a 
quantitative and qualitative level. This study aims to provide the market knowledge needed for the revision 
process  of  the  existing  EU  Ecolabel  and  Green  Public  Procurement  (GPP)  criteria  set  for  the  product  group 
under study.  

2.2 World furniture overview 

World  production  of  furniture  is  worth  about  US$422  billion19.  About  US$134  billion  of  the  furniture 
production  comes  from  the  seven  high  income  countries,  such  as:  United  States,  Italy,  Germany,  Japan, 
France, Canada and the United Kingdom. All high income countries combined are responsible for 45% of the 
world furniture production. On the other hand, more than half (55%) of the world furniture production takes 
place in middle and low income countries, and it is raising fast due to the enlargement of factory capacities 
and improvements in logistics and infrastructure. China remains the main leading producer. 

The EU-27 furniture production covers over 20% of the world total, having overtaken the NAFTA zone (United 
States, Canada and Mexico).  

Other High 
Income 
countries 
13% 

Other Middle 
and Low 
Income 
Countries 
9% 

India 
3%  Brazil 
2% 

Canada  
2% 

Japan 
3% 

United States 
11% 

France  
3% 

Germany 
6% 

Italy  
6% 

UK 
2% 

Poland  
2% 

Vietnam  
1% 

China 
37% 

Figure 1. Percentage of world furniture production (2010)  

Source: World Furniture Outlook by CSIL19 

As  figure  2  shows,  the  leading  furniture  importers  are  the  United  States,  Germany,  France,  the  UK  and 
Canada. These five countries accounted for combined imports of 46% of the world total. In the 2002-2007 
period, a very large increase in the world imports was produced, especially in the United States (from US$17 
billion19  to  US$26  billion)  and  in  the  United  Kingdom  (from  US$4.3  billion  to  US$8.6  billion).  In  2009,  an 
important decrease in furniture imports was produced over the world due to the recession period reflecting a 
decrease in consumer goods. In 2008 and 2009, the ratio between imports and consumption decreased as a 
consequence of the economic situation, and now has stabilized at a level a little below 30%20. In the United 
States, the recession caused a decrease from US$26 billion in 2007 to about US$19 billion in 2009. Growth 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

25 

 
 
 
of imports recovered in 2010 and 2011, reaching US$23 billion in 2011. Emerging countries have very low 
values of imports: 6% in India, 5% in Brazil and only 2% in China. In Europe, Germany (10.6%), France (6.9%) 
and the UK (4.7%) are the main importers of furniture products.   

Other 
40.4% 

Netherlands 
3.2% 

France 
6.9%  UK 

4.7% Canada 
4.7% 

United States 
18.8% 

Spain 
2.3% 

Russia 
2.3% 

Belgium 
2.6% 

Germany 
10.6% 

Japan 
3.4% 

Figure 2. Main world furniture importers (2011)  

Source: ICEX Spanish Institute for Foreign Trade 

The top five exporters are China, Germany, Italy, the United States and Poland. As figure 3 shows, China is by 
far the biggest market, with exports just below $38 billion21 in 2011. World trade of furniture, defined as the 
average between total exports and total imports, amounted to US$95 billion in 2009  and grew to US$106 
billion in 2010, and US$116 billion in 2011. 

Other 
27.9% 

Poland 
5.6% 

Sweden 
1.8% 

Germany  
9.5% 

Chech 
Republic 
2.0% 

Italy 
8.0% 

Mexico 
3.4% 

United States 
5.8% 

Canada 
2.8% 

France 
2.2% 

China 
31.0% 

Figure 3. Main world furniture exporters (2011)  

Source: ICEX Spanish Institute for Foreign Trade 

World  trade  of  furniture  is  large,  and  represents  about  1%  of  total  world  trade  of  manufacturers.  Trade 
increased until 2008, reaching US$ 117 billion before decreasing by 19% in 2009. Nowadays, international 
trade has recovered to the pre-recession level and the expected growth by 2013 is about 4%. Asia and South 
America  will  be  the  regions  with  the  highest  growth  of  furniture  demand,  North  America  will  experience  a 
modest  growth,  while  in  Europe  the  stagnation  will  continue  with  the  exception  of  Eastern  Europe.  New 
opportunities will appear for furniture exporters due to an increasing demand in emerging countries. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

26 

 
 
 
 
2.3 European furniture market and trade  

Economic data regarding the furniture market for EU 27 countries is considered in this section, using the last 
two years with available data as a reference (generally 2009-2010 or 2010-2011). All data presented have 
been extracted from the Eurostat Database and the Market Access Database. The main indicators discussed 
are related to the production and trade of these products in the EU 27 and in single Member States. 

According  to  NACE  the  statistical  classification  of  economic  activities  in  the  European  Community  (NACE) 
furniture products are included in the activity code 310. This division includes the manufacture of furniture 
and  related  products  of  any  material  except  stone,  concrete  and  ceramic.  The  following  product 
classifications have been selected as being most relevant for analysis 

Table 5. PRODCOM classification for furniture products to be studied 

PRODCOM Code 

Description 

31001150 

31001170 

31001190 

31001210 

31001230 

31001250 

31001290 

31001300 

31011100 

31011200 

31011300 

31021000 

31031100 

31091100 

31091230 

Swivel seats with variable height adjustments (excl. medical, surgical, dental or veterinary, and 
barbers' chairs) 

Upholstered seats with metal frames (excluding swivel seats, medical, surgical, dental or veterinary 
seats, barbers' or similar chairs, for motor vehicles, for aircraft) 

Non-upholstered seats with metal frames (excluding medical, surgical, dental or veterinary seats, 
barbers' or similar chairs, swivel seats) 

Seats convertible into beds (excluding garden seats or camping equipment) 

Seats of cane, osier, bamboo or similar materials 

Upholstered seats with wooden frames (including three piece suites) (excluding swivel seats) 

Non-upholstered seats with wooden frames (excluding swivel seats) 

Other seats, of HS 94.01, n.e.c. 

Metal furniture for offices 

Wooden furniture of a kind used in offices 

Wooden furniture for shops 

Kitchen furniture 

Mattress supports (including wooden or metal frames fitted with springs or steel wire mesh, 
upholstered mattress bases, with wooden slats, divans) 

Metal furniture (excluding office, medical, surgical, dental or veterinary furniture; barbers' chairs - 
cases and cabinets specially designed for hi-fi systems, videos or televisions) 

Wooden bedroom furniture (excluding builders' fittings for cupboards to be built into walls, mattress 
supports, lamps and lighting fittings, floor standing mirrors, seats) 

31091250 

Wooden furniture for the dining-room and living-room (excluding floor standing mirrors, seats) 

31091300 

31091430 

31091450 

Other wooden furniture (excluding bedroom, dining-, living-room, kitchen office, shop, medical, 
surgical, dental/veterinary furniture, cases and cabinets designed for hi-fi, videos and televisions) 

Furniture of plastics (excluding medical, surgical, dental or veterinary furniture - cases and cabinets 
specially designed for hi-fi systems, videos and televisions) 

Furniture of materials other than metal, wood or plastic (excluding seats, cases and cabinets 
specially designed for hi-fi systems, videos and televisions) 

Source: Eurostat. PRODCOM 

The Market Access Database is an important operational tool of the European Union's Market Access Strategy 
which has been used to provide an overview of trade flows for furniture (imports and exports) between EU-
27  and  non-EU  countries.  This  database  classifies  furniture  products  with  different  codes  of  NACE.  The 
products that have been included to analyze the trade flows belong to the code numbers 9401 “seats” and 
9403 “other furniture and parts thereof”.  

Table 6 gives a systematic overview of HS Code 9403, including its sub-categories and detailing the kind of 
products. Medical, surgical, dental and veterinary furniture, as well as barber’s chairs and similar chairs have 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

27 

 
 
been excluded from the scope of the project, because the project is focused on the types of furniture with the 
highest  market  shares  (e.g.  furniture  for  dining  rooms,  living  rooms  and  bedrooms,  kitchens,  seats,  office 
furniture).  

Table 6. Other furniture products and parts thereof classified in code 9403 

CN Code 

9403.10 
9403.20 
9403.30 
9403.40 
9403.50 
9403.60 
9403.60.10 
9403.60.30 
9403.60.90 
9403.70 
9403.80 

Description 

Metal furniture of a kind used in offices 
Other metal furniture 
Wooden furniture of a kind used in offices 
Wooden furniture of a kind used in the kitchen 
Wooden furniture of a kind used in the bedroom 
Other wooden furniture 
Wooden furniture of a kind used in the dining room and the living room 
Wooden furniture of a kind used in shops 
Other wooden furniture 
Furniture of plastics 
Furniture of other materials, including cane, osier, bamboo or similar materials  

Source: Market Access Database 

2.4 EU furniture production  

According to Eurostat data, EU27 furniture production grew by over 9% from 2003 to 2007 then decreased 
by 22% from 2007 to 2009 due to the economic recession. From 2009 to 2011 the production recovered to 
certain extent with a growth rate of nearly 7%.  

n
o

i
l
l
i

M
€

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

,0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Figure 4. Evolution of the furniture production value in the EU 27 from 2003 to 2011 

Source: Eurostat. PRODCOM  

There  are  many  ways  in  which  furniture  market  can  be  described.  In  this  report  three  basic  types  of 
segmentation have been considered: 

  Segmentation by geographical area 
  Segmentation by materials 
  Segmentation by type of furniture 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2.4.1 EU Furniture production by geographical area 

After  Asia  Pacific  countries,  which  represent  over 40%  of  world  furniture  consumption  and around  50%  of 
world furniture production, Western Europe is the main furniture manufacturing region, accounting for around 
20%  of  the  global  furniture  consumption  and  over  20%20  of  entire  furniture  production.  In  2002  Western 
Europe was the leading furniture producing region, with about 33% of the world furniture production.  

According  to  CSIL22  forecasts,  the  Western  European  furniture  market  was  expected  to  decrease  by  1%  in 
2012 and to remain stable in 2013. It is expected that Scandinavian countries will have a higher growth rate 
than other countries. Central European countries and the United Kingdom will remain stable, while southern 
countries will further slowdown.  

One of the indicators analysed is the volume of Communitarian production. The PRODVAL indicator has been 
analyzed in order to assess the economic significance of production in the EU-27 countries. PRODVAL data is 
expressed in terms of monetary value (million Euros).  

The leading producers are Italy and Germany with production values over € 10000 million. United Kingdom, 
France, Poland and Spain have also important production values exceeding € 3250 million. 

s
n
o

i
l
l
i

M
€

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

,0

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

s
d
n
a

l
r
e
h
t
e
N

K
U

y
l
a
t
I

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

e
c
e
e
r
G

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

n
a
p
S

PRODVAL 2010

PRODVAL 2011

n
e
d
e
w
S

d
n
a
n
i
F

l

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

a
t
l
a
M

a
i
v
t
a
L

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

i

a
n
a
u
t
i
L

d
n
a
o
P

l

…
h
c
e
z
C

a
i
k
a
v
o
l
S

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

a

i
r
a
g
u
B

l

i

a
n
e
v
o
l
S

s
u
r
p
y
C

g
r
u
b
m
e
x
u
L

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

Figure 5. Production value of furniture in the EU-27 countries (2010-2011) 

Source: Eurostat. PRODCOM  

The  PRODQNT  indicator  has  been  used  to  determine  the  furniture  production  in  terms  of  the  quantity 
produced.  PRODQNT  data  is  expressed  in  terms  of  number  of  items  produced  (p/st),  except  for  metal 
furniture, classified as NACE code 31091100, which is expressed in kilograms.  

Figure 6 shows the number of furniture units produced in 2010 and 2011 out of all the products covered by 
codes given in Table 5.  

Although Italy recorded a negative performance in the last decade (see Figure 7), it is still a key player in the 
furniture  sector,  as  it  is  the  third  largest  producer  in  the  world,  after  China  and  the  United  States.  Italy's 
production  amounts  around  160  million  units  of  furniture,  followed  by  Germany  (over  80  millions),  Poland 
(55  millions),  UK  (49  millions),  France  (35  millions)  and  Spain  (35  millions).  From  the  period  2010-2011, 
Eurostat statistics showed that Eastern European countries recorded the highest furniture production growth 
rate: 25% in Estonia, 24% in Lithuania, 12% in Poland and nearby 2% in Hungary. On the other side, southern 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

29 

 
 
 
 
 
countries'  furniture  production  further  decreased  in  2011,  with  Spain  and  Greece  having  negative  rates  of 
around -11% and -18%, respectively. According to CSIL, Western European furniture production experienced a 
slight increase of 1.3% in 2011, being Germany and Sweden the countries which better reacted to the crisis 
in terms of production growth rates20. 

t
s
/
p
s
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

,180

,160

,140

,120

,100

,80

,60

,40

,20

,0

K
U

y
l
a
t
I

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

e
c
e
e
r
G

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

n
a
p
S

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

s
d
n
a

l
r
e
h
t
e
N

PRODQNT 2010

PRODQNT 2011

n
e
d
e
w
S

d
n
a
n
i
F

l

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

a
t
l
a
M

a
i
v
t
a
L

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

d
n
a
o
P

l

i

a
n
a
u
t
i
L

g
r
u
b
m
e
x
u
L

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

a
i
k
a
v
o
l
S

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

a

i
r
a
g
u
B

l

i

a
n
e
v
o
l
S

s
u
r
p
y
C

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

Figure 6. Number of furniture products* produced in the EU-27 countries (2010-2011) 

The evolution of furniture production in the top six EU manufacturing countries in the period 2003-2011 is 
presented in the figure below: 

Source: Eurostat. PRODCOM  

t
s
/
p
s
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

,300

,250

,200

,150

,100

,50

,0

France
Germany
Italy
UK
Spain
Poland

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Figure 7. Evolution of the furniture production* in the top 6 EU manufacturing countries (2003-

2011) 

Source: Eurostat. PRODCOM  

*excluding metal furniture other than office, medical, surgical, dental or veterinary furniture; barbers' chairs - cases and cabinets 
specially designed for hi-fi systems, videos or televisions 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  quantity  of  metal  furniture  produced  in  kg  (e.g.  metal  in  Figure  8.  There  are  no  data  available  for 
Netherlands, Germany, Sweden and Latvia. There are no production in Luxembourg, Malta and Cyprus.  

s
e
n
n
o
t

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

,0

e
c
n
a
r
F

…
n
a

l
r
e
h
t
e
N

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

K
U

y
l
a
t
I

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

e
c
e
e
r
G

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

n
a
p
S

PRODQNT 2010

PRODQNT 2011

n
e
d
e
w
S

d
n
a
n
i
F

l

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

a
t
l
a
M

a
i
v
t
a
L

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

i

a
n
a
u
t
i
L

d
n
a
o
P

l

…
h
c
e
z
C

a
i
k
a
v
o
l
S

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

a

i
r
a
g
u
B

l

i

a
n
e
v
o
l
S

s
u
r
p
y
C

g
r
u
b
m
e
x
u
L

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

Figure 8. Production of metal furniture* in the EU-27 countries, (2010-2011)  

*excluding metal furniture other than office, medical, surgical, dental or veterinary furniture; barbers' chairs - cases and cabinets 
specially designed for hi-fi systems, videos or televisions 

Source: Eurostat. PRODCOM 

2.4.2 EU furniture production by materials 

The  EU  furniture  industry  uses  various  raw  materials  to  manufacture  different  types  of  furniture,  such  as 
tables,  chairs,  sofas,  kitchens,  wardrobes,  support  mattresses,  etc.  The  most  relevant  materials  for  the 
production of furniture are: 

Wood: solid wood and wood based products such as panels are widely used in furniture production. Tables, 
desks  and  cupboards  are  the  typical  products  where  wood  panels  are  used.  Particleboard,  fibreboard  and 
plywood are the three main categories of wooden panels, which are produced under heat and pressure with 
the addition of an adhesive to particles, glue fibres or sheets of wood respectively.   

Metal: aluminium, steel and iron are the main types of metals used in furniture products. Most of them are 
used as a base material, for example in cupboards, tables and chair legs. Steel and iron are  used in  many 
products, ranging from office furnishings to outdoor settings. For example, the properties that offer cast iron 
(hardness,  heaviness  and  general  tough  composition)  are  adequate  for  outdoor  use,  and  this  material  is 
common  used  for  bench  legs  and  solid  iron  tables.  Stainless  steel  is  used  widely  for  modern  interior 
furnishings, such as chairs legs, supports and body pieces, slides and hinges. It is especially suited for chair 
legs, supports and body pieces due to its high tensile strength, allowing it to be applied using hollow tubes 
and  reducing  weight.  Aluminium  furniture  has  great  advantages  as  it  does  not  rust,  is  tough,  light  and 
durable. This material is used extensively for stamped and cast furniture, especially in molded chairs. Other 
applications  are  tables,  dining  tables,  sofas,  etc.  Other  metals  are  also  used  in  fittings,  like  zinc,  nickel  or 
chrome. 

Plastic: thermoplastics and thermosetting polymers are used in the furniture sector. Thermosetting polymers 
provide  stronger  structure  for  furniture  components,  being  more  durable  than  thermoplastics.  Polystyrene 
(PS)  and  polyvinyl  chloride  (PVC)  are  common  types  of  thermoplastics  used  in  tables  and  plastic  lawn 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

31 

 
 
 
 
furniture.  Another  thermoplastic  used  is  polypropylene  (PP)  which  can  withstand  movement,  and  for  this 
reason is an appropriate material for hinges. On the other hand, thermosets are generally used as padding 
materials, polyurethane foams are used in upholstered furniture as a filling material for sofas, seats, back of 
seats, arm rests, etc, and phenolics are used as a furniture adhesive. 

Other materials used in furniture industry include glass, stone, upholstery made of leather, cane, bamboo, 
rattan, etc. 

Information  regarding  furniture  production  in  2011  in  the  EU-27  is  provided  in  Table  7.  Both  quantity 
(millions  p/st)  and  value  (millions  €)  of  the  main  materials  used  for  furniture  is  reported.  Production  and 
market value of pieces of furniture based on different materials is presented in Figure 9 and in Figure 10. 

Table 7. Furniture production in the EU-27 classified by materials (2011) 

Product 

Furniture production 

Quantity (M p/st) 

Value (M €) 

Wooden furniture 
Metal furniture 
Furniture of plastics 
Furniture of materials other than metal, wood or plastic 
Not specified 

378 
>77 
38 
9 
168 

32392 
9660 
442 
290 
15185 

Source: Eurostat. PRODCOM 

Metal furniture  
12% 

Not specified 
25% 

Furniture of 
materials other 
than metal, 
wood or plastic  
1% 

Furniture of 
plastics 
6% 

Wooden 
furniture  
56% 

Figure 9. Furniture production in the EU-27 classified by materials (2011) 

Source: Eurostat. PRODCOM 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

32 

 
 
 
 
Not specified 
26% 

Metal furniture 
17% 

Furniture of 
materials other 
than metal, 
wood or plastic  
0% 

Furniture of 
plastics 
1% 

Wooden 
furniture  
56% 

Figure 10. Market value of EU-27 furniture by materials (2011) 

Source: Eurostat. PRODCOM 

The most common material used for furniture is wood (56% of the pieces of furniture produced in the EU 27 
in 2011 are based on wood, which represent 56% of the production value). Metal is the second material most 
commonly used in furniture industry (12% of items produced and 17% of the production value), followed by 
plastic (6% of items produced and 1% of the production value) and other materials (1% of items produced 
and negligible production value) like bamboo, cannier, osier, etc. There is a lack of quantitative data about the 
materials  used  for  kitchen  furniture,  mattress  supports  and  some  kind  of  seats.  This  unknown  information 
refers  to  25%  of  the  total  number  of  items  produced  or,  in  other  terms,  to  26%  of  the  production  value. 
However, it is expected that these 25% also contains wooden, metal, plastic and other materials. 

2.4.3 EU furniture production by type 

Classifying furniture in accordance with the type (application) of the furniture is one of the most commonly 
used  methods  for  market  segmentation.  There  are  a  wide  variety  of  types  of  furniture  available  on  the 
market, with different styles and different functions. According to data obtained from Eurostat, the types of 
furniture  considered  for  the  market  segmentation  are  the  following:  upholstered  seats,  non-upholstered 
seats,  office  furniture,  furniture  for  shops,  kitchen  furniture,  mattress  supports,  bedroom  furniture,  dining-
room and living-room furniture, and finally other type of furniture. Some examples of the types of furniture 
included in each category are listed below: 

Upholstered  seats:  armchairs,  reclining  chairs,  sofas,  divans,  footstools,  seating  elements  upholstered  with 
leather, wool, synthetic material, cotton, etc. 

Non-upholstered seats: seats, armchairs, rocking chairs, seats convertible into beds, stools, etc. 

Office furniture: desks, chairs, drawer unit, filing cabinets, integrated workstations, etc. 

Furniture for shops: counters, display cases, shelves, etc. 

Kitchen  furniture:  kitchen  tables  and  chairs,  fitted  cabinets  and  kitchen  units,  free-standing  pieces  such  as 
moveable trolleys and butcher blocks, etc. 

Mattress supports 

Bedroom furniture: beds, headboards, bedside tables, dressing tables, chests of drawers, wardrobes (fitted or 
free-standing), etc.  

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

33 

 
 
 
Dining  and  living  room  furniture:  dining  sets  (tables  and  chairs),  dressers,  coffee  tables,  sideboards,  shelf 
systems, room dividers, etc. 

Other furniture: cupboards, bookcases and wall units, garden chairs and seats,  occasional furniture such as 
desks, small tables, mirrors or hall-stands, bathroom furniture like storage cabinets, baskets, etc. 

Quantitative  data  regarding  furniture  production  by  type  is  reported  in  Table  8.  Data  is  also  presented  in 
Figures  11  and  12.  to  provide  a  better  overview  of  the  market  segmentation  in  terms  of  both  quantity 
(millions of items) and value (millions €) respectively. 

Table 8. Furniture production in the EU-27 classified by type (2011) 

Product 

Upholstered seats 
Non-upholstered seats 
Office furniture 
Furniture for shops 
Kitchen furniture 
Mattress supports  
Wooden bedroom furniture  
Wooden furniture for the dining-room and living-room 
Other wooden furniture 
Not specified 

Furniture production 

Quantity (M p/st) 

Value (M €) 

54 
92 
63 
14 
104 
19 
64 
53 
160 
47 

8679 
4837 
7198 
3250 
10595 
1214 
6111 
5176 
5200 
5711 

Source: Eurostat. PRODCOM 

Figure 11. Furniture production in the EU-27 classified by type (2011) 

Source: Eurostat. PRODCOM 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
10% 

15% 

8% 

12% 

18% 

6% 

9% 

9% 

11% 

2% 

Upholstered seats

Non-upholstered seats

Office furniture

Furniture for shops

Kitchen furniture

Mattress supports

Wooden bedroom furniture

Wooden furniture for the
dining-room and living-room
Other wooden furniture

Not specified

Figure 12. Market value in the EU-27 by type of furniture (2011) 

Source: Eurostat. PRODCOM 

Approximately 18% of the  pieces of furniture  manufactured in 2011 in the EU-27 is composed of  wooden 
furniture used in dining rooms, living rooms and bedrooms (20% by value). Another 24% is represented by 
unspecified  wooden  furniture  (9%  by  value).  Eurostat  does  not  provide  quantitative  data  about  bedroom, 
dining-room and  living  room  furniture  other than  wooden.  Part  of  this  information  is  included  in  the  group 
classified  as not  specified,  which  represents  about  7% of  the  total  items  produces (10% by  value).  Due  to 
this  fact,  the  shares  of  bedroom,  dining-room  and  living  room  furniture  are  expected  to  be  higher.  Other 
important  production  subsectors  are  kitchen  furniture  (15%  by  number,  18%  by  value),  non-upholstered 
seats (14% by number, 8% by value), office furniture (9% by number, 12% by value), upholstered seats (8% 
by number, 15% by value), mattress supports (7% by number, 10% by value). More than a half of the office 
furniture  produced  in  Europe  is  made  of  wood  (60%  by  number,  69%  by  value),  whereas  metal  represent 
40% by number and 31% by value.     

Kitchen  furniture  has  grown  in  importance  due  to  a  general  change  in  consumer  behaviour.  Kitchen  has 
become  one  of  the  most  important  rooms  at  home,  and  nowadays  it  is  not  just  a  place  where  meals  are 
prepared but also a room for socializing and/or entertainment.  

The  European  production  of  office  furniture23  increased  by  3.3%  in  2011,  in  part  due  to  the  positive 
performance of countries like Germany, Austria and the Nordic countries. On the other hand, the production 
has fallen in Southern Europe. The restructuring process continued in 2011, with some companies interested 
by  insolvency  procedures,  factory  closures  and  mergers  and  acquisitions  process.  Regarding  kitchen 
furniture24,  Germany  was  the  largest  European  producer  in  2011,  accounting  for  32%  of  total  European 
kitchen  production,  followed  by  Italy  (20%)  and  the  UK  (12%).  These  countries  are  also  in  the  top  three 
European kitchen consumers’ ranking. The European kitchen furniture consumption remained stable in 2011, 
with a little decrease of 0.1% in 2011. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

35 

 
 
 
2.4.4 EU furniture trade: imports and exports 

Trade statistics have been taken from Eurostat and Market Access Database (MADB). Not all the transactions 
are registered in Eurostat, because the statistics are gathered from the customs and EU companies that give 
them on  voluntary  basis.  MADB  provides an  overview  of  trade  flows  in  furniture  between  the  EU  countries 
and the non-EU countries. MADB data have been used to analyze extra-EU trade.  

Intra and Extra EU-27 furniture trade 

Imports: The total furniture imports by European countries, including intra-EU 27 and extra-EU 27, recorded 
a significant decline (15%) in the period between 2008 and 2009. However, in 2011 signs of recovering were 
observed with an increase of around 13% over 2009.  

s
n
o

i
l
l
i

M
€

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

,0

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Year 

Figure 13. Evolution of furniture imports in the EU-27 

Source: Eurostat. PRODCOM  

As illustrated in  Figure  14, three largest European importers are  Germany (about  21% of the total EU 27), 
France (16%) and the United Kingdom (13%), reaching values over € 3000 million. Following Germany, there 
is a group formed by Italy, Spain, Austria, Belgium and Netherlands in which each country has imports worth 
among  €1265  to  €1900  million.  Although  import  penetration  is  increasing,  Italy  still  records  the  lowest 
import to consumption ratio of the EU 27 area and one of the lowest at a world level. 

s
n
o

i
l
l
i

M
€

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

,0

e
c
n
a
r
F

…
a

l
r
e
h
t
e
N

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

K
U

y
l
a
t
I

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

e
c
e
e
r
G

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

n
a
p
S

IMPVAL 2010
IMPVAL 2011

n
e
d
e
w
S

d
n
a
n
i
F

l

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

a
t
l
a
M

a
i
v
t
a
L

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

d
n
a
o
P

l

i

a
n
a
u
t
i
L

…
h
c
e
z
C

a
i
k
a
v
o
l
S

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

a

i
r
a
g
u
B

l

i

a
n
e
v
o
l
S

s
u
r
p
y
C

g
r
u
b
m
e
x
u
L

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

Figure 14. Imports of furniture by the EU-27 countries  

Source: Eurostat. PRODCOM 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exports:  Relevant  data  of  exports  under  study  have  been  analyzed  in  this  section.  Furniture  products  are 
demanded all over the world and export represents a key activity for European companies of all sizes. In just 
one year, from period 2008 to 2009 exports decreased to 21%. However, furniture market has experimented 
in the last three years a positive trend in the context of the current economic crisis. In 2011,  Eurostat data 
showed trade growth of over 21%, and it reached € 8764 million (from € 7225 million in 2009.  

s
n
o

i
l
l
i

M
€

10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
,0

2005

2006

2007

2009

2010

2011

2008

Year 

Figure 15. Evolution of furniture exports in the EU-27  

Source: Eurostat. PRODCOM  

Italy and Germany are by far the largest furniture exporters of the EU27 area (round 42% of total  EU27). In 
2011  German  exports  showed  a  growth  of  11%  compared  to  the  previous  year  (see  Figure  16),  exporting 
similar  values  of  Italy.  The  third  European  largest  exporter  is  Poland  (14%  of  total  EU27)  with  levels  far 
above the rest, and reaches over €4000 million. France, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Spain and Belgium 
have values around €1000 million and finally, the rest of member states have values below €870 million. 

s
n
o

i
l
l
i

M
€

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

,0

e
c
n
a
r
F

…
n
a

l
r
e
h
t
e
N

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

K
U

y
l
a
t
I

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

e
c
e
e
r
G

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

n
a
p
S

EXPVAL 2010

EXPVAL 2011

n
e
d
e
w
S

d
n
a
n
i
F

l

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

a
t
l
a
M

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

a
i
v
t
a
L

d
n
a
o
P

l

i

a
n
a
u
t
i
L

…
h
c
e
z
C

a
i
k
a
v
o
l
S

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

a

i
r
a
g
u
B

l

i

a
n
e
v
o
l
S

s
u
r
p
y
C

g
r
u
b
m
e
x
u
L

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

Figure 16. Exports of furniture by the EU-27 countries  

Source: Eurostat. PRODCOM 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Extra-EU furniture trade 

This section analyzes the statistics on trade with third countries covering furniture imported and exported by 
the European Union. Statistic data have been extracted from the Market Access Database, which uses the HS 
codes to classify furniture products. 

Imports: According to the information published at the DG Enterprise website, the trade balance for furniture 
products  has  traditionally  recorded  a  surplus.  However,  the  balance  has  deteriorated  dramatically  from  a 
surplus of almost €3 billion in 2002 to a deficit of €1.2 billion in 200825 due to international competition, and 
in particular due to an impressive progression of Chinese performance. To overcome this negative trend, EU 
furniture  companies  follow  different  competitive  strategies  based  on  promoting  research  and  innovation, 
design and added value, skills and quality, knowledge and know-how and improvement of the access to third 
country markets. 

In  2011  China  accounted  for  55.4  %  of  the  EU  imports.  The  second  major  supplier  is  Vietnam  (5,34%), 
followed  by  Turkey  (5,33%)  and  Indonesia  (4,0%).  Other  less  important  suppliers  are  the  United  States 
(3,4%),  Switzerland  (3.3%),  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  (2,5%),  Malaysia  (2.2%),  Taiwan  (2,1%)  and  Norway 
(1,8%). Figure 17 shows the import values (€ Millions) of the top 10 importers to the EU 27 countries in 2010 
and 2011. 

China ,People's Republic of

Vietnam

Turkey

Indonesia

United States

Switzerland

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Malaysia

Taiwan

Norway

2011

2010

,0

1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000

€ Millions 

Figure 17. Top 10 EU suppliers of furniture products (codes 9401 and 9403)  

Source: Market Access Database  

Germany and the United Kingdom are the  major importers of furniture coming  from  outside of the  EU 27, 
with import values exceeding € 2500 million and representing about 45% of the total EU 27 import. France 
ranks at the third position with import value of over €1500 million. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

38 

 
 
 
s
n
o

i
l
l
i

M
€

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

,500

,0

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

2010

2011

s
u
r
p
y
C

a

i
r
a
g
u
B

l

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

d
n
a
n
i
F

l

e
c
n
a
r
F

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

e
c
e
e
r
G

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

y
l
a
t
I

a
i
v
t
a
L

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

a
t
l
a
M

s
d
n
a

l
r
e
h
t
e
N

d
n
a
o
P

l

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

a
i
k
a
v
o
l
S

i

a
n
e
v
o
l
S

i

n
a
p
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

K
U

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

Figure 18. Import values coming from outside EU (codes 9401 and 9403) 

Source: Market Access Database  

Exports: The main markets for the European exports outside the EU 27 are Switzerland (17.2 % in 2011), 
the  United  States (15.3  %),  Russia  (12,4%)  and  Norway  (9,7%).  Afterwards, there  are  China  (5,4%),  United 
Arab Emirates (2,8%), Japan (2,2%), Turkey (2,1%), Australia (2%) and Canada (1,9%). Figure 19  shows the 
export values (€ Millions) of the main markets in 2010 and 2011. One of the main reasons  for not finding 
developing countries like Indonesia, Vietnam, Brazil and India in the top ten export destinations are the high 
tariffs that they impose on imports.  The EU tariffs or even Chinese tariffs are fixed at zero or close to zero, 
while some developing countries that are important producers of furniture keep their tariffs at high levels to 
protect  domestic  producers.  For  example,  for  certain  wooden  furniture,  Indonesia  has  a  duty  rate  of  40%, 
Vietnam (25%), Thailand (20%), Brazil (18%) and India (10%)26.  

Switzerland
United States
Russian Federation
Norway
China ,People's Republic of
United Arab Emirates
Japan
Turkey
Australia
Canada

2011

2010

,0

,500

1,000

1,500

2,000

Millions 

Figure 19. Main EU exports destination of furniture (codes 9401 and 9403) 

Source: Market Access Database 

The major trading partner of the EU 27 area in terms of exports is Italy, followed by Germany. In 2011, Italy 
accounted for 28% of exports and Germany, 22%. The total value of exports outside the EU 27 amounted € 
11808 million, increasing by 12.5% compared to 2010. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
s
n
o

i
l
l
i

M
€

3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
,500
,0

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

2010
2011

s
u
r
p
y
C

a

i
r
a
g
u
B

l

…
h
c
e
z
C

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

d
n
a
n
i
F

l

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

e
c
e
e
r
G

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

y
l
a
t
I

a
i
v
t
a
L

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

a
t
l
a
M

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

d
n
a
o
P

l

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

a
i
k
a
v
o
l
S

i

a
n
e
v
o
l
S

i

n
a
p
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

K
U

Figure 20. Export values outside the EU 27 area 

Source: Market Access Database 

Consumption 

Although Eurostat does not provide information on consumption, values for apparent consumption have been 
calculated by adding production and import values and subtracting exports. European sales of furniture were 
valued at approximately € 50 billion in 2011, decreasing by 2.1% if compared to 2010. As shown in Figure 
21, the market is still dominated by Germany, Italy, the UK and France, which between them accounted for 
over 69% of EU27 sales in 2011.Among these countries, Italy and France experienced a positive performance 
with a growth rate of 16.5% and 1.4% respectively, while consumption fell by 5.4% in Germany and 8.5% in 
the  UK.  Data  referred  to  Germany  have  to  be  interpreted  carefully  because  production  values  of  office 
furniture  and  seats  are  not  included  in  Eurostat  due  to  confidentiality  issues.  In  accordance  with  the 
information from the German Association of Office, Seating and Furniture (bso), in the first half of 2011 the 
sales27 of office furniture increased by 21.8% and the sales of seating furniture increased by 20.2%. Despite 
the  difficult  economic  conditions,  German  industry  representatives  expected  a  strong  demand  for  office 
furniture within the second half of 2011. Nevertheless  manufacturers are concerned regarding  maintaining 
the margins, as the increased demand is accompanied by higher costs, especially those ones related to raw 
materials,  energy  and  transport.  Three  of  the  countries  most  affected  by  the  financial  crisis  recorded  a 
significant decline of consumption: Greece (-26.3%), Portugal (-23.3%) and Spain (-17.9%).  

s
n
o

i
l
l
i

M
€

11,000
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
,0

e
c
n
a
r
F

…
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

K
U

y
l
a
t
I

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

e
c
e
e
r
G

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

n
a
p
S

CONSUMPTION 2010
CONSUMPTION 2011

…
b
m
e
x
u
L

n
e
d
e
w
S

d
n
a
n
i
F

l

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

a
t
l
a
M

a
i
v
t
a
L

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

i

a
n
a
u
t
i
L

d
n
a
o
P

l

…
h
c
e
z
C

a
i
k
a
v
o
l
S

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

a

i
r
a
g
u
B

l

i

a
n
e
v
o
l
S

s
u
r
p
y
C

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

Figure 21. Apparent consumption of furniture in the EU 27 (2010-2011) 

Source: calculated from Eurostat 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Low cost furniture coming from emerging markets has avoid a highest decline in the demand, reaching new 
consumer groups previously unable to purchase or replace furniture as frequently. 

Figure 22 shows how the EU 27 market was broken down in 2011 in terms of furniture consumption. Seats 
was valued over € 12000 million, followed by kitchen furniture (€ 8896 million), wooden bedroom furniture 
(€ 5902 million), wooden dining and living room (€ 4953 million), wooden office furniture (€ 4537 million), 
other  wooden  furniture  (€  3835  million),  metal  furniture  (€  3326  million),  wooden  furniture  for  shops  (€ 
2.854  million),  metal  office  furniture  (€  1523  million),  mattress  supports  (€  1159  million),  furniture  of 
plastics (€ 458 million) and furniture of materials other than wood, metal or plastic (€ 95 million). Values of 
metal  furniture,  both  offices  and  other  metal  furniture,  are  higher  because  there  is  no  data  reported  in 
Eurostat of one of the major European producers, Germany, due to confidentiality issues.    

0.2% 

0.9% 

7.7% 

9.9% 

24.8% 

11.8% 

6.7% 

2.3% 

17.8% 

5.7% 

Seats

Metal office furniture

Wooden office furniture

Wooden furniture for shops

Kitchen furniture

Matress supports

3.1% 

9.1% 

Metal furniture

Wooden bedroom furniture

Wooden dining-living room furniture

Other wooden furniture

Furniture of plastics

Furniture of materials other than
metal, wood or plastic

Figure 22. Apparent consumption (% by value) by type of furniture in the EU 27 (2011) 

Source: calculated from Eurostat 

Table 9 shows the main results of price surveys covering furniture and furnishings, carpets and other floor 
coverings  across  EU-27.  Those  surveys  are  part  of  the  Eurostat-OECD  Purchasing  Power  Parities  (PPP) 
programme.  Survey  results  are  expressed  in  Price  Level  Indices"  (PLIs),  which  provide  a  comparison  of 
countries' price levels with respect to the European Union average: if the PLI is >100, the country concerned 
is  relatively  expensive  compared  to  the  EU  average.  Likewise,  a  PLI  of  <100,  implies  that  the  country  is 
relatively cheap compared with the EU average.  

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 9. Price level index for furniture & furnishings, carpets and other floor coverings (2011) 

EU27 country 

Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Germany 
Estonia 
Ireland 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Latvia 

Lithuania 

PLIs 

99,2 
52,7 
75,3 
100,1 
94,8 
85,9 
98,0 
101,5 
94,9 
110,4 
110,6 
101,7 
79,3 

70,1 

EU27 country 

Luxembourg 
Hungary 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 

EU-27 

PLIs 

107,2 
62,6 
99,2 
101,4 
104,4 
59,8 
94,4 
63,9 
88,6 
78,4 
106,0 
108,6 
111,2 

100,0 

Source: Eurostat (online data code: prc_ppp_ind) 

Price dispersion varies significantly between the most expensive country (United Kingdom with a PLI about 
111.2)  and  the  least  expensive  country  (Bulgaria  with  a  PLI  of  52.7).  Among  the  most  expensive  countries 
there are United Kingdom, Italy, France and Sweden, which have prices 11.2%, 10.6%, 10.4% and 8.6% over 
the EU27 average. Malta and Cyprus also show high price levels for furniture and furnishings. This may be 
due  to  their  geographical  position,  causing  higher  transportation  costs,  but  also  the  small  size  of  internal 
markets. On the other hand, European Eastern countries have the lowest prices for furniture: Bulgaria, Poland, 
Hungary  and  Romania,  with  consumer  prices  47%,  40%,  37%  and  36%,  respectively,  below  the  EU27 
average.   

PLI 

,125.0

,105.0

,85.0

,65.0

,45.0

Germany

Spain

France

Italy

Malta

Poland

UK

Bulgaria

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Figure 23. Evolution of price level index in some EU27 countries for furniture and furnishings, 

carpets and other floor coverings (2011) 

Source: Eurostat (online data code: prc_ppp_ind) 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

42 

 
 
Forecasts 

The  World  Furniture  Outlook  2013  report20  forecast  a  global  increase  in  furniture  consumption  of  between 
3% and  4%  for  2013,  while  worldwide  GDP  will  increase  by  3.6%  this year,  to  4.2%  in  2014  and  4.4%  in 
2015. Emerging countries will have faster growth, at 5.6% in 2013, 5.9% in 2014 and 6.1% in 2015, while 
advanced  countries  are  expected  to  grow  at  rates  of  1.5%  in  2013,  2.3%  in  2014  and  2.6%  in  2015. 
Furniture consumption in North America is expected to grow 2% in 2014, but the highest growth rates will be 
in  Asia  and  in  South  America.  According  CSIL,  the  Western  European  furniture  market  decreased  by  1%  in 
2012 and is expected to remain stable in 2013. Scandinavian countries will have a higher growth rate than 
the others. Central European countries and the United Kingdom will remain stable, while southern countries 
will further slowdown.  

2.5 Structure of EU furniture sector  

This section studies in detail the characteristics that determine the performance of the sector. The analysis 
has  focused  on  identifying  the  key  actors,  examining  the  competition  and  significant  strategies  and  the 
market potential in relation to the eco-label. 

2.5.1 Industry background 

The furniture industry is essentially an assembling industry which employs various raw materials (wood and 
wood based panels, metals, plastics, textile, leather, glass, etc.) to manufacture its products. In the last years, 
the EU furniture industry has improved the production quality, in terms of technical, design and fashion. The 
EU-27’s  furniture  manufacturing  (Division  31  according  to  NACE  rev.2)  sector  included  about  130000 
enterprises in 2010 that employed more than 1 million persons. Micro enterprises with less than 10 workers 
are  the  most  common  companies  in  the  sector,  representing  around  86%  of  EU  furniture  companies. 
Generally, small companies act as subcontractors for larger firms providing to them components and semi-
finished products for the finishing and assembling of furniture. The furniture manufacturing sector generated 
€ 29000 million of value added.  

Figure 24. Sectoral breakdown of EU-27’s furniture manufacturing companies in 2010 

Source: Eurostat 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

43 

 
 
 
 
Table 10. Key indicators of EU-27 furniture manufacturing (2010)  

INDICATOR 

Number of enterprises 
Number of persons employed 
Turnover (€ million) 
Purchases of goods and services (€ million) 
Personnel costs (€ million) 
Value added (€ million) 
Gross operating surplus (€ million) 
Apparent labour productivity ( € 1000 per head) 
Average personnel costs ( € 1000 per head) 
Wage adjusted labour productivity (%) 
Gross operating rate (%) 

VALUE 

130000 
1080000* 
95000 
66000 
22000 
29000 
7500 
28,3 
20,5 
119 
7,9 

Source: Eurostat *data refers to 2009 due to lack of updated data 

The apparent labour productivity of the European furniture manufacturing sector in  2010 was € 28000 per 
person  employed,  about  one  third  lower  than  the  non-financial  business  economy  average.  The  average 
personnel  costs  were  also  low  (€  20500  per  employee).  The  wage  adjusted  labour  productivity  ratio  was 
119%  of  average  personnel  costs  per  employee,  a  lower  ratio  than  the  average  for  the  non-financial 
business  economy  (about  138%)  and  manufacturing  (about  132%).  Despite  low  wage  adjusted  labour 
productivity ratio, the European furniture manufacturing sector recorded a high gross operating rate (7.9%). 

The  structure  of  the  furniture  industry  has  changed  in  the  recent  years  with  the  advent  of  the  ready-to-
assemble (RTA) furniture that allowed mass production. Generally, mass-produced large volume products are 
sold  locally  and  for  export,  while  high-end  furniture  is  mostly  purchased  locally.  RTA  furniture  requires 
investments  in  technological  equipment,  machinery  and  automation.  RTA  industry  is  composed  mostly  by 
large  firms  because  they  are  better  able  to  deliver  large  volumes.  However,  RTA  sector  also  include  small 
companies that operate in product niches such as children furniture and entertainment furniture. In 2011, the 
RTA  furniture  production  was  worth  €  8,073  million20  and  as  shown  in  Table  11  this  sector  is  performing 
better than the total furniture production. While the furniture production decreased by 12.7% between 2006 
and 2011, the RTA furniture production increased by 3.9% in the same period.  

Table 11. Percentage change from 2006 to 2011 of production, consumption, exports and imports 

in the EU-27 for total furniture and RTA furniture 

Indicator 

% change period 2006-2011 

Total Furniture 

RTA furniture 

Production 
Consumption 
Exports  
Imports 

-12,7 % 
-7,9 % 
-4,0 % 
+5,9 % 

+3,9 % 
+7,5 % 
-8,5 % 
+4,6 % 

Source: adapted from the European market for Ready-To-Assemble furniture. World Furniture Online Sept. 2012. CSIL. 

The structural change in the  furniture sector started years ago and is still under way  due to many factors. 
Generally, it is less profitable to produce in advanced countries. Other relevant factors are the investments in 
new plants especially designed and built for exports (e.g. China, Vietnam, Poland), the sustained growth in the 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

44 

 
 
 
demand  of  furniture  in  emerging  markets  and  the  operations  of  large  multinationals  sourcing  on  a  global 
scale like IKEA Group. 

The most common problems faced by the European furniture industries are the following: 

  Globalisation has affected the European furniture sector. Furniture prices are under severe pressure 
due  to  competition,  in  particular  from  Asian  market.  Import  pressure  from  low-cost  countries  (e.g 
China, Vietnam, Indonesia).  
It  is  a  sector  mostly  made  by  small  and  medium  sized  company,  managed  by  their  owners,  with 
governance and reporting models that need to be updated. 

 

  Many  subsectors  are  facing  investment  stagnation,  others  have  to  deal  with  a  over  dimensioned 

production capacity  

  Access to credit and loans - difficulties in finding resources to fund the costs of needed investments 
  Unsatisfactory  marketing  skills  and  not  well  developed  commercial  structure 
to  face 

 

 

 

internationalization 
Fragmentation  of  retail  distribution  structure  that  affects  the  entire  value  chain  efficiency  and  all 
these deficiencies eventually further increase the price for final customers 
The need to strengthen protection of intellectual property. Poor ability of protecting investments on 
intellectual property. 
The  furniture  sector is facing  a  rise  in  the  price  of  raw  materials such  as leather,  plastics,  natural 
fibres and petroleum derivatives. The sector is also facing competition for wood due to the growing 
demand to produce biomass energy. 

2.5.2 Key actors 

The goal of this section is to identify and classify the main stakeholders involved in the value chain of the 
different furniture products’ markets. Figure 25 shows the actors involved in the value chain of the furniture 
manufacturing, composed by suppliers of raw materials (wood, metals, plastic, parts of furniture, adhesives, 
coatings, etc), designers, ICT and technological suppliers, packaging industry, furniture manufacturer, logistics, 
retailers  and  consumers.  There  is  a  close  relation  between  furniture  manufacturers  and  its  supplying 
industries, while distribution is mostly carried out by specialised independent retailers. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

45 

 
 
 
Figure 25. Value chain in furniture manufacturing 

The  sourcing  of  raw  materials  is  an  important  step  at  the  beginning  of  the  value  chain.  Raw  material 
suppliers  supply  the  required  raw  materials  to  the  furniture  manufacturers.  Technology  providers,  ICT 
suppliers and packaging industry are also part of the value chain. The amount of packaging used is generally 
high in order to prevent damages during deliveries. New criteria for furniture packaging are appearing with 
the aim to promote recyclability and raise the content of recycled material used. New demands on the design 
of furniture are growing in importance, especially for innovative and high-value added products, but also for 
those  products  which  include  environmental  criteria  in  their  design  (e.g  use  of  raw  materials  with  a  good 
environmental performance, recycled material, separable and recyclable, energy-efficient production, etc). 

Generally, the retailer establishes the conditions for the manufacturer  to deliver furniture because many of 
them  have  exclusive  rights  of  sale  in  a  specific  region  or  country.  The  fact  that  most  of  the  European 
furniture manufacturers are microenterprises  with less than 10 workers and many retailers are large firms 
causes that  generally retailers have  greater purchasing  power over the manufacturing. The process of off-
shoring  to  low  wage  countries,  such  as  Eastern  Europe  and  also  Asian  countries,  is  a  strategic  decision  to 
reduce economic costs in the manufacturing of standardized parts for furniture or for the whole production 
and assemblage of furniture. Going abroad in order to  gain a competitive advantage  allows manufacturing 
companies to enter low-wage countries and at the same time benefiting from moderate costs of production. 
For example IKEA, who is the largest retailer in the world, have the majority of the manufacturing companies 
in  Eastern  European  countries.  Swedwood  is  the  name  for  the  industrial  group  that  manufactures  IKEA 
products. In 2011, Swedwood had 16000 co-workers and 33 production units in 10 countries. Customers are 
the last step of the value chain. They purchase furniture through the internet or directly in the shop. Although 
e-commerce  is  increasing,  consumers  still  prefer  to  see  and  touch  furniture  before  making  the  decision  to 
buy. Logistics take a relevant part in the value chain, covering all aspects of the movement and storage of 
the materials and goods, from the beginning of the production process to the end-of-life of the product. 

The top global furniture manufacturers include companies like Swedwood, Natuzzi, Poltrona FRAU, Kinnarps, 
Steelcase,  etc.  The  Swedwood  Group,  an  integrated  industrial  group  within  the  IKEA  Group,  is  the  world's 
largest producer of wooden furniture. Natuzzi and Poltrona FRAU are the largest Italian furniture producers. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

46 

 
 
 
Kinnarps and Steelcase are among the top 10 office furniture manufacturers, with a market share of 6.2% 
and 5.1% respectively in 2011 (Figure 26). 

Kinnarps Holding SA

Steelcase SA

Vitra Holding AG

Nowy Styl SP Z.O.O.

Groupe Clestra Hauserman

USM Holding AG

Koninklije Ahrend NV

Haworth Europe

Lienhard Office Group AG

Sedus Stoll AG

481.91 

394.93 

290.87 

241.5 

213.75 

196.17 

190.3 

187.28 

175.3 

157.29 

0

100

200

300

400
Million € 

500

Figure 26. Sales in million € of the top 10 European office furniture manufacturers (2011) 

Source: adapted from FEMB (Fédération Européenne du Mobilier de Bureau) 

The furniture retailers leading the European market are listed in Table 12. 

Table 12. Top 10 European furniture retailers (2011)  

No. 

Company name 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

IKEA GROUP (SE) 
Home Retail Group, (UK) 
Steinhoff International Holdings, (SA) 
XXXLutz Gruppe, (AT) 
Jysk Holding, (DK) 

No. 

6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

Company name 

Otto Group, (DE) 
Krieger-Gruppe, (DE) 
But, (FR) 
De Mandemakers Groep, (NL) 
John Lewis, (UK) 

Source: FENA Newsletter.  May 2011. European Federation of Furniture Retailers. 

The European and also the world’s largest furniture retailer is the IKEA-Group, with total sales of EUR 24.7 
billion  in  2011,  increasing  by  6.9%  compared  to  2010.  According  to  the  2011  IKEA  sustainability  report, 
about 79% of sales were produced in Europe, 14% in  North  America and 7% in Russia, Australia and Asia. 
Despite the global economic crisis, IKEA has maintained stable growth and profitability in almost all countries 
and with biggest gains in Poland, Russia and China. The strong IKEA brand and low prices helped it to weather 
the  recession  period,  even  in  those  European  countries  most  affected  by  the  crisis,  like  Spain  where  sales 
increased  by  8.2%  in  2010  and  Italy  where  sales  rose  by  11,3%.  The  same  report  revealed  that  the  the 
second largest furniture retailer in terms of sales was the Home Retail Group from UK, with estimated sales 
of EUR 4.465 billion. Thanks to the acquisition of the French Conforama Group (a network of more than 200 
stores  France  and  French  overseas  departments  and  territories  as  well  Spain,  Switzerland,  Portugal, 
Luxembourg,  Italy  and  Croatia),  the  Steinhoff  International  Holdings  Ltd  of  South  Africa  is  now  the  third 
largest retailer with sales of EUR 4.202 billion29. Among the top ten largest furnishing trade groups remarks 
XXXLutz Gruppe with a turnover of around EUR 2.8 billion. Today it operates 193 furnishing stores in Austria, 
Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Sweden, Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia with more than 17,700 
employees. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

47 

 
 
 
2.5.3 Competitive strategies 

This section covers general aspects about the models and competitive strategies carried out by stakeholders 
of the sector. The goal of this analysis is to understand how companies tend to compete and which strategies 
are used to diverge from the competitors.  

Generally, a European furniture business model is based on production, without taking into account the value 
generation  for  the  consumer.  European  companies  have  to  compete  with  emerging  countries,  which  have 
competitive  advantages  in  terms  of  lower  labour  costs,  known  and  accessible  technologies,  and  import 
facilitating  factors.  To  overcome  this  threat,  the  European  furniture  industry  should  update  the  current 
business model into a new one based on the added value created for the consumers. It is very important to 
know the consumers’ behaviour; their characteristics, lifestyles, preferences, etc. (section 5 explores this topic 
in more detail) in order to adapt the furniture product to the consumer demands, making the product more 
valuable.  Table  13  summarizes  the  characteristics  of  the  current  business  model  followed  by  most  of  the 
European companies and on the other side the characteristics of a new business model based on the added 
value created for the consumers.  

Table 13. Comparing a traditional business model and a one based on added value generation 

Traditional business model 

Business model based on value generation 

Oriented to the furniture production 
Based on the traditional value chain: supplier - 
manufacturer – retailer and  based on the individual 
capabilities and resources of the companies 
Local and national activity approach 

Company size as a problem 

Oriented to the consumer 

Operative efficiency search, improving the inter-
cluster cooperation  

Global approach of the activity 
Flexible organizations to apply (strategy, 
organization, resources and capabilities, 
knowledge and technologies) 

Source: Adapted from First Project co-funded by the European Union. UEA European Furniture Manufacturers 
Federation. Furniture Industry in restructuring: systems & tools 

The  strategy  of  differentiation  is  based  on  the  competitive  advantage  by  creating  a  furniture  product  with 
certain characteristics (quality, innovation, price, environmentally friendly, etc) that are granting a difference 
compared  to  the  products  of  the  competitors.  Some  competitive  strategies  used  in  the  sector  have  been 
characterized below, based on the results of the market questionnaire received by some European furniture 
associations and manufacturers, but also from existing market reports28: 

Price  structure.  Price  is  one  of  the  first  indicators  used  to  compare  a  furniture  product  amongst 
competitors.  Establishing  a  successful  price  is  a  key  aspect  in  the  market  (entry)  strategy.  Large  retailers 
purchase in substantial quantities, increasing pressure on prices and margins in the trade channels. The main 
factors that affect the price structure are: 

The production costs, import duties, incoterms, anti-dumping levies and VAT 

- 
-  Discount structure and credit terms offered by local competitors 
- 
- 
- 

Retail prices of competitors’ products  
Select the right trade and distribution channels 
Additional costs for product adaptation, logistics and transportation, packaging, marketing, etc. 

The importance of innovation. The European furniture industry is today a mature sector where companies 
have  difficulties  to  compete  with  emerging  countries.  Innovation  is  one  of  the  strategies  that  can  help  to 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

48 

 
 
 
increase competitiveness and to reduce costs. Innovation includes automation of business processes, the use 
of Computer Aided Design or Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and the introduction of new materials that are more 
resistant or cheaper than previous ones. Strategies based on creativity, quality and differentiation of products 
should be pursued by companies in order to sustain a certain level of growth. Differentiation of products is 
not only referred in terms of quality or price, but rather in terms of design, style and functionality with the 
aim to satisfy the customers preferences. Companies have to find the paths for product innovation such as 
changing the design of the product, introducing new materials (e.g surface treatments, recycled materials, …), 
environmentally-friendly design, use of ICT tools like 3D modeling tools, use of the internet and development 
of e-business to provide services to new market segments, etc. The introduction of 3D modelling tools as well 
as  other  software  tools  can  increase  the  efficiency  in  the  product  development  process.  However,  some 
barriers  have  been  identified  for  the  usage  of  these  tools  in  small  companies,  due  to  more  resources  are 
needed:  time  requirements,  money  to  purchase  hardware  and  software,  training  costs  and  qualified 
personnel.  

Environmental  approach.  The growing environmental concerns  have also led to the development of eco-
friendly  furniture.  Some  companies  (e.g  Steelcase  and  Formway)  have  decided  to  take  into  account 
environmental issues as a way to gain competitive advantage, using for example software tools for the Life 
Cycle Assessment (LCA) of furniture products. LCA methodology allows that product designers are aware of 
how  choice  of  material  influences  the  environment,  and  how  they, in  their design  work,  might  create  more 
sustainable  products.  An  LCA  of  a  furniture  product  can  cover  all  the  production  processes  and  services 
associated,  including  raw  materials  extraction,  product  manufacturing,  transportation,  retailers,  use  of  the 
products in customer’s home and its recycling or disposal. Some companies succeed in converting the burden 
of  additional  costs  (more  resources  are  needed)  into  a  competitive  advantage,  as  they  base  most  of  their 
communication  and  marketing  on  the  environmental  characteristics  of  their  products.  Annually,  Interbrand 
and  Deloitte  rank  the  world’s  top  brands  on  the  basis  of  their  environmental  performance  as  well  as  the 
public’s perception of their green credentials. IKEA Group is the only furniture company among the 50 Best 
Global Green Brands, which holds steady at 39th position of the ranking in 2012. IKEA makes a large effort to 
gain publicity in the sustainability field. IKEA Green Tech, a company owned by the IKEA Group, is in charge to 
invest in innovative technologies and services relating to energy, water, waste, advanced materials in order to 
improve the sustainability of the IKEA business activities. In 2012, the company increased the proportion of 
total wood (solid and board) coming from forests certified to Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) standards to 
23%  (16%  in  2011).  Approximately  85%  of  packaging  is  made  from  recycled  materials.  In  2012  the 
company invested heavily in wind farms and solar panels, having at the end of the year 250,000 solar panels 
on their buildings and 83 wind turbines in operation. The renewable energy produced in 2012 was equivalent 
to  34%  of  total  energy  consumption.  New  projects  up  to  2015  will  take  total  investments  in  renewable 
energy (focusing on wind and solar) to up to €1.5 billion. 

Ecolabel  as  a  source  of  differentiation.  There  are  a  wide  variety  of  labels in  the  market  which  certify 
wood itself like PEFC and FSC, but also there are other certifications able to certify furniture products other 
than wood, such as Nordic Swan and Blue Angel. However, the requirements established in ecolabels do vary 
considerably. Furniture sector tend to perceive environmental certifications as an available tool to improve its 
position against their competitors: 

Ecolabelling is a simple and cost-effective way to communicate environmental aspects and commitment to 
purchasers and consumers. 

Environmental issues are complex. It can take a long time and extensive resources to gain an understanding 
of a specific area. Ecolabelling facilitates this process. 

Some  certifications  like  EU  Ecolabel,  Nordic  Swan,  Blue  Angel,  etc  not  only  cover  environmental  issues  but 
also  quality  requirements,  since  environmental  and  quality  concerns  often  go  together.  It  means  that  an 
Ecolabel licence can also be seen as a mark of quality. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

49 

 
Environmental  demands  have  become  a  standard  in  public  procurement  processes,  especially  in  Nordic 
countries.  

Reduce lead times. Reduction of lead times is a success strategy for EU furniture manufacturers, improving 
their  competitiveness  mainly  for  two  reasons:  the  first  one  because  enhance  their  reputation  towards 
customers  and  last  but  not  least  because  many  extra-EU  manufacturers  find  difficult  to  match.  Therefore 
reducing  lead  times,  minimize  logistical  costs  and  reach  the  customer  at  the  lowest  possible  price.  The 
implementation of proper ICT and e-business tools, such as Supply Chain Management systems (SCM), can 
help  to  reduce  costs  and  time  savings  thanks  to  a  better  production  planning,  warehousing  and  inventory 
control. However, the usage of SCM systems are still limited to larger companies while SME’s face relevant 
barriers to implement them, mainly in terms of costs and complexity of technologies.  

Export into emerging markets. Stagnant demand of furniture will continue in Europe in the coming years 
(with  the  exception  of  Eastern  Europe),  while  the  growth  of  furniture  demand  will  be  strong  in  emerging 
countries,  especially  in  Asia  and  South  America.  The  expected  growth  of  furniture  demand  in  emerging 
countries is causing that more and more companies decide to export to these markets. The high-end furniture 
industry29 is also experiencing a rise in the demand in emerging countries, especially in Russia, Brazil, China 
and  India,  where  the  number  of  luxury  buyers  is  increasing.  This  affects  the  demands  for  home  furniture 
since more people now have the financial strength to decorate their homes. 

Communication  strategy  beyond  advertising.  The  key  players  also  attempt  to  gain  credibility  in  local 
markets  and  thereby  they  build  tacit  endorsement  for  their  products  through  the  sponsorship  of  activities, 
conferences  and  campaigns,  undertaken  by  local  professional  bodies.  Trade  fairs,  web-site  advertising, 
magazines,  newsletters  and  TV  programmes  are  the  most  common  methods  used  to  promote  furniture 
sector.  Furniture  fairs  are  highly  effective  means  of  reaching  potential  customers,  although  this  can  be 
expensive. An innovative strategy is expected to be implemented in some IKEA stores, based on an interactive 
television that allows viewers to purchase advertised products with just their remote controls. 

2.5.4  Current  and  future  potential  for  market  penetration  of  EU 
Ecolabel and GPP 

In  2013,  more  than  four  years  after  of  the  approval  of  the  ecological  criteria  for  the  award  of  the  EU 
Ecolabel  to  wooden  furniture,  the  online  EU  Ecolabel  catalogue  revealed  that  only  two  companies  had 
successfully applied for licenses (1 in Italy and 1 in Poland). These licenses cover atotal of 39 products (38 in 
Italy and 1 in Poland). The lack of furniture products certified in the market is in part due to the exclusion of 
both  non-wooden  furniture  and  wooden  furniture  with  less  of  90%  w/w  of  solid  wood  or  wood-based 
materials. As described in section 2.4.2 (see Figure 9), from statistical data analyzed from Eurostat it can be 
deduced that more than 20% of EU production is non-wooden furniture, and hence this significant share of 
the market is excluded from the scope. Although more than 56% of the production is classified as wooden 
furniture,  few  products  are  composed  at  least  by  90%  of  wood.  A  market  questionnaire  was  provided  to 
European stakeholders (mainly manufacturers and furniture associations) in order to determine the average 
composition  of  different  types  of  furniture:  domestic  indoor  furniture,  domestic  outdoor  furniture, 
professional  office  furniture,  school  furniture  and  hotels  and  restaurants  furniture.  The  results  of  the 
questionnaires  are  shown  in  Table  14.  The  materials  used  can  vary  considerably  depending  on  the  type  of 
furniture and on its intended use, Stakeholders generally agree that in most of the cases wooden represents 
below 90% w/w. Among the nine stakeholders who answered the questionnaire, two of them were European 
furniture  associations  (stakeholders  number  5  and  8)  who  represent  over  2,900  furniture  manufacturing 
companies. The other seven stakeholders are furniture manufacturing companies. The average of the results 
shows  that  wooden  is  the  main  material  used  for  all  types  of  furniture,  especially  for  domestic  indoor 
furniture (72% by weight). Metal is usually the second material most used, in particular for school furniture 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

50 

 
 
(37%  by  weight)  and  office  furniture  (28%),  while  plastic  is  used  mostly  for  outdoor  furniture  (27%  by 
weight).   

Table 14. Percentage of weight of the component materials in different types of furniture 

Type of furniture 

Material 

Domestic indoor 
furniture 
(%) 

Domestic outdoor 
furniture 
(%) 

Professional office 
furniture 
(%) 

School furniture 
(%) 

Restaurant & Hotel 
furniture 
(%) 

Stakeholder nº 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

75  75 

15  20 

5 

5 

5 

0 

30  30 

40  30 

20  40 

10  0 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

60  75  90  60  70 

10  8 

5  20  5 

25  3 

5  20  5 

5  14  0 

0  20 

40  30 

25  30 

30  30 

5  10 

- 

- 

- 

- 

75  75 

5 

5 

20  20 

0 

0 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Wooden 

Metal 

Plastic 

Other 

Wooden 

Metal 

Plastic 

Other 

Wooden 

35  68  30  45  45  85  60  80  30 

Metal 

Plastic 

Other 

Wooden 

Metal 

Plastic 

Other 

Wooden 

Metal 

Plastic 

Other 

30  30  40  25  40  10  30  10  40 

25  2  15  25  5 

5  10  5  10 

10  0  15  5  19  0 

0 

5  20 

35 

30 

25 

10 

35 

30 

25 

10 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

25  35  40 

55  45  50 

15  15  5 

5 

5 

5 

- 

- 

- 

- 

50  40 

35  20 

15  20 

5  20 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

50  80  40 

30  10  40 

20  10  20 

0 

0 

0 

50  60  40 

30  5  20 

20  5  20 

0  30  20 

Average 

72 

12 

10 

6 

47 

23 

27 

4 

53 

28 

11 

7 

44 

37 

11 

4 

46 

23 

18 

14 

Source: Market questionnaires answered by furniture manufacturers and furniture associations 

Alternatively, in order to complete the data gathered from the market questionnaires a market research has 
been  done.  According  to  the  Swedish  furniture  industry  the  average  Swedish  furniture  product  consists  of 
70w%  wood  (-based  material),  15w%  padding  materials (mainly  polyurethane  and  polyester foam),  10w% 
metals and 5 w% other materials (plastics, textiles, glass, etc.). In addition, in the current EU Ecolabel there is 
a criterion that restricts the weight of non-wooden materials to 3% of the total weight of the product, and 
the  total  combined  weight  of  such  materials  shall  not  exceed  10%  of  the  total  weight  of  the  product.  For 
example, the amount of  metals in office or school furniture is much higher and as a consequence a lot of 
products are excluded from the scope.  

Concerning  Green  Public  Procurement  (GPP),  in  2008  the  European  Commission  set  a  target  that,  by 
2010, 50% of all public tendering procedures should be compliant with core EU GPP criteria for ten priority 
product  groups,  including  furniture.  In  2011  the  European  Commission  commissioned  a  study  in  order  to 
verify if the target of 50% has been met. Due to the lack of statistics on GPP in the Member States, a survey 
was  conducted  over  850  public  authorities  from  26  EU  countries  (all  except  Luxembourg).  The  study30 
collected  information  on  151  furniture  contracts  signed  by  public  authorities in  2009-2010,  which  91%  of 
the contracts were for indoor furniture and 7% for outdoor furniture. The remaining 2% it was not specified. 
The results of the study indicate that only 14% of European furniture contracts comply with all EU core GPP 
criteria and about 50% of furniture contracts include at least one EU core GPP criterion. In terms of monetary 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

51 

 
 
value, contracts including all GPP core criteria represented 25% of the sample while 41% contain at least one 
GPP  core  criterion.  Figure  27  shows  in  more  detail  the  percentage  of  furniture  contracts  by  country  that 
include at least one GPP core criterion and those ones that takes into account all GPP core criteria.  

At least one GPP core criterion

All GPP core criteria

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

s
u
r
p
y
C

h
c
e
z
C

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

i

n
a
p
S

d
n
a
n
i
F

l

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
l
a
t
I

d
n
a
o
P

l

n
e
d
e
w
S

i

a
n
e
v
o
l
S

Figure 27. Number of furniture contracts (%) by country including at least one GPP core criterion 

or all GPP core criteria 

Source: data processed from “The uptake of Green Public Procurement in the EU-27” report.  Centre for 
European Policy Studies in collaboration with College of Europe. February 2012.30 

The data gathered from Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal and Slovak Republic has not been considered because 
they  did  not  provide  sufficient  information.  In  addition,  the  countries  that  reported  less  than  5  furniture 
contracts have not been taken into account. These countries are Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, 
Lithuania,  Latvia,  Malta,  Romania  and  the  UK.  As  regards  the  inclusion  of  all  GPP  core  green  criteria  in  a 
furniture  contract,  the  best  performing  country  in  2009-2010  was  Denmark  (50%),  followed  by  France 
(44%),  Belgium  (40%),  Italy  (20%),  Sweden  (20%),  Cyprus  (14%)  and  Germany  (5%),  while  countries  like 
Spain, Finland, Czech Republic, Poland and Slovenia did not have any furniture contract including all GPP core 
criteria. In addition to that, Italy is the best performer when it comes to the inclusion of at least one GPP core 
criterion  for  furniture,  as  all  of  the  contracts  reported  include  at  least  one  GPP  core  criterion.  The  worst 
country in terms of GPP  was Czech Republic, which  did not include any GPP  core  criterion in their furniture 
contracts.  

Within  The  uptake  of  Green  Public  Procurement  in  the  EU-27  study  the  following  four  core  criteria  were 
analyzed: 1)  the  maximum level  of  substances  harmful  to  human  health  or the  environment; 2)  packaging 
materials; 3) durability and/or reparability 4) legally sourced timber; with the aim to determine their level of 
uptake.  The  criteria  most  used  in  furniture  contracts  by  public  authorities  are  the  harmful  substances 
(included  in  the  30%  of  tenders)  and  packaging  materials (30%),  followed  by  durability  and/or  reparability 
(28%) and finally requirements on the sustainable and lawful origin of timber (21%).  

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

52 

 
 
 
 
Currently,  some  initiatives are  being  developed  in  order  to  promote  GPP  such  as  in  Basque  country,  where 
IHOBEa with the support of Habic Clusterb have initiated a review process to modify the current criteria in the 
public procurement, with the aim to introduce more environmental criteria in upcoming furniture contracts.     

In  summary  it  can  be  said  that  the  current  market  context  is  favorable  both  to  host  Ecolabel  furniture 
products  and  to  promote  GPP.  Companies  gradually  understand  that  consumers  really  want  products  that 
respect  the  environment.  However,  to  achieve  a  significant  impact  the  consumer  must  be  well  informed  to 
understand what the Ecolabel represents. If it is done right, Ecolabel can be an added value for the product 
placed on the furniture market. 

2.5.5 Consumer behaviour 

The aim of this section is the identification and prioritization of the factors affecting the consumer behaviour 
in the purchase of furniture products. The factors that actually influence the consumer choice of the furniture 
are  analyzed  here.  The  analysis  of  consumer  trends  is  becoming  a  basic  input  for  furniture  companies  to 
correctly  orient  their offer and succeed  with  their  products.  Consumer trends  help  to  predict  which  product 
could  be  launched  and  to  determine  the  response  from  potential  users.  Also,  user  behaviour  must  be 
analyzed  to  assess  the  degree  of  acceptance  of  EU  Ecolabelled  products.  Consumer  trends  are  presented 
below  with  the  aim  to  understand  better  consumer  preferences.  In  order to  reach  this  purpose  a  literature 
review has been conducted.  

2.6 Factors that influence consumer preferences 

One  of  the  major  issues  for  the  furniture  industry  is  to  understand  the  consumer  preferences.  As  a 
consequence of the internationalization of enterprises, manufacturers are faced with a need to analyze new 
markets they are going to enter. Consumer behaviour should be well known and taken into account when a 
furniture  product  is  designed  with  the  aim  to  grab  the  consumer’s  sympathy  and  attention,  and  hence  to 
satisfy their preferences. The major factors that influence user’s behaviour can be grouped in the following: 

Personal: age, occupation, economic circumstances, lifestyle, personality  
Social: family, roles, status 
Psychological: motivation, perception, learning, attitudes 

 
 
 
  Cultural: culture, subculture and social classes.  

Manufacturing companies entering foreign markets have to keep in mind the influence of the cultural factors 
in  consumer  choice,  e.g.  aesthetic  perceptions  can  be  different.  User  behavior  may  vary  among  different 
societal groups or even from country to country. For example, Scandinavian countries generally prefer simple 
geometric furniture, bright mild colors and natural materials like wood.  

Furniture  must  meet  several  basic  criteria  to  satisfy  consumer’s  behaviour:  it  should  be  comfortable, 
functional and affordable, appropriate for its purpose, have a minimum level of quality, and there should be 
enough space for the furniture. Moreover, more and more consumers take sustainability as a relevant factor 
in their consumer intent and behaviour.   

aa IHOBE is the Basque Environmental Management Authority 
b Habic  is  the  cluster  of  Habitat  and  the  Contract  of  the  Basque  country,  which  brings  together  the  main 
furniture companies  

53 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

 
 
 
                                           
According  to  previous  studies31  related  to  the  user  behaviour  in  furniture  choice,  quality,  price  and  the 
appearance factor are positioned among the top 3 considered by the buyers. The table below summarizes the 
main roles of the appearance factor for consumers.   

Table 15. Roles of the appearance factor for consumers 

Appearance role 

Attention-grabbing 

Categorization 

Functional 

Ergonomic 

Aesthetic 

Symbolic 

Influence on consumers 

Draw consumer attention in store or internet 
Influence ease of categorization 
Offer possibility for differentiation from the product category 
Show features/ functionalities 
Serve as a cue for features/ functionalities 
Serve as a cue for technical quality 
Show parts for consumer-product interaction 
Show consequences of use of overall appearance aspects (e.g. size, 
roundedness) 
Serve as a basis for aesthetic appreciation 
Fit with home interior and other products owned 
Serve as a basis for symbolic product associations 
Communicate brand image 

Source: Adapted from the report “The consumers’ furniture preferences in different markets”. 2011. Daria 
Troian. University of Trento31 

According to the previous study mentioned, the aesthetic and symbolic roles were considered most important 
for  consumers.  Price  has  been  always  an  important  factor,  especially  in  a  difficult  economic  situation.  The 
current recession is affecting many families, who cannot afford new furniture. The sale of less houses causes 
that there are less consumers who need new furniture. Also consumers’ preferences differ in function of the 
socioeconomic,  psychological  and  cultural  characteristics.  Other  factors,  such  as  the  product  availability, 
information availability, access, speed of delivery or amount of shopping time required, have an impact on 
the choice of a retail environment. 

One  particular  study32  describes  which  factors  affect  the  customers’  decision  to  visit  IKEA,  the  largest 
furniture retailer, and  how these factors in the retail environment affect customer experience. The findings 
indicate that consumers who choose to purchase in IKEA base their decision mainly on cost-advantages and 
the size of assortment. Social factors with along social activities also have an impact on the customers. The 
availability of café, restaurants and a baby-sitting service are services well-valued by customers. 

2.6.1  Environmental  factor,  a  new  trend  affecting  consumer 
behaviour  

The  following  paragraphs  are  focused  on  the  Italian  consumer  behaviour,  which  is  considered  one  of  the 
most important furniture markets, both in Europe and worldwide. According to the results extracted from a 
report performed by FederlegnoArredoc added values such as environmental issues, technological innovation, 
web  2.0  and  certifications  (safety,  Made  in  Italy,  social  responsibility,  etc)  are  considered  in  the  consumer 
choice. 2500 purchasing managers were asked for which features or added-values they would be willing to 
pay  10%  more.  From  Figure  28    it  can  be  observed  that  the  most  accepted  characteristic  for  which 

c  Federlegno-Arredo  is  the  Italian  Federation  of  Wood,  Cork,  Furniture  and  Furnishing  Industries  and 
represents  the  entire  woodworking  and  furniture  industry,  from  raw  materials  to  finished  products.  It  is  the 
official dialogue partner of public and private institutions both in Italy and abroad. 

54 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

 
 
                                           
consumers are willing to pay extra is the warranty that replacement furniture parts would be provided for a 
minimum number of years (nearly 32% of the consumers). The second feature most accepted (about 31% of 
consumers)  is  the  use  of  natural  materials.  The  bar  graphs  represented  in  green  are  those  characteristics 
related to environmental aspects.  

Use of recycled materials and recyclable product

Furniture product with low CO2 emissions

Provide detailed specifications of the product

Manufacturer is environmentally responsible

The origin of the wood guarantees sustainability

Made in Italy certification/label

Company with social responsibility certification

Product without hazard substances

Product with safety certification

Use of natural material

Replacement parts

10.1% 

10.4% 

14.0% 

18.5% 

19.5% 

21.8% 

25.2% 

27.7% 

28.7% 

30.8% 

31.9% 

Figure 28. Characteristics that consumers are willing to pay 10% more for furniture products 
Source: adapted from the report “Voglio di Più. Ambiente, Tecnologia e Web 2.0”. FederlegnoArredo. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

The second part of the study analyzes the consumer behaviour focused on the following four environmental 
characteristics: 

a)  Sustainable origin of the wood 
b)  Use of recycled materials and recyclable products 
c)  Furniture produced with low CO2 emissions   
d)  Environmentally responsible manufacturer 

The purchasing managers were asked whether they are willing to pay 10% more for a furniture product with 
at  least  two  of  the  environmental  characteristics  mentioned  above.  Around  11.9%  of  Italian  consumers 
(equating  to  about  3.3  million  Italians)  were  willing  to  pay  more  for  furniture  with  lower  environmental 
impacts. The most popular characteristics were sustainable origin of wood combined with an environmentally 
responsible  manufacturer  (3.2%).  Among  the  respondents  who  are  willing  to  pay  more,  about  76%  have 
medium-high and very high incomes. It is interesting to remark that  consumers receptive to environmental 
protection generally consult relevant websites to find detailed specifications of the product, when comparing 
to those consumers with less environmental awareness. Table 16 summarizes the results of the survey.  

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 16. Environmental preferences of the Italian furniture consumers 

Sustainable 
origin of the 
wood 

Use of 
recycled 
materials and 
recyclable 
products 

Furniture 
produced with 
low CO2 
emissions 

Environmentally 
responsible 
manufacturer 

Purchasing managers 

Number 

Percentage 
(%) 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

893000 

530000 

446000 

223000 

223000 

223000 

195000 

195000 

167000 

167000 

28000 

3,2 

1,9 

1,6 

0,8 

0,8 

0,8 

0,7 

0,7 

0,6 

0,6 

0,1 

Source: adapted from the report “Voglio di Più. Ambiente, Tecnologia e Web 2.0”. FederlegnoArredo. 

TOTAL 

3290000 

11,9 

The  study  showed  that  consumers are  not  aware  of  the  environmental  specifications  of  furniture  products 
that they purchase. This is partly due to a lack of ecolabels/certification schemes used in the furniture sector. 
The  survey  reflects  that  there  is  a  high  potential  to  improve  consumer  awareness  of  ecofriendly  furniture 
products given that (11.9% of consumers would accept to pay more for a more sustainable product.  

Further  supporting  evidence  for  this  claim  comes  from  results  of  a  recent  Chinese  survey33,  which  show  a 
growing awareness and demand for green proiducts. China is the worlds leading furniture producer, leading 
exporter to the EU-27 and the fifth country for importing EU furniture. According to the Global Green Brands 
survey  201134,  the  interest  of  European  markets  to  buy  environmentally  friendly  products  has  grown 
compared to previous years as well as the predisposition of a higher payment for their purchase. In Germany, 
30%  of  respondents  of  this  study  said  they  had  bought  more  green  goods  in  the  current  year  than  in 
previous, up from 21% in 2010. Despite this, we must evaluate each case separately because, for example, in 
the  United  Kingdom,  40%  of  respondents  said  they  were  not  willing  to  buy  a  more  expensive  product  just 
because  it  is  green.  The  environmental  situation  of  each  country  affects  the  consciousness  of  users  and 
therefore the demand and willingness to pay for these products.  

In survey published in the 2011 IKEA Sustainability Report of 8500 consumers and 1250 IKEA co-workers in 
eight countries across three  continents aimed to  understand perceptions of the brand and its sustainability 
efforts. The results showed that consumers would welcome help from IKEA on integrating sustainability into 
their lives at home. They also wanted IKEA to take an active role beyond the company’s own operations. In 
2012, IKEA carried out a research study among 10000 consumers and co-workers in Europe, China and the 
United States. The main findings, published in the 2012 IKEA Sustainability Report, are that:  

  Over 70% of consumers surveyed cared about sustainability,  
  A  significant  proportion  of  consumers  (35%)  felt  that  they  could  do  more  to  purchase 

environmentally friendly products but cost is seen as a barrier for some (20%).  

  Customers would like retailers to prioritize sustainability issues, such as renewable energy, product 

durability and sustainable wood.   

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.7 Concluding remarks on the furniture market analysis 

The market report outlines the following key characteristics of the EU furniture sector:  

The EU-27 furniture production covers over 20% of the  world total, being Italy and  Germany the third and 
fourth major producers over the world, after China and the United States. More than half (55%) of the world 
furniture production takes place in middle and low income countries. 

The  stagnation  in  production  will  continue  in  2013  with  the  exception  of  Eastern  Europe  and  Scandinavian 
countries.  Central  European  countries and  the  United  Kingdom  will  remain  stable,  while  southern  countries, 
especially Spain and Italy, will further slowdown. 

The most common material used in the furniture sector is wood (56% of the pieces of furniture produced in 
the EU 27 in  2011 are  based on wood, which represent  56% of the  production value).  Metal is the second 
material most commonly used in the furniture industry (12% of items produced and 17% of the production 
value), followed by plastic (6% of items produced and 1% of the production value) and other materials (1% 
of  items  produced  and  negligible  production  value)  like  bamboo,  cannier,  osier,  glass.  The  remaining  25% 
represents materials which are not specified within the PRODCOM database. 

18% of the pieces of furniture manufactured in 2011 in the EU-27 are composed of wooden furniture used 
in  dining  rooms,  living  rooms  and  bedrooms  (20%  by  value).  Other  important  production  subsectors  are 
kitchen  furniture  (15%  by  number,  18%  by  value),  non-upholstered  seats  (14%  by  number,  8%  by  value), 
office furniture (9% by number, 12% by value), upholstered seats (8% by number, 15% by value) mattress 
supports (3% by number, 2% by value) and wooden furniture for shops (2% by number, 6% by value). About 
31% is represented by unspecified furniture (19% by value). 

The total furniture imports and exports in the EU27 area significantly declined in the period between 2008 
and  2009.  However,  signs  of  recovering  imports  were  observed  in  2011.  The  largest  European  furniture 
exporters are Italy and Germany (42% of total EU27), while the largest importer is Germany (21% of total 
EU27). China is the major supplier to the EU27 (55.4 % of EU imports). 

New  opportunities  will  appear  for  furniture  exporters  due  to  an  increasing  demand  in  emerging  countries. 
However import taxes can hamper such a development. Competition from Asia, and most importantly China, 
is intensifying, and the pressure on prices is high. 

Although wood is the most common material used, the pieces of furniture also contain other materials. The 
requirement of 90% content by weight of wood or wooden-based material is considered too restrictive by the 
manufacturers. 

Based on the segmentation of the furniture market, it is considered reasonable to widen the scope of the EU 
Ecolabel criteria in order to cover a much broader share of the furniture market and to respond better to the 
expectations of the potential licence holders. The product group shall include furniture based on wood, metal, 
plastic and other materials (e.g. bamboo, cannier, osier). Furniture can also contain other components made, 
for instance, of textiles, glass or stone. 

The  scope  of  the  EU  Ecolabel  criteria  should  be  extended  to  cover  furniture  in  general,  not  only  wooden 
furniture. The current market context is favorable to host Ecolabel products. Companies gradually understand 
that  consumers  want  to  buy  products  that  respect  the  environment.  Issues  concerning  sustainability  and 
environmentally-friendly design are  becoming a  very important part of the furniture  design and  production 
process. However, to achieve a significant impact, the consumers must be well informed to understand what 
the Ecolabel represents.  

The uptake of EU core GPP criteria varies across countries. For the period 2009-2010, Denmark was the top 
performer as regards the inclusion of all GPP core criteria, with a share of 50%, followed by France (44%) 
and Belgium (40%). Only 14% of the furniture contracts  respond to EU  core GPP criteria, thus not meeting 
the target of 50% set at the EU level by 2010.  

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

57 

 
3 LCA screening 

When  the  existing  criteria  of  wooden  furniture  were  set  (2008)35  several  environmental  studies  were 
analysed. From that analysis it resulted that the main environmental issues of relevance for furniture are use 
of energy and sourcing of wood. Key environmental impacts for EU GPP criteria were identified as follows36:  

 

 

 

Loss of biodiversity and soil erosion and degradation, as a result of unsustainable forest management 
and illegal logging; 

Landscape impact from mining activities; 

Consumption  of  non-renewable  resources  such  as  metals  and  fossil  hydrocarbons  for  energy  and 
material production; 

  Water and energy consumption for the production of several materials; 

 

 

 

 

Use and release of hazardous substances during production, use and end-of-life; 

Use of organic solvents and further generation of VOC emissions; 

Packaging; 

Early  replacement  of  furniture  due  to  a  lack  of  reparability  options,  low  durability, bad  ergonomics or 
unsatisfactory fit for use. 

For the current revision of the EU Ecolabel and GPP criteria, a comprehensive review of available Life Cycle 
Assessment  (LCA)  studies  for  furniture  products  has  been  done.  Life  Cycle  Assessment  studies  allow  the 
identification  of  potential  environmental  impacts  of  furniture  products  along  all  life  cycle  stages.  This 
analysis in particular aims at identifying main envrionmental areas of concern and lifecycle hot-spots for the 
products  within  the  scope  of  this  revision  and  at  estimating  environmental  improvement  potential  of 
measures applicable in different lifecycle stages. 

A review of all LCA covering both wood and non-wood furniture (made of other materials) has been done. The 
goal of the LCA screening was to select those studies that comply with methodological and quality standards 
in order to establish a robust basis for the criteria revision process.  

This  screening  consisted  in  the  collection  of  all  available  literature  and  the  further  selection  of  studies 
through  a  set  of  criteria  covering  issues  as  methodology  followed  and  relevance  of  scope,  environmental 
indicators considered and outcomes of the assessment. Main results and outcomes were analysed carefully 
in order to draw common conclusions for this product group. 

The literature is abundant of studies that deal with the LCA of furniture or with issues related to the furniture 
sector. Research has focused on studies of furniture made of different materials in order to substantiate the 
potential  extension  of  the  scope  to  other  types  of  furniture.Studies  refer  to  the  main  materials  used  in 
furniture: wood and wood-based panels; metals and plastics. Some other components such as glass, textiles 
and foam materials are also included within the scope of some studies. 

3.1 Number and type of publications / lca studies analysed 

From  a  preliminary  review  of  the  literature,  109  documents  of  potential  relevance  have  been  found  and 
analysed: 

  13 Product Category Rules (PCR)  

  35 Environmental Product Declarations (EPD) 

  61 studies potentially related to LCA of furniture. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

58 

 
 
The information gathered includes: 

 

 

 

 

Papers and reports on the environmental performance of different pieces of furniture; 

Papers and reports focused on specific lifecycle stages (e.g. forestry, coating, finishings, end of life);  

Environmental Product Declarations and PCRs; 

Eco-design or sectoral guidelines based on LCA approaches. 

All  the  scope  of  these  studies  covers:  upholstered  and  not  upholstered  chairs,  desks,  tables, 
wardrobes/cabinets, kitchen furniture, bedroom furniture and wood panels. The analysed pieces of furniture 
are generally based on wood, wooden-based materials, metals (aluminium and steel) and plastics. Regarding 
the application, a big part of the studies refer to office and indoor domestic furniture. 

3.1.1  Product  Category  Rules  and  Environmental  Product 
Declarations (EPDs) for furniture. 

Thirteen  Product  Category  Rules  documents  have  been  found  for  furniture  category  belonging  to  different 
international EPD schemes. Complete  EPDs have been found for 35 product s on the market, with some of 
them referring to different  design options (See Appendix II. Full LCA screening data and  for the full list 
of PCRs (Table 46) and EPDs (Table 47)). 

30 EPDs refer to chairs and tables. Apart from one "cradle-to-gate" EPD for a chair, 29 EPDs state to cover all 
life cycle of products from "cradle to grave". Nevertheless, only 20 of these 29 EPDs takes into account for 
maintenance and cleaning of the product during the use phase and only 16 EPDs consider impacts from end-
of-life. This exclusion is justified by the fact that these stages have low contribution to the overall impact and 
they are out of the control of the company. 

For panels,  the  five  EPDs have  a  scope  from cradle-to-grave, but  use  stage  is almost  completely  excluded 
because considered to present no significant impacts. Only the emission of formaldehyde during use stage is 
detailed in EPDs. The end-of-life scenario is valorisation in a biomass power plant with energy recovery for all 
EPDs. 

3.1.2 LCA and environmental studies 

61  studies  potentially  related  to  the  LCA  of  furniture  have  been  found  in  the  literature.  Most  of  the  LCA 
studies  are  developed  in  accordance  with  the  ISO  14040  guidelines.  Nevertheless,  not  all  of  them  are 
complete LCA studies referring to real case studies. Some of the studies, indeed, present a more theoretical 
approach,  sometimes  focusing  on  specific  issues  such  as  allocation.  There  are  few  studies  that  do  not 
analyse furniture but focus on the production of materials or on specific processes, such as forestry, surface 
coatings or recycling. 

The majority of LCA studies are attributional LCA, since they quantify the environmental impacts generated 
during  the  life  cycle  of  a  single  piece  of  furniture  without  taking  into  account  for  rebound  effects. 
Nevertheless, a consequential approach has been applied  in some studies, for instance, in order to evaluate 
the  consequences  associated  with  reuse  and  remanufacturing,  with  the  location  of  components 
manufacturing, with the content of recycled material or with the application of different coating processes, 
among others. 

The studies have been classified in different categories, according to the type of furniture/material and the 
parameter  assessed  (See  the  complete  list  of  studies  in  Appendix  II. Full LCA screening data and 
tables in Table 48). 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

59 

 
 
 
3.1.3 Screening of the quality of LCA studies 

An analysis of the quality and the applicability of the above mentioned LCA and environmental studies have 
been carried out. A general methodology was defined for the LCA screening in order to select the LCA studies 
and gather the information that would be used in the technical analysis. Five steps have been followed: 

Step 1: Preliminary identification of key environmental issues 

A set of key environmental indicators to focus on were preliminarily identified based on: 

 

 

PCRs available for this product group; 

Preliminary screening of studies where impacts have been normalised and other relevant documents 
providing scientific basis for the selection of indicators (for further details see 3.2. Preliminary 
identification of key environmental issues). 

Step 2: Screening of studies: 

 

Studies  that  do  not  satisfy  minimal  cut-off  requirements  (scope,  impacts,  outcomes)  were 
disregarded; 

  A scoring system was used to evaluate the quality of the studies that passed the first level of 

screening. An overall score was calculated based on 6 parameters: scope, data, impacts, outcomes, 
robustness and review of the study (see table below). A score from 1 to 5 was assigned to each 
parameter (See Table 49 for the detailed cut-off and scoring criteria in Appendix II. Full LCA 
screening data and tables). 

  Quality  of  the  studies  was  considered  satisfactory  when  the  overall  score  was  higher  than  15. 

Studies were ranked based on the overall score obtained. 

Step 3: Review of steps 1 and 2 

  Based  on  the  outcomes  of  step  2,  it  was  checked  that  key  environmental  areas  were  correctly 

identified at step 1. 

Step 4: Findings related to the key environmental issues identified  

  Outcomes  from  studies  of  satisfactory  quality  were  grouped  by  product  analysed  and  by  key 
environmental  indicators.  These  studies  allowed  gaining  relevant  information  for  one  or  more 
environmental areas.  

Step 5: Filling information gaps 

Some  of  the  disregarded  studies  could  be  however  analysed  if  they  allow  gaining  information  on  other 
specific  issues  of  relevance  (e.g.  hazard  materials).  Additional  research  would  be  necessary  to  fill  any 
potential gap of information. 

3.2. Preliminary identification of key environmental issues 

In  a  first  stage  of  the  screening, a  set  of  key  environmental  indicators  of  relevance  for this  product  group 
have  been  identified  based  on  the  observation  of  relevant  documents  of  reference,  available  PCRs for  this 
product group and studies where impacts have been normalized. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

60 

 
 
 
3.2.1  Recommendations  on  broadness  and  appropriateness  of 
impact assessment metrics 

References  for  the  evaluation  of  broadness  and  appropriateness  of  impact  assessment  metrics  have  been 
defined, for instance, in the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Guide37. The document proposes a set of 
14 environmental impact categories to take into account  to perform a  coherent life cycle assessment of a 
product. Recommended impact categories and related assessment methods are provided in accordance with 
ILCD Handbook: 

1.  Climate Change 

2.  Ozone Depletion 

EF Impact Category 

Table 17. Categories and impact methods recommended by the PEF guidelines. 
PEF Impact Assessment Model 
Bern model - Global  Warming Potentials 
(GWP) over a 100 year  time horizon. 
EDIP model based on the ODPs of the World 
Meteorological Organization (WMO) 
over an infinite time horizon. 
USEtox model 
USEtox model 
USEtox model 
RiskPoll model 
Human Health effect model 
LOTOS-EUROS model 
Acumulated Exceedance model 
Acumulated Exceedance model 
EUTREND mode 
Swiss Ecoscarcity model 
CML2002 model 
Soil Organic Matter (SOM) model 

3.  Ecotoxicity for aquatic fresh water 
4.  Human Toxicity - cancer effects 
5.  Human Toxicity – non-cancer effects 
6.  Particulate Matter/Respiratory Inorganics 
7. 
Ionising Radiation – human health effects 
8.  Photochemical Ozone Formation 
9.  Acidification 
10.  Eutrophication – terrestrial 
11.  Eutrophication – aquatic 
12.  Resource Depletion – water 
13.  Resource Depletion – mineral, fossil 
14.  Land Transformation 

The  PEF  guide  also  indicates  that,  depending  on  the  product  system  and  on  the  intended  application,  it  is 
possible  to  narrow  the  number  of  impact  categories  considered.  Such  exclusions  should  be  supported  for 
instance by: international consensus processes; previous studies of similar systems; Product Categories Rule 
from other initiatives/ schemes; normalization of results. 

3.2.2  Analysis  of  Product  Category  Rule  documents  for  furniture 
products 

In order to select a set of key indicators for this product group, PCRs for furniture and related products have 
been  analysed.  All  PCR  documents  (see  Table  46.  List  of  Product  Category  Rules  for  furniture  in 
Appendix  II. Full LCA screening data and tables)  refer  to  some  common  impact  categories,  whose 
quantification  must  be  shown  in  EPDs  compulsorily.  All  PCRs prescribe  the  use  of  the  IPCC  method  for  the 
assessment  of  the  impact  on  climate  change, and  the  CML 2001  method  for the  characterization  of  other 
impact categories, as indicated in Table 18. Besides these five impact categories, other specific indicators are 
asked for some furniture products groups. All PCRs request data on the use of resources as a flow indicator. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 18: Methods for the categorization of impact categories 

Information to provide from PCRs 

Method 

Unit 

Impact categories 
common for all PCRs 

Impact categories 
specific for some 
product group 

Information related 
to the consumption 
of resources 

EcoIndicator 95 

IPCC 
Greenhouse warming potential (GWP100 yr) 
CML 2001 
Ozone depletion potential (ODP) 
CML 2001 
Acidification potential (AP) 
Eutrophication potential (EP) 
CML 2001 
Photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP)  CML 2001 
Heavy metals 
Depletion of abiotic minerals and resources 
(Abiotic Depletion Potential, ADP)  
Human toxicity potential (HTP) 
Non-renewable resources:  
- material resources 
- energy resources 
Renewable resources:  
- material resources 
- energy resources 
Water use (including direct and indirect water 
consumption) 

CML 2001 

CML 2001 

- 

- 

- 

kg CO2 equiv 
kg CFC 11 equiv 
kg SO2 equiv 
kg PO4 equiv 
kg C2H4 equiv 
kg Pb-eq. 

kg Antimony eq. 

kg DCB-eq. 

kg 
MJ 

kg 
MJ 

L 

3.2.3 Normalisation results from LCA studies 

Results of some case studies were normalized to identify the impact categories providing a more significant 
contribution within the respective environmental issue of concern. 

In a French study that ADEME carried-out preliminarily to the establishment of product category rules and the 
application of product policy tools in the frameword of the Grenelle law  for bedding, upholstered seats and 
wood  furniture38,  normalisation  of  the  results  was  carried  out  using  an  average  of  French  and  European 
normalization methods (Ecobilan/Wisard 2002 and CML 2000, respectively). 

For  wood  furniture  it  was  found  difficult  to  identify  impact  categories  within  which  contributions  were 
relatively higher. Environmental issues of higher concern could be: production of hazardous waste, terrestrial 
toxicity, ozone depletion,  photochemical ozone creation.  However,  the  results obtained  seem indeed to vary 
considerably  between  the  case  studies  analysed.  What  can  be  observed  is  that  the  relative  contribution  is 
much less relevant for water consumption, aquatic toxicity and human toxicity.  

Figure 29. Normalised results for 3 wood furniture studies (different functional unit). 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

62 

 
 
 
 
 
For upholstered  seats,  four environmental  indicators  appear less  relevant: ozone  depletion,  aquatic  toxicity, 
human toxicity and hazardous waste. However, it must be remarked that normalization does not allow itself 
to assess the importance of impact categories in absolute terms. 

Figure 30. Normalised results for 3 upholstered chairs studied 

With normalised results, the study proposes a set of indicators according to the following exclusion criteria: 

- Failing to directly express the full characterization of an impact category (e.g. energy consumption or waste 
generation). 

- Lack of scientific consensus on impact models (e.g. toxicity categories). 

Table 19. Key environmental indicators for furniture products according to a study by ADEME 

Impact indicator 
Natural resources depletion 
Climate change 
Acidification 
Eutrophication  
Photochemical ozone formation 

Wooden furniture 
X 
X 
X 

X 

Upholstered seats 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 

However,  it  must  be  remarked  that  the  results  of  normalisation  only  allow  understanding  for  which 
categories  the  contributions  to  the  overall  impacts  of  a  geographic  area  are  higher,  without  indicating  the 
general concern related to a specific environmental issue.  

An LCA study of wooden desk for schools in Mexico49, performed normalization to compare the relative scale 
of each of the impacts associated to the production of the school desk. Each impact category was divided by 
the  normalization  factors  provided  within  the  CML  Baseline  2000  methods  and  referred  to  the  global 
estimations for 1995. The normalised values indicate that the impact categories contributing mostly to the 
impacts on a global scale are terrestrial ecotoxicity, abiotic resource depletion and global warming. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 31. Total normalized impacts of desk per impacts category 

Selected list of key environmental indicators 

On the basis of the analysis done, it is considered that the key impacts categories of reference for assessing 
the environmental impact of furniture products in the present study should be: 

1.  Greenhouse warming potential 

2.  Ozone depletion potential  

3.  Acidification potential  

4.  Photochemical ozone creation potential  

5.  Eutrophication potential (terrestrial and aquatic) 

It  must  be  noted  that  the  eutrophication  has  been  split  into  "terrestrial"  and  "aquatic".  This  is  because  the 
evaluation  of  this  impact  category  differs  based  on  the  assessment  method  considered.  For  instance,  PEF 
guide  and  ILCD  handbook  recommend  to  evaluate  terrestrial  and  and  aquatic  eutrophication  separately. 
Nevertheless, commonly used impact assessment methods consider these two categories together in a single 
impact category (as in the case of CML or ReCiPe).  

Depletion of abiotic resources also shows relevant contribution for the furniture product group both in studies 
where  normalisation  has  been  performed  and  in  PCRs.  Nevertheless,  this  is  not  considered  here  as  a  key 
environmental indicator because reporting consumption of resources is less frequent for this product group 
and usually only material flows are reported. 

3.3. Screening of potentially relevant LCA studies 

LCA studies have been screened in order to identify those that satisfy minimal requirements for quality and 
robustness and to select and rank the most relevant ones. The evaluation has concerned 61 studies and it 
has  been  performed  in  two  steps.  As  a  general  rule,  the  35  EPDs  are  not  analysed  through  this  scoring 
methodology, since they are verified studies and document, and they all comply the requirements of Product 
Category  Rules.  Nevertheless,  available  LCA  reports  supporting  the  development  of  some  EPDs  have  been 
considered in the screening. 

1) Minimal cut-off requirements have been set for: 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

64 

 
 
 
 

 

 

scope (functional unit properly defined and relevant for this revision, scope coherent with goal analysis, 
respect of ISO 14040 standard), 
impact assessment (satisfactory broadness or quality of the indicator(s) used in the analysis) and  

outcomes (relevant and applicable outcomes). 

Studies not passing these criteria have not been used to analyse the lifecycle hot-spots of furniture products. 
Nevertheless,  it  may  be  that  some  of  the  disregarded  studies  will  be  useful  for  dealing  with  some  issues 
relevant for the revision process (e.g. hazardous substances, forestry, waste treatment etc.).  

From the 61 studies found: 

 
 

 

15 have been considered to satisfy the minimal cut-off criteria set,  
12  have  not passed the  cut-off criteria but  could  be of  relevance for other issues to  deal along the 
revision process 
34 have been considered to have limited or no application in the revision process. 

2)  Quality  of  the  studies  passing  the  first  level  of  screening  has  been  evaluated  through  a 
scoring system. Six parameters have been taken into account: scope, data, impact assessment, outcomes, 
robustness of the study and critical review. 

For each parameter a score from 1 to 5 has been assigned as described in the table above. Quality of the 
studies has been considered satisfactory when the sum of the scores is higher than 15. 13 out of 15 studies 
have obtained a score higher than 15, as detailed later (see section0). 

3.3.1 Quality of indicators/impact categories  

The  Recommendations  of  the  ILCD  Handbook  have  been  consulted  in  order  to  evaluate  which  assessment 
methods  are  more  appropriate  to  quantify  impacts  for  each  of  the  environmental  categories  identified  in 
section  

3.2.3 Normalisation results from LCA studies.  Recommendations  also  provide  an  evaluation  of 
alternative methods. Impacts assessment methods are classified from A to E, where A represents the best in 
class methods. Classification criteria focus on scientific aspects and stakeholder acceptance. 

Scientific criteria are: 

1. Completeness of scope;  

2. Environmental relevance;  

3. Scientific robustness and certainty;  

4. Documentation, transparency and reproducibility;  

5. Applicability and  

6. Overall scientific acceptance (based on the other single scientific criteria). 

A  criterion  referring  to  stakeholder  acceptance  is  also  provided  since  degree  of  stakeholder  acceptance 
and suitability for communication in a business and policy contexts. 

A-to-E  classification  is  based  on  “expert  judgement”  including  consideration  of  the  importance  of  different 
criteria and sub criteria. For each criterion scoping is: 

A: Full compliance; B: Compliance in all essential aspects; C: Compliance in some aspects; D: Little compliance; 
E: No compliance 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

65 

 
 
Final  method  recommendations  have  been  made  in  the  ILCD  Handbook  based  on  the  criteria  presented.  A 
default  method  was  selected  as  recommendable  for  each  impact  category  and  classified  according  to  its 
maturity and appropriateness (level, I, II, III, interim).  

In  the  present  study,  the  overall  scientific  acceptance  has  been  considered  the  main  parameter  of 
evaluation  for  impact  assessment  methods.  The  cut-off  criteria  for  this  screening  is  that  the  study  must 
consider at least one indicator of interest (with respect to the impact categories identified in section  

3.2.3 Normalisation results from LCA studies)  and  all  the  indicators  of  interest  used  are  evaluated 
as at least C (average class) according to Recommendations of the ILCD Handbook. 

For Eutrophication, many characterisation models analysed in the ILCD document treat separately terrestrial 
and  aquatic  systems,  addressing  one  or  both  of  them.  Based  on  this,  the  pre-selection  of  characterisation 
models  for  eutrophication  is  shown  separately  for  the  two  sub  categories  terrestrial  and  aquatic 
eutrophication. However, most impact methods and studies expressed terrestrial and aquatic eutrophication 
as a single category expressed as total eutrophication.  

A  detailed  list  of  evaluated  methods  are  provided  in  Appendix  II. Full LCA screening data and tables. 
The table shows the evaluation of different assessment methods  (from A to E, referred to overall scientific 
acceptation) and the default method recommended for each of the impact categories identified before.  

3.4 Selection of LCA studies  

Each of the above mentioned studies has been analysed in order to check if cut-off requirements on scope, 
impact assessment and outcomes are matched () or not (x). The results of the assessment are reported in 
the following table. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

66 

 
 
 
Table 20. Evaluation of environmental studies gathered according to cut-off criteria 

Category 

Number/type 
of papers 

References COLOUR LEGEND: GREEN (selected study); ORANGE (disregarded 
study but could be useful); RED (disregarded study) 

Cut-
off 
scope 

Cut-
off 
impact
s 

Cut-off 
outcom
e 

Panels 

Furniture 
made of 
wood  

Wood 
products 

Forestry 

1 report 
laminate 

1 paper 
hardboard 

1 report MDF 
recycling 
1 paper MDF 

1 report MDF 

1 paper 
childhood set 

1 report desk 
(Italy) 
1 report 
Workplace: 
(Italy) 
1 report 
wardrobe (Italy) 
1 report 
wardrobe (Italy) 
1 report kitchen 
(Italy) 
1 report door 
(Italy) 

1 report. School 
desk 
4 papers of 
forestry in 
Ghana 

Cho, S., Huang, J.  An Investigation into Sustainable Building Materials – Laminate 
Wood. 2010 

x 

x 

González-García, S., Feijoo, G., Heathcote, C., Kandelbauer, A., Moreira, T. 
Environmental assessment of green hardboard production coupled with a laccase 
activated syste. Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 445e453 
Mitchell, A., Stevens, G.  Life Cycle Assessment of Closed Loop MDF Recycling: 
Microrelease Trial. 2009 
Rivela B, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2007): Life Cycle Inventory of Medium Density 
Fibreboard. Int J LCA 12 (3) 143–150 
Wilson, J.B., Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF): A Life-Cycle Inventory of 
Manufacturing Panels from Resource through Product, 2008 
González-García, S. ,  Raúl García Lozano, R.,  Moreira T., Gabarrell, X., Rieradevall, J., 
Feijoo, G., Murphy, R.J.  Eco-innovation of a wooden childhood furniture set: An 
example of environmental solutions in the wood sector. Science of the Total 
Environment 426 (2012) 318–326 
IGEAM - Unione Industriali Pordenone. Scrivania - MArtex LCA – VALUTAZIONE DEL 
CICLO DI VITA, 2010 

IGEAM - Unione Industriali Pordenone. Postazione di Lavoro Alea LCA – VALUTAZIONE 
DEL CICLO DI VITA, 2010 

IGEAM - Unione Industriali Pordenone. Armadio Mascagni – Dall’Agnese LCA – 
VALUTAZIONE DEL CICLO DI VITA, 2010 
IGEAM - Unione Industriali Pordenone. Armadio – Martex LCA – VALUTAZIONE DEL 
CICLO DI VITA, 2010 
IGEAM - Unione Industriali Pordenone. Cucina Samoa – Copat LCA – VALUTAZIONE 
DEL CICLO DI VITA 
IGEAM - Unione Industriali Pordenone. Ante – Acop LCA – VALUTAZIONE DEL CICLO DI 
VITA 
UNEP SETAC.  Life Cycle Assessment. A product-oriented method for sustainability 
analysisTraining Manual. 2008 

ESHUN J. F., POTTING J. and LEEMANS R. Sustainability of forestry and timber industry 
in Ghana. International Forestry Review Vol.12(4), 2010 

Eshun, J.F., Potting, J. , Leemans, R. LCA of the timber sector in Ghana: preliminary life 
cycle impact assessment (LCIA).  Int J Life Cycle Assess (2011) 16:625–638 
Eshun, J.F., Potting, J. , Leemans, R.  Inventory analysis of the timber industry in 
Ghana.  Int J Life Cycle Assess DOI 10.1007/s11367-010-0207-0 
Eshun, J.F., Potting, J. , Leemans, R.   Wood waste minimization in the timber sector of 
Ghana: a systems approach to reduce environmental impact.  JCP, 2012 

 

 

x 

x 

 

 

 

 

 

 

x 

 

x 

 

x 

x 

 

 

x 

x 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

x 

 

x 

x 

x 

 

 

 

x 

 

 

 

 

 

 

x 

 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Reasons for exclusion 

Building  applications.  Not  a  consistent  / 
complete  LCA  (approach)  as  defined  in 
ISO 14040 LCA 

Cradle-to-gate for a very specific product 
process. Endpoint indicators 
Only Life Cycle Inventory Data 

Door is out of the scope of the study 

in 

/  complete  LCA 
Not  a  consistent 
approach  as  defined 
ISO  14040. 
Generic  sustainability  assessment  on 
forestry in Ghana 
Specific  to  forestry  in  Ghana.  Results  no 
applicable to revision process 
Only LCI data 

Focused only on waste minimisation 

67 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. Preliminary Report  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 report on 
forestry 
1 report forestry 

1 report of 
forestry in 
Australia 
1 report / paper 

1 report 
(Grenelle) 
1 report wood 
applications 

2 reports / 
papers 

Preservativ
es 

General  

Furniture made of metal 

Furniture made of mixed 
materials 

8 reports / 
papers 

European forest institute. Energy, carbon and other material flows in the Life Cycle 
Assessment of Forestry and forest products. 2001 

LCA a challenge for forestry and forest products. 1995 

Tucker, S.N. ,  Tharumarajah, A.,May,  B. , England, J., , K. Paul, K.,  Hall, M.,  Mitchell, P., 
Rouwette, R., Seo, S.,  Syme, M.  Life Cycle Inventory of Australian Forestry and Wood 
Products. 2009 

Bolin, C.A., Smith, S.T.  Life Cycle Assessment Procedures and Findings for ACQ-
Treated Lumber 

ADEME (Agence de l’Envrinnement et de la Maltreise de l’Energie). Rapport d’étude 
PROPILAE – V1 – 2010. 

Vogtländer, J:G:, Life Cycle Assessment of Accoya® Wood and its application, 

Conway, C.C., Steelcase Green Product Development: 
An Early Stage Life Cycle Analysis Tool and Methodology. 2008 

Dietz, B.A., Life cycle assessment of office furniture products, 2005 

Center for Sustainable Systems. University of Michigan.  Life-Cycle Assessment of 
Office Furniture Products. Final report on the study of three Steelcase office furniture. 
2006 

Forest & Wood Products Research & Development Corporation. Review of the 
Environmental Impact of Wood Compared with Alternative Products Used in the 
Production of Furniture. 2003 
Indian Centre for Plastics in the Environment (ICPE). SUMMARY REPORT FOR LIFE 
CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF FURNITURE 
Kebbouche, Z., Tairi, A.,  Cherifi, A.,  Impact study and valorization of waste of metal 
furniture by the LCA method. 

x 

x 

x 

 

 

x 

X 

 

 

x 

 

x 

x 

x 

x 

 

 

 

X 

X 

 

x 

 

x 

Russell, S.N., Allwood, J.M.  Environmental evaluation of localising production as a 
strategy for sustainable development: a case study of two consumer goods in 
Jamaica. Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 1327e1338 

 

x 

Sahni, S., Boustani, A.,Gutowski, T.,, Graves, S. Furniture Remanufacturing and Energy 
Savings. 2010 

x 

x 

Suttie, E., Briefing note for Forestry Commission An update on Wood Plastic 
Composites (WPC). 2007 
Université M'Hamed Bougara Bourmerdès.Impact study and valorisation of waste of 
metal furniture by LCA method 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

 

x 

X 

 

 

x 

 

 

 

 

x 

x 

Review  of  LCAs  for  forestry  operations. 
Theoretical study 
of 
LCA. 
Not 
conference. Theoretical papers. 
Only LCI. Referring to Australia 

Proceeding 

forestry 

Very  specific  study.  Focused  on  Alkaline 
copper  quaternary  (ACQ)  preservative 
used for decking woods. 

Complete  LCA,  but  specific  for  building 
applications (window, deck, bridge) out of 
the scope 
Concerning the development of a tool for 
simplified LCAs. 
Preliminary  study  of  the  LCA  from  the 
company Steelcase. 

Review  of  LCAs.  Other  applications  than 
furniture. 

Focused on metal framework (office). 

Only  assessing  energy  consumption  (not 
other  impacts).  Useful  information  for 
energy  consumption  and  Life  Cycle 
Costing.  It  does  not  calculate any  of  key 
environmental  impacts  selected  as  cut-
off. 
Inventory  data  from  Steelcase  study. 
Useful 
energy 
consumption  and  Life  Cycle  Costing.  It 
key 
does  not 
environmental  impacts  selected  as  cut-
off. 
Not LCA. 

calculate  any 

information 

for 

of 

Simplied  LCA  study.  Focused  on  end-of-
life. Qualitative results 

68 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. Preliminary Report  

 
 
 
 
5 reports /papers 
chairs 

DONATI environmental awareness. EPD nr S-P-00154; EPD nr S-P-00155 
EPD nr S-P-00241; EPD nr S-P-00242. www.donati.eu/ambiente 

Gamage, G. B., 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 
(2008) 13:401–411 

Michelsen, O., Fet, A.M., Dahlsrud, A.  Eco-efficiency in extended supply chains: A case 
study of furniture production. Journal of Environmental Management 79 (2006) 290–
297 
Michelsen, O. Eco-efficiency in redesigned extended supply chains; furniture as an 
example. 2007 

 

 

X 

X 

 

 

X 

 

Michelsen, O. Investigation of relationships in a supply chain in order to improve 
environmental performance. 2007 

X 

X 

End  of 
reuse) 

life 

(including 

reports 

11 
papers 

/ 

Critchlow, J. End of life furniture sustainability. 2010 

Curran, A., Williams, I.B. The role of furniture and appliance re-use organisations in 
England and Wales. 2009 

Hong Ren, H., Thesis, M. Plastic Waste Recycling and  Greenhouse Gas Reduction 
Greenhouse. 2012 

Hopewell, J., Dvorak, R.,Kosior, E. Plastics recycling: challenges and opportunities. Phil. 
Trans. R. Soc. B 2009 364, 2115-2126 
JUNGMEIERG, MERL A , McDARBY F , GALLIS C, HOHENTHAL C, PETERSEN AK, SPANOS 
K.  End of Use and End of Life Aspects in LCA of Wood Products – Selection of Waste 
Management Options and LCA Integration 

Rivelaa, B., Moreira, T., Muñoz, I., Joan Rieradevall, J., Feijoo G. Life cycle assessment 
of wood wastes: A case study of ephemeral architecture. 2005 

Werner, F., Althaus, H-J., Richter, K. , Scholz, R.W.  Post-Consumer Waste Wood in 
Attributive Product LCA. 2007 

WRAP.  Benefits of Reuse Case Study: Domestic Furniture. 2011 

WRAP. Benefits of Reuse Case Study: Office Furniture. 2011 

WRAP. A methodology for quantifying the environmental and economic impacts of 
reuse 

Werner, F. Recycling of used wood - inclusion of end-of-life options in LCA. 

Temporary 
storage 

carbon 

reports 

2 
papers 

/ 

Brandão, M., Levasseur, A. Assessing Temporary Carbon Storage in Life Cycle 
Assessment and Carbon Footprinting. 2010 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

 

 

X 

X 

 

X 

X 

X 

X 

 

 

X 

 

 

X 

X 

X 

LCA report for the elaboration of EPD 

Focused on the roal of suppliers. Not LCA 
results 

Theoretical study 

on 

the 

only 

plastics 

referring 

Screening 
LCA 
to 
production.  Some  useful 
information 
supply-chain. 
for 
provided 
Assessment based on the single score of 
Ecoindicator'99. 
Not  a  LCA  study.  Focused  on  upholstery 
furniture in Australia. 
Paper  focused  on  the  analysis  of  Third 
sector  organisations  of  reused  furniture. 
No LCA results 
Study 
in 
recycling 
Copenhagen.  Very  narrow  scope.  No  LCA 
results 
Not  a  LCA  study.  Paper  on  plastic 
recycling (general, no furniture) 
Not  a  LCA  study.  Some  useful  data  on 
wood waste treatment in Europe (but not 
updated) 
Wood waste use for MDF. Cradle to gate 
scope.  Study  focused  on  ephemeral 
architecture. 
Theoretical  study  about  allocation  rules 
on wood materials 
Not  a  LCA  study  but  useful  because 
presenting  environmental  and  social 
benefits  due  to  reuse  (CO2,  resources 
and energy) 
Not a LCA but useful because presenting 
environmental and social benefits due to 
reuse (CO2, resources and energy) 

Theoretical study 

Theoretical study 

Theoretical study about carbon storage 

69 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. Preliminary Report  

 
 
 
 
Hot spots identification  6 

reports 

/ 

papers 

Perez-Garcia, J., Lippke, B., Comnick, J., Manriquez, C. An assessment of carbon pools, 
storage, and wood products market substitution using Life-Cycle analysis results. 
Andriola, L., Buonamici, R.,  Caropreso, G., Luciani, R., Masoni, P., Roman, R. Advances in 
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Management Systems: An Integrated-
Approach Case Study for the Wood-Furniture Industry 
Chaves, L.I. Design for sustainability: A methodological approach for the introduction 
of environmental requirements in the furniture sector. 2008 

Liedtke, C., Rohn, H., Kuhndt, M.,Nickel, R.  Applying Material Flow Accounting: 
Ecoauditing and Resource Management at the Kambium Furniture Workshop 

Pitcher, M. LCA IN FURNITURE RATING TOOLS - A USER S VIEW. 2010 

WRAP. A methodology for quantifying the environmental and economic impacts of 
reuse 

Werner, F. Recycling of used wood - inclusion of end-of-life options in LCA. 

Health issues/Chemicals  3 

reports 

/ 

papers 

Andersson, P., Simonson, M. Stripple, H. Fire safety of upholstered furniture, A Life-
Cycle Assessment – Summary Report. 2003 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Askham, C.,Hanssen, O.J., Gade, A.L. ,Nereng, G., Aaser, C.P., Christensen, P. Strategy 
tool trial for office furniture. Int J Life Cycle Assess (2012) 17:666–677 DOI 
10.1007/s11367-012-0406-y 

X 

X 

 

Pitcher, M. LCA Treatment of Human Health exemplified by formaldehyde within the 
furniture industry. 2005 

General guidelines 

1guide  with  LCA 
approach 

IHOBE. Sectoral Guide of Ecodesign. Furniture (Guías sectoriales de ecodiseño. 
Mobiliario). 2010. 

 

 

X 

 

X 

 

Theoretical study only focusing on carbon 
storage 
Theoretical study 

Theoretical study 

Not  a  LCA  study  but  a  set  of  qualitative 
data  provided  for  a  EMAS  audit  in  a 
furniture factory 
Australian  labels  and  Standards  review. 
Theoretical  analysis of the use of LCA in 
these labels. 
Theoretical study 

Theoretical study 

product 

Comparison of the environmental impact 
of  using  or  not  flame  retardants  in 
domestic  upholstered  furniture,  taking 
account impact of accidental fires. 
Not  a  LCA  but  useful  comparison 
between  EPDs  and  REACH  assessment 
for  seating  solutions.  Results  suggested 
that 
should 
encompass  both  REACH  information  and 
LCA  data  to  adopt  a  balanced  view  on 
environmental 
factors. 
Nevertheless,  these  two  analysis  do  not 
show the same priorities rank. 
Theoretical  approach  to  include    indoor 
emissions  of  formaldehyde 
into  LCA 
models.  

development 

performance 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. Preliminary Report  

70 

 
 
 
 
 
The analysis allowed understanding the relevance of the collected material for the criteria revision process. 
15  out  of  61  studies  have  been  assessed  to  satisfy  the  minimal  cut-off  criteria  set.  Nevertheless,  some 
studies that have been excluded at this stage could become useful at along the revision process to address 
some specific issues (such as forestry, coating substances, end of life treatments). 12 studies that have not 
passed the cut-off criteria are considered to be potentially useful for the revision process (marked in orange 
in Table 20) whereas 34 studies seems to have low application for the revision process. 

3.4.1 Qualitative scoring and summary of selected LCA studies  

Quality  of  15  LCA  studies  satisfying  the  presented  quality  cut-off  criteria  have  been  analysed 
comprehensively  using  the  scoring  criteria  presented  in  Table  49.  Cut-off  and  scoring  criteria  for  LCA 
studies  evaluation  in  Appendix II. Full LCA screening data and tables. Studies  have  been ordered by 
ranking overall score values and are presented in the tables below. Studies obtaining an overall score above 
15  (13  out  of  15)  have  been  considered  to  present  a  satisfactory  level  of  quality.  Main  outcomes  and 
conclusions are detailed in the following summary data sheet for each study. 

EPDs  were not assessed through the scoring methodology and thus they are not included in this summary 
since  the  information  reported  is  usually  summarized  and  the  lack  of  calculation  details  make  difficult  to 
analyse hot-spots and improvement options. Nevertheless, they still form an important source of information 
for some parts of this section and, more in general, for the entire technical analysis, as for the analysis of 
materials used in furniture and average composition. 

TOTAL SCORE 

SSCOPE= 5     SDATA=3         SIMPACTS=  5      SOUTCOMES = 5      SROBUSTNESS=   3         SREVIEW=1 

1 
1 

2 
3 
4 

5 
6 

Item 
title 

authors 
reference and year 
type of study  

scope 
functional unit 

7 

system boundaries 

8 

9 

assumptions (e.g. 
allocation) 

data sources and 
quality 

1. Raw materials 

2. Manufacturing 
3. 
Distribution/transport 

Observation 
Rapport d’étude PROPILAE (PROjet PILote pour l’Affichage Environnemental des produits 
d’ameublement) 
ADEME. Agency of Environment and Energy (France) 
2010 
LCA  of  each  product  according  to  ISO  standards.  The  goal  is  to  set  the  basis  for  the 
development  of  PCRs  and  the  application  of  product  policy  tools  for  bed  mattresses, 
upholstered chairs and wood furniture, in the framework of the Grenelle law (2010-788) 
10 products: 3 bed mattresses, 1 bed frame, 3 couches, 1 kitchen, 1 table, 1 library  
 Beds: Provide one place sleeping used daily for one year. 
 Couch:    Provide  1  place  seat,  with  at  least  40  cm  when  the  product  is displayed for 

one year. 

 Kitchen cabinet: Provide 1 dm3 storage for one year. 
 Table: Provide a useful surface for one year. Space minimum 60x40 cm2 
 Library: Not defined 
Cradle-to-grave 
All life cycle stages (raw materials, production and waste from production), distribution 
to retail, use, end-of-life) with the exclusion of: transport of workers, customers, R&D and 
marketing activities, impacts of selling and platforms of distribution, transport of waste. 
-  Burdens  due  to  manufacture  of  different  furniture  products  allocated  based  on  the 
mass of the units produced. 
- Benefits due to recycling evaluated as difference between impacts from recycling and 
impacts from primary materials substituted. 
Primary data from 10 companies (French manufacturers). Secondary data: Ecoinvent 2.0, 
literature  of  professional  associations  of  each  product  group.  Software  used  for  LCI  is 
TEAM. 
Primary  data:  Manufacturers  for  composition  of  each  furniture  and  quantities  and 
typology  of  materials  (polyester,  polyurethane,  stell,  board,  furniture  components, 
fabrics). Secondary/Generic data from  sectorial associationsand Ecoinvent. 
Primary data. Manufacturers. 
Primary data from logistic services of companies. Ecoinvent 2.0 and AFNOR data for LCI 
data. 

STOTAL 
=22 
Scoring 
- 

- 
- 
SSCOPE 
= 5  

3 

3 
3 

71 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

 
 
 
 
 
4. Use phase 
5. Packaging 

6. End of Life 
TOTAL 

10 

Impact assessment 
categories/methods 

11  Conclusions (e.g. most 
important life lifecycle 
phases; most important 
drivers to impacts - 
process/material; 
improvement options) 

12  Strengths and 

weakness of the whole 
study, general 
comments 

- 
3 

3 

SDATA =3 

SIMPACTS 
=5  

SOUTCOMES 
=5  

Simulations on maintenance scenarios. 
Primary  data  on  type  of  packaging  used  (PE,  cardboard,  polyester)for  each  furniture 
product. Ecoinvent 2.0 for LCI data. 
Literature: French statistics from ADEME, Ecoinvent 2.0 for LCI data. 

  GWP: IPCC 2007 (classification A) 
  Ozone depletion potential (CML 2000) (classification A) 
   Acidification potential (CML 2000) (classification B) 
  Photochemical oxidant creation pot. (CML 2000) (classification B) 
  Eutrophication potential (CML 2000) (classification B) 
  Toxicity (CML 2000) (not considered as key indicator) 
  Ecotoxicity (CML 2000) (not considered as key indicator ) 
Hot spots and sensitive analysis for each product group.  

For  upholstered  chairs,  the  end-of-life  (scenario  combining  recycling  and  disposal 
depending  on  the  recyclability  of  each  component)  has  relevant 
impacts  for 
eutrophication  (34%)    (and  toxicity  (95-53%))  (due  to  lixiviation.  For  the  rest  of 
indicators,  the  production  of  raw  materials  is  the  most  relevant  stage  (49%  -  100% 
depending  on  the  impact  category).  The  materials  providing  highest  contribution  are: 
textiles,  foaming  materials  and  metal  structures.  Sensitive  analysis  was  carried-out  to 
understand the influence on the results due to:  
-  i)  Type  of  textile  used  and  site  of  fabrication  of  textile/cover.  It  is  showed  that  air 
acidification  is  the  category  most  sensitive  to  transport,  but  the  variation  is  low,  in 
general,  due  to  the  low  weight  of  cover.  Regarding  the  type  of  textiles,  comparing 
polyester,  cotton  and  linen,  linen  has  minor  impacts  than  cotton  (due  to  lower 
consumption  of  water  and  chemicals)  and  polyester  (which  has  lower  impacts  than 
cotton, but higher impacts than linen due to the use of fuel).  
-  ii) Maintenance of covers: one cleaning action (washing with electricity, detergent and 
water consumption) for timespan (10 years). Cleaning only increase by 0.5% the overall 
impact of all indicators.  

For  wood  furniture,  main  impacts  are  photochemical  oxidants  formation  and  ozone 
depletion, Even if not included in the scope of the present review, also human toxicitiy 
appears a relevant hot-spot because of the use of alkyde resins in finishing. Due to the 
presence  of  wood,  raw  materials  have  lower  relative  contribution  (26%  -  100% 
depending on the impact category), whereas manufacturing and transport stages have 
higher values. In manufacturing, finishing products cause relevant impacts on terrestrial 
toxicity  and  fossil  energy.  Ozone  depletion  is  caused  mainly  for  transport,  and  Teflon 
used in metal drawer guides 
Normalisation  carried-out  to  choose  relevant  impact  categories  (see  details  in  section 
3.1). Sensitive analysis also performed. 
Useful outputs for products included within the scope of the present revision (upholstery 
chairs and wood furniture)  

SROBUSTNES

S 
=3  

13  Subject to independent 

review? 

Official  study  (French  Government).  Elaborated  by  ADEME,  reviewed  by  working  group  
GT7 , with members of furniture sectors of France. 

SREVIEW 
= 1  

SSCOPE=3      SDATA= 3     SIMPACTS= 5        SOUTCOMES =3    SROBUSTNESS= 3         SREVIEW=3 

STOTAL =20 

TOTAL 
SCORE 
2 
1 

Item 
title 

2 

3 
4 
5 

6 

7 

authors 

reference and year 
type of study  
scope 

functional unit 

system boundaries 

Observation 
Eco-innovation  of  a  wooden  childhood  furniture  set:  An  example  of  environmental 
solutions in the wood sector  
González-García, S., Raúl García Lozano, R., Moreira T., Gabarrell, X., Rieradevall, J., Feijoo, 
G., Murphy, R.J.   
Science of the Total Environment 426 (2012) 318–326 
ISO 14040. LCA and Design for Ecodesign (DfE) combined. 
Wooden  childhood  furniture  set  produced  in  Spain  (baby  cot  convertible  into  a  bed,  a 
study desk and a bedside table) 
Furniture  composition:  Solid  timber  2%,  MDF  10%,  Particleboard  86%,  Zamak  (screws) 
0.16%,  Stainless  steel  (screws)  0.08%,  Stainless  steel  (rods),  0.46%,  Stainless  steel 
(guides)  0.75%,  Chromium-plated  tube  0.22%,  PVC  (edges  and  stoppers),  0.01%, 
Polyester (handle),   0.02%, PE (plugs), 0.05%, Glue 0.30%, Paint 0.08% 
The functional unit selected corresponds to the supply of a wooden childhood furniture 
set, whose total weight is 173.9 kg 
Cradle-to-grave.Installation,  maintenance  and  final  disposal  of  the  product  were 
excluded from the assessment. Raw materials include raw wood, particleboard and MDF, 

Scoring 
- 

- 

- 
SSCOPE 
= 3  

72 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

 
 
 
 
 
 
8 

9 

assumptions (e.g. 
allocation) 
data sources and 
quality 

1. Raw materials 

2. Manufacturing 

3. 
Distribution/transport 

4. Use phase 
5. Packaging 

6. End of Life 
TOTAL 
Impact assessment 
categories/methods 

10 

11  Conclusions (e.g. most 
important life lifecycle 
phases; most important 
drivers to impacts - 
process/material; 
improvement options) 

metal structure and plastic components. 
Production includes assembling stage, finishing stage (painting) and packaging stage. 
Total  electricity  and  heat  consumption  and  packaging  materials  have  been  allocated 
between different products of the company based on their annual production in weight. 

Primary data from company under study (Spain), average production data for year 2009. 
Ecoinvent,  IDEMAT  and  literature  (scientific  papers  on  MDF  and  particleboards)  for 
secondary data 
MDF and particle boards from LCA literature, 
Metal materials data from IDEMAT database. 
Other materials like plastic pieces, paints, fabric, glass, social timber and wooden pallets 
from Ecoinvent,  
Average annual data of the company (year 2009) for production processes: assembly, 
finishings and packaging. LCI data from Ecoinvent 
Primary  data:  evaluation  scenario  according  to  transport  routes  of  the  company  (truck 
and  average  distance).  Final  distribution  of  the  product  is  performed  by  truck  and  an 
average  transport  distance.  (264  t·km  have  been  considered).  LCI  data from  Ecoinvent. 
Sensitive analyses by changing diesel with biodiesel, and usining Euro V vehicles.  
- 
Primary  information  of  types  of  packaging.  Materials  from  Ecoinvent  (cardboard  and 
plastic pieces) 
- 

CML 2 baseline 2000 V2.1.  

global warming, (classification A) 
ozone layer depletion, (classification A) 
acidification, (classification B) 
photochemical oxidant formation(classification B) 
eutrophication, (classification B) 
abiotic depletion, (not considered as key indicator) 
human toxicity, (not considered as key indicator) 
fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity, (not considered as key indicator) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  marine aquatic ecotoxicity, (not considered as key indicator) 
 
terrestrial ecotoxicity (not considered as key indicator) 

According to this LCA, the main environmental hot-spots are:  
- 

the production of the wooden boards, which is the main component of the furniture 
set  and  which  is  the  major  contributor  for  abiotic  depletion,  acidification, 
eutrophication,  ozone  depletion,  photochemical  oxidation,  human  and  eco-toxicity 
(45–68% of the total impacts, depending on the indicator considered). This is mainly 
due to the production of particleboard with high energy requirements and resins (for 
toxicity). Regarding GWP, 49% comes from the use of wooden materials followed by 
far by electricity consumption during manufacturing (21%). 
The consumption of electricity during assembly is the second hot spot, contributing 
to 14–33% of the impacts. This is also influenced by the production mix considered. 
The Spanish grid was considered here, which depends considerably on fossil fuels. 
Transport activities could also be important in terms of ODP (23% of contribution) 
due to tailpipe emissions from trucks. 

- 

- 

Several alternatives are proposed in DfE to achieve reductions of impacts in the short-
medium period. These include: optimization of materials used, re-use of internal waste, 
minimization  of  energy  use,  use  of  renewable  energy,  limited  amount  of  packaging 
materials, promotion  of  fuels  with  lower  impact and  prioritization  of  Euro  V  vehicles  in 
transport. All in all, these measures could lead to decrease the environmental impacts by 
14%. 
Two  environmental  approaches  were  combined  in  order  to  propose  improvement 
alternatives: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Design for Environment (DfE).  

12  Strengths and 

weakness of the whole 
study, general 
comments 

13  Subject to independent 

Publication in a peer-reviewed journal 

review? 

3 

3 

3 

- 
3 

- 

SDATA =3 
SIMPACTS 
= 5  

SOUTCOMES 
= 3  

SROBUSTNES

S 
=3  

SREVIEW 
= 3  

OTAL SCORE 

SSCOPE=3      SDATA=2.6     SIMPACTS= 5        SOUTCOMES =5     SROBUSTNESS= 3       SREVIEW=1 

STOTAL = 19.6 

3 
1 
2 

Item 
title 
authors 

Observation 
Sectorial Guide of Ecodesign. Furniture 
IHOBE. 

Scoring 
- 
- 

73 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

 
 
 
 
reference and year 

type of study  

scope 

(http://www.ihobe.net/Publicaciones/Ficha.aspx?IdMenu=750e07f4-11a4-40da-

2010 
840c-0590b91bc032&Cod=%7B03DED2C8-31B3-4EFF-9DF1-9B424A30B508%7D)  
Attributional LCA for 10  products. Consequential approach for ecodesign measures and 
real case studies. 
Basque  Country  (Spain).  10  representative  products:  armchair,  office  chair,  operational 
office  chair,  metal  drawers,  nightstand,  office  wheel  chair,  office  divider  panel, 
operational  table  office,  showcase,  side  table,  wooden  wardrobe,  armchair.  Weight 
composition reported below: 
 Showcase: Aluminium 34%, Steel 34%, Glass 15%, Fibreboard panels  0,1%, PVC 1%, 

- 

SSCOPE 
= 3  

3 

4 

5 

6 
7 

8 

9 

functional unit 
system boundaries  

assumptions (e.g. 
allocation) 
data sources and 
quality 
1. Raw materials 
2. Manufacturing 

3. 
Distribution/transportn 

4. Use phase 
5. Packaging 
6. End of Life 
TOTAL 
Impact assessment 
categories/methods 

10 

11  Conclusions (e.g. most 
important life lifecycle 
phases; most important 
drivers to impacts - 
process/material; 
improvement options) 

12  Strengths 

and 
weakness  of  the  whole 
study, 
general 
comments 

Ceramics 16% 

 Metal drawers: Steel 77%, Paint 18%, Polycarbonate (PC) 4% 
 Side table: Steel 62%, Glass 36%, Paint 3% 
 Office chair / operational office chair: Steel 48%, Wood 52%, Polyurethabe (PUR) 0,2% 
 Office wheel chair:  PUR  10%,  Polypropylene  (PP)  26%,  Wood  15%,  Steel  32%, 

Polyamide (PA) 18% 
Wooden wardrobe / armchair:  Wood 98%,PVC 1%, Brass 0,2%, Steel 1% 

 Nightstand: Wood 94%, Brass 3%, Steel 1%, PVC 2% 
 Chair: Wood 81%, PUR+Polyethylene (PE) 19% 
 Operational table office:  Steel 58%, Fibreboard: 41%, PE: 1%, Other plastics: 0,4% 
 Office divider panel: ABS 0,5%, Steel 3%, Methacrylate 70%, Aluminium 27% 
 Armchair.: Wood 72%, PUR 11%, Textile 2%, Steel 16% 
1 unit of furniture 
Cradle-to-grave  Stages included: materials, manufacturing, distribution, use and end-of-
life 
Only cleaning water considered for the use phase. 

Primary data from industry, Ecoinvent 2.0 for LCI data 

Ecoinvent 2.0 
primary data for Basque companies representative of furniture sector, Ecoinvent 2.0 for 
LCI data 
Primary data  from    sectorial  reports  from  the  Spanish  Manufacturers and  Exporters of 
Furniture  (ANIEME)  and  the  Technological  Institute  of  Furniture  (AIDIMA).  Ecoinvent  2.0 
for LCI data 
- 
primary data, Ecoinvent 2.0 
Ecoinvent 2.0 

Global Warming Potential. (classification A) 
Acidification. Potential (classification A) 
Ozone Depletion Potential. (classification B) 
Photochemical Ozone Formation (classification B) 
Eutrophication Potential. (classification B) 
Human Toxicity (not considered as key indicator) 
Ecotoxicity (not considered as key indicator) 
Abiotic resources depletion. (not considered as key indicator) 

CML 2001: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Eco-indicator'99  Single  score  (no  information  on  metrics,  cultural  perspective,  and 
normalisation factors considered) 
Results  split  by  type  of  furniture.  Hot  spots  identification:  in  all  products,  main 
environmental impacts are due to the production of materials. Contributing from 72% to 
90% of the lifecycle impacts. Processing of materials (assembling) contributed from 6% 
to  20%.  Transport  of  the  final  product  contributed  from  1%  to  15%.  Use  stage  has  a 
percentage of impact no significant. End-of-life has a contribution from 1% to 4%. 
Some  ecodesign  proposals  and  practical  cases  are  also  provided.  Some  strategies 
explored are: selection of materials with low impacts, reduction of materials, selection of 
low-impact production technologies, optimization of distribution and end-of-life. Further 
information about ecodesign measures are reported in section 3.4.2. 
Simplified LCAs, but robust methodology on the selection of representative case studies 
for furniture to which apply ecodesign measures. 

3 
3 

3 

- 
3 
1 

SDATA 2.6 
SIMPACTS 
=5  

SOUTCOMES 
= 5  

SROBUSTNES

S 
= 3  

SREVIEW 
=1  

74 

13  Subject  to  independent 

Official Source. No review 

review? 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

 
 
 
 
SSCOPE=3      SDATA=3     SIMPACTS= 5        SOUTCOMES =3     SROBUSTNESS= 3       SREVIEW=5 

TOTAL 
SCORE 
4 
1 
2 
3 
4 

Item 
title 
authors 
reference and year 
type of study  

5 

Scope 

6 

functional unit 

7 

system boundaries  

8 

9 

assumptions  
(e.g. allocation) 
data sources and 
quality 

1. Raw materials 

2. Manufacturing 

3. 
Distribution/transport 
4. Use phase 
5. Packaging 
6. End of Life 

10 

TOTAL 
Impact assessment 
categories/methods 

11 

Conclusions (e.g. most 
important life lifecycle 
phases; most 
important drivers to 
impacts - 
process/material; 
improvement options) 

Observation 
Life Cycle Assessment of Closed Loop MDF Recycling: Microrelease Trial 
Mitchell, A., Stevens, G.   
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/MDF%20LCA%20FINAL%20version.pdf, 2009 
ISO  14044.  Consequential  LCA  assessing  production  of  virgin  and  recycled  MDF  (rMDF) 
boards  and  waste-scenarios  for  MDF  wastes  (recycling,  incineration).  Sensitive  analysis 
on resin content, transport distance, materials sourcing (total 13 scenarios). 
MDF  panel,  domestic,  Germany  This  study  focuses  on  the  manufacture  of  MDF  boards, 
including  the  waste  generated  from  the  process  and  the  reintroduction  of  recovered 
fibres into the MDF manufacture.  
 A production unit of 1 tonne of MDF and rMDF (recycled fibres in 10% and 20%), where 
rMDF  has  been  shown  to  be  a  technically  comparable  product  in  terms  its  mechanical 
properties 
Cradle-to-gate (close loop for production wastes) 
System  includes  the  MDF  manufacturing  process:  raw  materials  supply  (forestry), 
transport  of  materials,  wood  fibres  production  and  board  production.  It  includes  waste 
generation  by  MDF  production  and proposed  disposal  routes,  including reintroduction  of 
recovered fibres. 
The  study  excludes  transportation  of  finished  board  from  the  MDF  plant  to  customers 
and activities related to the use of the MDF board in furniture. 
The main product is the wood panel, residual wood is obtained as by-product. Recycling 
of wood avoids gas combustion for heat generation and need of virgin fibres. 
Primary  data  from  a  German  company  (year  2007-2008)  for  MDF  manufacturing  and 
fibre  recycling,  secondary  data  from  Ecoinvent  database  (version  not  specfified). 
Experimental  data  for  recycling.  Ecoinvent  data  for  other  waste  scenarios  (landfill  and 
incineration with energy recovery). 
Primary  data  from  suppliers  of  manufacturer  (virgin  fibres  and  MDF  wastes  from  MDF 
and furniture industry). 
Primary  data  from  a  German  plant,  data  converted  to  a  large  scale  plant  in  UK 
(electricity..) UK manufacturing data taking from Wood Panel Industries Federation (WPIF) 
and FIRA. 
LCI  data  from  Ecoinvent.  Company  information  on  the  specific  vehicles  used.  Euro  IV 
emissions applied. 
- 
- 
Information  on  the  recycling  process  camefrom  experimental  data  (from  C-Tech, 
published  in  the  literature  in  2007).  Ecoinvent  provided  inventory  data  for  the  rest  of 
waste  scenario  options  (landfill and  incineration).  Incineration  with energy  recovery was 
considered  (heating  value  of  waste:  15  MJ/kg).  For  landfill,  data  on  decomposition  of 
generic untreated wood in landfill was used (not available for MDF waste). 

CML 2000 baseline (Characterisation) 

Global warming potential (GWP) (classification A) 

1. 
2.  Ozone layer depletion (ODP) (classification A) 
3. 
Acidification potential (classification B) 
4. 
Photochemical oxidation (classification B) 
5. 
Eutrophication potential (classification B) 
6. 
Abiotic depletion potential (not considered as key indicator) 
7. 
Human toxicity (not considered as key indicator) 
8. 
Ecotoxicity (not considered as key indicator) 

STOTAL  = 
19 
Scoring 
- 
- 
- 
SSCOPE = 1  

3 

3 

3 

3 

- 
3 

- 

SDATA = 3 
SIMPACTS  = 
5 

Satisfactory broadness (with respect to the impact categories identified earlier) AND all 
indicators of interest are evaluated as A or B (best in class) according to ILCD. 

The study assesses the environmental impacts due to the substitution of virgin fibres by 
recycled fibres.  

SOUTCOMES 
= 3 

Increasing  the  content  of  recycled  fibres  leads  to  a  reduction  in  many  environmental 
impact  categories  such  as  global  warming  potential,  eutrophication  and  ecotoxicity. 
Compared  to  virgin  MDF  production,  the  10%  rMDF  board  shows  a  reduction  in  some 
impacts  categories  such  as  global  warming  potential,  eutrophication  and  ecotoxicity. 
Improvement  potential  can  be  still  higher  if  the  recycled  content  is  increased  to  20%. 
Related to the functional unit, there is a potential reduction of 0.52 tonnes of CO2 eq. per 
tonne of rMDF 20%produced. 

In the manufacture of the virgin MDF boards, the fibre production stage (wood extraction 
and  conversion  into  fibres)  has  the  highest  environmental  impacts  due  to  energy  use, 
chemical additive production and transportation processes. 

Minimizing the use of virgin fibres would reduce environmental impacts inherently due to 

75 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

 
 
 
 
materials.  However,  much  of  the  internal  MDF  waste  can  be  alternatively  used  also  to 
support the production of heat for the manufacturing process, which allows avoiding  gas 
combustion partially or totally. It is thus apparent there is a sort of competition for the 
use  of  the  secondary  resource,  and  a  balance  between  these  two  possible  alternatives 
must  be  evaluated  carefully.  For  low  recycled  fibres  contents  there  is  an  increase  of 
impacts  (abiotic  depletion,  ozone  layer  depletion  and  acidification)  where  gas  emissios 
has  higher  contribution  that  waste  incineration  emissions.  The  missed  energy  recovery 
form waste MDF indeed must be compensated through the combustion of gas, according 
to the assumptions of the study. However, there is an overall reduction of impacts when 
the recycled faction is increased to 20% due to the avoidance of the energy used in virgin 
fibre production. 

A  decrease  in  resin  content  also  produces  a  decrease  of  about  1%  in  all  impact 
categories,  although  magnitude  of  variation  of  the  environmental  impacts  is  not  so 
significant. 

Regarding transport of MDF recycled fibres to MDF board production plant (0 km if they 
come from the own plant to 100 km if waste come from furniture industries), increasing 
the distance travelled by the fibres  marginally increases the environmental impacts over 
all the categories studied. However, this is not a significant increase.  

Regarding the transport of sourcing materials (form 75 to 245 km), local materials were 
shown to have lower environmental impacts, but differences are not significant. 

Regarding waste treatment, the highest and lowest environmental impacts are associated 
to  disposal  in  landfill  and  on-site  production  of  energy,  respectively.  On-site  energy 
allows avoiding the use of combustion gas. Recycling has also the potential to decrease 
impacts  by  avoiding  the  production  virgin  fibres.  However,  when  avoided  processes  are 
considered,  recycling  has  lower  impacts  for  the  majority  of  impact  categories  in 
comparison with the rest of treatment options. 
The overall quality of the study is considered good (in terms of modeling, assumptions, 
data  gaining,  impacts  assessment, presentation  and  discussion  of  results,  findings) and 
its  strength  is that  the    study  dealing  with  a  very  specific  material  (MDF)  and  it  is not 
focused on its application in furniture. 

Critical reviewed by external panel 

12 

13 

Strengths and 
weakness of the whole 
study, general 
comments 
Subject to independent 
review? 

SSCOPE=3      SDATA= 3     SIMPACTS= 5        SOUTCOMES =3    SROBUSTNESS= 3         SREVIEW=1 

TOTAL 
SCORE 
5 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

Item 
title 
authors 
reference and year 
type of study  
scope 

6 

functional unit 

7 

system boundaries  

8 

assumptions (e.g. 
allocation) 

9 

data sources and 
quality 
1. Raw materials 

Observation 
Scrivania - Martex, LCA – VALUTAZIONE DEL CICLO DI VITA 
IGEAM - Unione Industriali Pordenone. 
Private documentation from industry. 2010 
Attributional LCA according to ISO 14040. Goal: to define criteria for furniture Ecolabel 
Desk, Italy 
Composition: Chipboard 42%, aluminium 35%, ABS 1%, Zama 5%, Steel 4%, Nylon 0,3%, 
Packaging 13% (cardboard 12%, polystyrene 1%, polypropylene 1%) 
Functional unit: 10 kg of desk 
The studied desk is 180cm x 80 cm, made of chipboard with legs and perimeter of 
aluminium  
Cradle-to-gate  
Processes included: 
• Upstream module: includes the activities of production of materials, semi-finished 
products and packaging, by Suppliers as well as transportation of the components at the 
Facility Martex; 
• Core module: includes work performed at the Facility Martex. 
The  transportation  to  customers,  as  well  as  the  impacts  related  to  maintenance 
(cleaning,  or  replacement  parts)  of  the  cabinet  and  waste  treatment  have  not  been 
considered. 
The breakdown of electricity was performed in the following way: 
• For linear meter board edge for the activities of drilling-edge; 
• per m3 of panel worked for general consumption facility. 
Panels received about 70% of painting. Since the particle board which constitutes the top 
of the desk object of the study does not undergo further surface treatment, it is 
speculated that, as regards the thermal energy, the consumption of OCD and wood 
shavings can be attributed to the 30% of the heating and this is allocable share of the 
total volume of the used panels. 
Primary  data  from  Martex  and  components  suppliers  (questionnaires  from  Martex 
company year 2008), Boustead model for secondary data (version 5.0) 
Primary data from Martex suppliers.Data from existing EPDs for chipboard. Transport of 
components  from  suppliers  to  plant  considered  according  to  average  number  and 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

SROBUSTN
ESS = 3 

SREVIEW = 
5 

STOTAL 
=18 
Scoring 
- 
- 
- 
SSCOPE 
= 3 

3 

76 

 
 
 
2. Manufacturing 

3. Distribution/ 
transport 
4. Use phase 
5. Packaging 
6. End of Life 
TOTAL 
Impact assessment 
categories/methods 

10 

11  Conclusions (e.g. most 
important life lifecycle 
phases; most important 
drivers to impacts - 
process/material; 
improvement options) 

12  Strengths and 

weakness of the whole 
study, general 
comments 

distance of annual deliveries (2008). Boustead model and databases for secondary data. 
Primary data from manufacturer and components suppliers (year 2008).  LCI data from 
Boustead model database (version 5.0) 
- 

- 
Primary data from packaging suppliers, Boustead model (version 5.0)for secondary data. 
- 

Characterisation. 
  Climate change - IPCC (classification A) 
  ODP - Solomon, 1992, Nordic Guidelines; (not classified) 
   Acidification potential – CML 1999 (classification B) 
  Photochemical oxidation potential – CML 1999 (classification B) 
  Eutrophication Potential - CML 1999 (classification B) 
Main  consumptions  and  impacts  are  due  to  components  production  (97.9%  of  energy 
consumption,  96%  of  global  warming,  95.4%  of  acidification,  97%  of  eutrophication, 
95.9%  of  photochemical  ozone  formation)  since  the  manufacturing  process  consists 
basically in assembling different components and desk surface is no painted.  
In spite of its weight share (39.9%), impacts are mostly due to aluminium which has a 
relative  weight  of  35%  of  total  weight  (  with  highest  values  for  79%  of  energy 
consumption,  84%  of  global  warming,  81%  of  acidification).  Chipboards  forms  48%  of 
the  weight  but  contributes  less  to  the  environmental  impacts  (13.1%  of  energy 
consumption,  2.1%  of  global  warming).  Another  material  with  relevant  impacts  is  the 
Zamak alloy (8% on average). 6% of the impacts is caused by packaging materials. 
The  manufacturing  process  has  a  marginal  contribution  to  the  impacts  that  is  almost 
equally  split  between  three  processes:  cutting,  painting  and  coating  and  facility 
consumptions  A  high  amount  of  electricity  (70%)  is  consumed  during  the  painting  and 
coating of edges, mainly for drying on furnaces.   
Sensitive  analysis  was  carried-out  to  evaluate  the  energy  consumption  of  primary  and 
secondary aluminium. The use of recycled aluminium can reduce the energy consumption 
by 89% (145 MJ/kg for virgin aluminium and 15.9 MJ/kg for recycled aluminium). 
The main weakness of the study is that the scope  is from cradle-to gate. Nevertheless, 
assessment of materials, components and manufacturing of the final product represent 
useful information. 

13  Subject to independent 

Not reviewed 

review? 

3 

3 

SDATA =3 

SIMPACTS 
= 5  

SOUTCOMES 
=3  

SROBUSTNES

S 
= 3  

SREVIEW 
= 1  

SSCOPE=3      SDATA=3     SIMPACTS= 5        SOUTCOMES =3    SROBUSTNESS= 3         SREVIEW=1 

STOTAL =18 

TOTAL 
SCORE 
6 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

Item 
title 
authors 
reference and year 
type of study  
scope 

6 

functional unit 

7 

system boundaries  

8 

assumptions (e.g. 
allocation) 

Observation 
Postazione di Lavoro Alea, LCA – VALUTAZIONE DEL CICLO DI VITA 
IGEAM - Unione Industriali Pordenone. 
Private documentation from industry, 2010 
Attributional LCA according to ISO 14040 
Workplace: (Italy) 
Composition  by  weight:  chipboard  melamine  paper  52.41%,  aluminium  24.84%,  ABS 
1.23%, Zama 6.69 %, Nylon 0.04%, Steel / Iron 14.77%, Beech 0.02%, Brass 0.01% 
10 kg of workplace 
The workplace studied is: 
• 170 cm x 70 cm desk made of plan chipboard with melamine paper and aluminium 
•  100  cm  x  50  cm  auxiliary table  independent  made  of  plan  chipboard with  melamine 
paper and aluminium; 
• Drawer made of chipboard and classifier. 
Cradle-to-gate  
Processes included: 
•  Upstream  module:  includes  the  activities  of  production  of  materials,  semi-finished 
products and packaging, by Suppliers as well as transportation of the components at the 
Facility of manufacturer; 
• Core module: includes work performed at the Facility of manufacturer. 
The  transportation  to  customers,  as  well  as  the  impacts  related  to  maintenance 
(cleaning,  or  replacement  parts)  of  the  workplace  and  waste  treatment  have  not  been 
considered.  
Input of energy in the manufacturing plant have been split between different stages: 
• The electricity has been broken down based on the volume (m3) of panel worked (for 

Scoring 

- 
- 
SSCOPE 
= 3  

77 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cutting, edging and drilling routing operations). 
• The thermal energy was split based on the volume (m3) of particle board worked: 80% 
for heating work environments, 20% for painting.  
The consumption of thermal fusing glue for edging was spread over the linear feet of 
the applied edge.  
The distribution of glue for packaging (vinyl and thermal fusing glues) was performed on 
the basis of the number of packages and products  
All waste products, with the exception of those related to the painting process because 
excluded from the calculation, were split based on the volume (m3) of panel worked.  
The emissions into the atmosphere, except those related to the painting cycle, were 
considered and were split by the volume (m3) of panel worked. 
Primary data from the production plant of Alea di Caneva (Italy) and from components 
suppliers (year 2008), Boustead model (version 5.0)  for secondary data 
Primary  data  from  suppliers.  Data  from  existing  EPDs  for  chipboards.  Transport  of 
components  from  suppliers  to  plant  considered  according  to  average  number  and 
distance of annual deliveries (2008). Boustead model and other database for secondary 
data (version 5.0) 
Primary data from manufacturer and components suppliers (year 2008). LCI data from 
Boustead model (version 5.0) 
- 

- 
Primary  data  from  packaging  suppliers  and  plant  operations  on  packaging.  Boustead 
model for secondary data. 
- 

Characterisation. 
  Climate change - IPCC  (classification A) 
  ODP - Solomon, 1992, Nordic Guidelines; (not classified) 
   Acidification potential – CML 1999; (classification B) 
  Phochemical oxidation potential – CML 1999 (classification B) 
  Eutrophication Potential - CML 1999 (classification B) 
Main  consumptions  and  impacts  are  due  to  upstream  processes,  i.e.  components 
production  and  transport  to  plant  (89.7%  of  energy  consumption,  85%  of  global 
warming, 85% of ozone depletion, 77.5% of acidification, 82% of eutrophication, 77.5% 
of Photochemical ozone formation). 6% is caused by packaging materials.  
In spite of its weight share (25%), impacts are mostly due to aluminium (60% of energy 
consumption, 84% of global warming, 81% of acidification). ABS edges of drawer have a 
high  contribution  in  the  ozone  depletion  category,  whereas  for  desk  and  auxiliary table 
the major contributor is the panel board. 
The  manufacturing  process  has a  marginal  contribution to  the  impacts  that are  mainly 
due to energy consumption. 
Sensitive  analysis  was  carried-out  to  evaluate  the  energy  consumption  of  primary  and 
secondary aluminium. The use of recycled aluminium can reduce the energy consumption 
by 89% (145 MJ/kg for virgin aluminium and 15.9 MJ/kg for recycled aluminium). 
The main weakness of the study is that the scope is from cradle-to gate. Nevertheless, 
assessment of materials, components and manufacturing of the final product represent 
useful information. 

9 

data sources and 
quality 
1. Raw materials 

2. Manufacturing 

3. 
Distribution/transport 
4. Use phase 
5. Packaging 

6. End of Life 
TOTAL 
Impact assessment 
categories/methods 

10 

11  Conclusions (e.g. most 
important life lifecycle 
phases; most important 
drivers to impacts - 
process/material; 
improvement options) 

12  Strengths and 

weakness of the whole 
study, general 
comments 

13  Subject to independent 

No review 

review? 

3 

3 

3 

SDATA =3 

SIMPACTS 
=5  

SOUTCOMES 
=3  

SROBUSTNES

S 
= 3  

SREVIEW 
= 1  

SSCOPE=3      SDATA= 3     SIMPACTS= 5        SOUTCOMES =3    SROBUSTNESS= 3         SREVIEW=1 

STOTAL =18 

TOTAL 
SCORE 
7 

Item 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

title 
authors 
reference and year 
type of study  
scope 

6 

functional unit 

Observation 

Armadio Mascagni – Dall’Agnese, LCA  – VALUTAZIONE DEL CICLO DI VITA, 
IGEAM - Unione Industriali Pordenone. 
Private documentation from industry, 2010 
Attributional LCA according to ISO 14040 
Wardrobe  (Italy).  Composition:  Chipboard  and  MDF  16%,  Ramin  0.13%,  plastic 
0.04%,  glass  6%,  wooden  panel  43%,,tulipwood  22%,  hardware  wood  1%,  fir  2%, 
veneer 5%, other (glass and finishes components 3%,packaging 5%  
10 kg of cabinet (without considering packaging). Characteristics of the studied 
cabinet:  

 

236.7 cm high; 

Scoring 

- 
- 
- 
SSCOPE 
=3  

78 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7 

system boundaries  

8 

assumptions (e.g. 
allocation) 

9 

data sources and quality 

1. Raw materials 

2. Manufacturing 

3. 
Distribution/transportation 
4. Use phase 
5. Packaging 

6. End of Life 

10 

TOTAL 
Impact assessment 
categories/methods 

11  Conclusions (e.g. most 
important life lifecycle 
phases; most important 
drivers to impacts - 
process/material; 
improvement options) 

12  Strengths and weakness of 

the whole study, general 
comments 

13  Subject to independent 

review? 

 
 

doors of 52.5 cm each (only one is of 4.70 cm);  
cherry veneer wood finish. 

Cradle-to-gate  
Processes included: 
• Upstream module: includes the activities of production of materials, semi-finished 
products and packaging, by Suppliers as well as transportation of the components at 
the Facility of manufacturer; 
• Core module: includes work performed at the Facility of manufacturer. 
The  transportation  to  customers,  as  well  as  the  impacts  related  to  maintenance 
(cleaning, or replacement parts) and waste treatment of the cabinet have not been 
considered. 
Allocation of electricity consumption in the manufacturing process  
• based on volume (m3) of panel worked for the activities of cutting, finishings, and 
facility; 
• based on surface (m2) for the task of finishing with veneer, painting and finishing; 
• based on the number of packages for the assembly. 
With  respect  to  the  thermal  energy,  consumption  of  methane  is  equally  split 
production and heating environments. 
Primary  data  from  the  production  plant  of  Alea  di  Caneva  and  from  components 
suppliers (year 2008). Boustead model for secondary  and LCI data (version 5.0) 
Primary data from suppliers. Data from existing EPDs for panel boards. Transport of 
components  from  suppliers  to  plant  considered  according  to  average  number  and 
distance of annual deliveries (2008). Boustead model and databases for secondary 
data. 
Primary  data  from  manufacturer  and  components  suppliers  (year  2008).  Boustead 
model for secondary and LCI data (version 5.0) 
- 

- 
Primary data from packaging suppliers and plant operations on packaging. Boustead 
model for secondary data (version 5.0) 
The theoretical degree of recyclability of the cabinet at the end of life is estimated 
at  approximately  84%, 
following  assumptions: 
Plastic: 100% heat recovery; Glass Mirrors:100%; Chipboard 90%; Panel woods 85%;  
Solid 100%; Hardware 100%, Finishes 0% 

into  account 

taking 

the 

Characterisation. 
  Climate change - IPCC  (classification A) 
  ODP - Solomon, 1992, Nordic Guidelines; (not classified) 
   Acidification potential – CML 1999; (classification B) 
  Phochemical oxidation potential – CML 1999 (classification B) 
  Eutrophication Potential - CML 1999 (classification B) 
Main  consumptions  and  impacts  are  due  to  upstream  processes,  i.e.  components 
production  and  transport  to  plant  (73.3%  of  energy  consumption,  61%  of  global 
warming, 84% of ozone depletion, 72.7% of acidification, 77% of eutrophication).  
Among materials, wooden panels have the biggest contribution, since it is the main 
component  with  a  41.39%  of  weight  (they  contribute  to  41.39%  of  energy 
consumption, 40% of Global warming, 35.2% of acidification potential, . 6% of the 
impacts on average is caused by packaging materials.  
The  product  manufacture  process  has 
the  highest  contribution  only  for 
photochemical  ozone  formation  (87.8%),  mainly  due  to  atmospheric  emissions 
resulting  from  coating  systems  (emission  of  solvent  in  paints  and  varnishes,  fillers 
and  diluents.  In  particular,  solvents based on  xylene,  contribute  with  about  35%.  A 
significant  proportion  of  the  impacts  can  be  due  also  to  the  emissions  of  other 
unspecified solvents. Naphthenes can contribute to POCP by more than 23% due to 
the presence of cycle primarily alkanes in the products of UV coating. The presence 
of toluene as a diluent in paint products, both UV and polyurethane-based, can also 
contribute significantly to the POCP. 
Other  impacts  associated  to  the  manufacturing  processes  are  mainly  due  to  the 
energy consumption for coating (UV coating, PUR and paints).  
The  main  weakness  of  the  study  is  that  the  scope  is  from  cradle-to  gate. 
Nevertheless, assessment of materials, components and manufacturing of the final 
product represent useful information. 
No review 

3 

3 

3 

3 

SDATA =3 

SIMPACTS 
= 5  

SOUTCOMES 
=3  

SROBUSTNES

S 
=3  
SREVIEW 
=1  

TOTAL 

SSCOPE=3      SDATA= 3     SIMPACTS= 5        SOUTCOMES =3    SROBUSTNESS= 3         SREVIEW=1 

STOTAL =18 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SCORE 

8 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

Item 
title 
authors 
reference and year 
type of study 
scope 

6 

functional unit 

7 

system boundaries  

8 

assumptions (e.g. 
allocation) 

9 

data sources and 
quality 
1. Raw materials 

Observation 
Armadio – Martex, LCA – VALUTAZIONE DEL CICLO DI VITA, 
IGEAM - Unione Industriali Pordenone. 
Private documentation from industry, 2010 
Attributional LCA according to ISO 14040 
Wardrobe (Italy). Composition by weight: particle board 49%, wooden panels 9%,  Wood 
veneer  0.2%,  EPDM  rubber  0.4%,  Aluminium  11%,  Steel  0,2%,  Paper  0.1%,  ABS  0.1%, 
Zama 0.01%, Nylon 0.1%, Glass 17%, Iron/Steel 0.8%, Packaging 12% 
the  weight  of  10  kg  of  Cabinet,    (without  considering  packaging).  Characteristics  of 
cabinet:  

 
 

259.6 cm high 
2 sliding doors of 135 cm , white lacquer finish with mirrored doors.  

Cradle-to-gate  
Processes included: 
• Upstream module: includes the activities of production of materials, semi-finished 
products and packaging, by Suppliers as well as transportation of the components at the 
Facility of manufacturer; 
• Core module: includes work performed at the Facility of manufacturer. 

The  transportation  to  customers,  as  well  as  the  impacts  related  to  maintenance 
(cleaning,  or  replacement  parts)  and  treatment  waste  of  the  cabinet  have  not  been 
considered. 
Electricity consumption in the manufacture stage was allocated: 
• Based on the length (m) of board edging for the drilling-sledge; 
• Based on the volume (m3) of panel worked for the general consumption in the facility; 
•  Based  on  the  surface  (m2)  of  the  panel  for  the  application  of  the  insulation  roll  and 
lacquering. 
The  consumption  of  thermal energy  has  been  completely attributed  to  the  activities  of 
painting and therefore broken down according to the surface (m2) of panel treated. 
Primary data from producer and components suppliers (year 2008). Boustead model for 
secondary and LCI data (version 5.0) 
Primary  data  from  suppliers.  Data  from  existing  EPDs  for  chipboards.  Transport  of 
components  from  suppliers  to  plant  considered  according  to  average  number  and 
distance of annual deliveries (2008). Boustead model and databases for secondary data. 
Upstream module includes: 

 
 
 

 
 

extraction and production of raw materials and basic materials 
Production of fuels, heat, electricity and related emissions 
Production  of  auxiliary  materials  for  the  assembly  and  manufacture  of 
furniture 
Transportation of the components from the supplier to the manufacturer 
 Production of waste from the Upstream 

2. Manufacturing 

Primary data from manufacturer and components suppliers (year 2008) 
Core Module includes: 

 

Electricity,  heat  and  auxiliary  materials  used  for  the  assembly  of  parts  and  work 
performed on the cabinet; 
emissions generated by the process Core; 

 
  Waste Generation Core Process 

3. 
Distribution/transport 
4. Use phase 
5. Packaging 

6. End of Life 
TOTAL 
Impact assessment 
categories/methods 

10 

Data on fuel consumption and emissions of the plant Martex refer to the year 2008. 

The study does not include transportation to the customer. 

- 
Primary  data  from  packaging  suppliers,  Boustead  model  for  secondary  and  LCI  data 
(version 5.0) 
- 

Characterisation. 
  Climate change - IPCC  (classification A) 
  ODP - Solomon, 1992, Nordic Guidelines; (not classified) 
   Acidification potential – CML 1999; (classification B) 
  Phochemical oxidation potential – CML 1999 (classification B) 
  Eutrophication Potential - CML 1999 (classification B) 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

Scoring 
- 
- 
- 
SSCOPE 
= 3  

3 

3 

3 

3 
SDATA =3 

SIMPACTS 
= 5  

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11  Conclusions (e.g. most 
important life lifecycle 
phases; most important 
drivers to impacts - 
process/material; 
improvement options) 

12  Strengths and 

weakness of the whole 
study, general 
comments 

Main  consumptions  and  impacts  are  due  to  upstream  processes,  i.e.  components 
production and transport to plant: 
- 80.5% for energy consumption 
- 72% for climate change, related to energy consumption 
- 98% for ozone depletion (due to acrylic adhesives of chipboards and polystyrene used 
in packaging)  
-  79%  for  acidification  (due  to  emissions  of  oxides  of  sulfur  and  nitrogen  from 
combustion of heavy fuels for heat and electricity needed to process materials.)  
-  88.9%  for  eutrophication.  The  major  contributions  are  related  to  the  electrical  and 
thermal consumption related to processing and production of semi-finished products, in 
particular  of  aluminum,  glass,  and  particle  and  wooden  boards.  -  80.9%  for 
photochemical ozone formation. The  greatest contribution is given by the production of 
acrylic  adhesives used in  pressing  services.  The  other  input  is  tied to  the  production  of 
chipboard and, in small part, to the production of polystyrene used in packaging. 

In spite of its weight share (13%), impacts are mostly due to aluminium (47% of energy 
consumption,  65%  of  global  warming).  A  considerable  share  is  also  associated  to  the 
production of particle board with a relative weight of 49% (32.65% of energy, 6.8% of 
global change, 7.9% of acidification, , Glass has also relevant contribution especially in 
energy consumption and global change. 
The  manufacturing  process  contributes  to  lifecycle  impacts  between  2-28%.  This  is 
mainly  due  to  the  demand  of  heat  in  the  coating  process  (70%  of  the  energy 
consumption  of  manufacture,  78%  of  climate  change),  which  includes  painting  and 
application of the insulation roll. 
The main weakness of the study is that the scope is from cradle-to gate. Nevertheless, 
assessment of materials, components and manufacturing of the final product represent 
useful information. 

13  Subject to independent 

no review 

review? 

SOUTCOMES 
= 3  

SROBUSTNES

S 
=3  

SREVIEW 
=1  

SSCOPE=3      SDATA=3     SIMPACTS= 5        SOUTCOMES =3    SROBUSTNESS= 3         SREVIEW=1 

STOTAL =18 

TOTAL 
SCORE 
9 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

Item 
title 
authors 
reference and year 
type of study  
scope 

6 

7 

functional unit 

system boundaries 

8 

assumptions  
(e.g. allocation) 

Scoring 
- 
- 
- 
SSCOPE 
= 3  

Observation 
Cucina Samoa – Copat, LCA – VALUTAZIONE DEL CICLO DI VITA 
IGEAM - Unione Industriali Pordenone. 
Private documentation from industry, 2010 
Attributional LCA according to ISO 14040 
Kitchen  (Italy).  Materials  composition  by  weight:  Chipboard  panel  89%,  Steel  7%, 
Aluminium  1.4%,  ABS  0.7%,  PVC  0.3%,  Zama  (Zinc  alloy)  0.7%,  MDF  fibre  1.4%,  MDF 
band 0.4%, Others 0.1% 
Weight  of  10  kg  of  kitchen  modello  Samoa(net  weight  excluding  electrical  appliances 
and packaging of storage and delivery). Main material: chipboard (89% of weight). 
Cradle-to-gate  
Processes included: 
• Upstream module: includes the activities of production of materials, semi-finished 
products and packaging, by Suppliers as well as transportation of the components at the 
Facility of manufacturer; 
• Core module: includes work performed at the Facility of manufacturer. 
The  transportation  to  customers,  as  well  as  the  impacts  related  to  maintenance 
(cleaning, or replacement parts) of the cabinet have not been considered. 
The paper in melamine faced chipboard panels, as well as hardware items are purchased 
from Copat by its network providers. The same applies to the packaging, adhesives and 
cycle. 
coating 
in 
Once 
lines: 
the  structural  part; 
•  one  which  concerns 
•  one 
top  kitchens. 
that  concerns 
The first line includes the steps of cutting, edge-banding, drilling. The second involves a 
block sizing and team-specific edging, returning them to the top of the panels flow with 
that of other structural panels upstream of the hole. Once processed the various panels 
are  sent  to  the  next  assembly  plant,  where  the  various  pieces  are  grouped,  partly 
assembled, and packed with the part of hardware required. 
Allocation of input and output in manufacturing 
The  flow  data  input  and  output  of  the  plant  Copat  have  been  allocated,  providing  the 
company  with  a  precise  accounting  system  for  cost  center,  on  the  different  phases  in 
which the production process has been broken down.  
As  regards  the  consumption  of  electricity,  electricity  flows  were  then  broken  down  as 
follows: 

the  working  on 
the  processes  on 

materials 
the  warehouse, 

the  panels  are  distributed  on 

the  panels  of 

the  panels  of 

two  distinct 

processing 

used 

the 

the 

in 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

81 

 
 
 
 
 
9 

data sources and 
quality 
1. Raw materials 

2. Manufacturing 

•  per  m3  of  panel  worked  for  the  activities  of  sizing  (both  top  panels),  drilling  and 
assembly, and facility; 
•  for  m  linear  border  applied  to  the  activity  of  edge-banding  (both  panels  Top). 
As regards the thermal energy, the consumption of chips and oil BTZ related only to part 
of production, while diesel fuel is used for heating in the workplace of the assembly site. 
Primary data from manufacturer and components suppliers (year 2008). Boustead model 
for secondary data (version 5.0) 
Primary  data  from  suppliers.  Data  from  existing  EPDs  for  chipboard.  Transport  of 
components  from  suppliers  to  plant  considered  according  to  average  number  and 
distance of annual deliveries (2008). Boustead model and databases for secondary data 
(version 5.0) 
Upstream module includes:  

 
 
 
 
 

 Extraction and production of raw materials and basic materials 
 Production of fuels, heat, electricity and related emissions 
 Production of auxiliary materials for assembly and manufacture of furniture 
 Transportation of the components from the supplier to the manufacturer 
 Production of waste from the Upstream 

Primary  data  from  manufacturer  and  components  suppliers  (year  2008).  Main 
components are chipboard panels, for both structural part and tops. These are produced 
in two distinct lines. The first line includes the steps of cutting, edge-banding, drilling. The 
second  involves  a  block  sizing  and  team-specific  edging.  Once  processed,  the  various 
panels are sent to the next assembly plant, where the various pieces are grouped, partly 
assembled, and packed. 
Core Module: 
 

 Electricity,  heat  and  auxiliary  materials  used  for  the  assembly  of  parts  and 
work performed on the model kitchen Samoa; 
 Emissions from process Core; 
 Waste Generation Core Process 

 
 

3. 
Distribution/transport 
4. Use phase 
5. Packaging 
6. End of Life 
TOTAL 
Impact assessment 
categories/methods 

10 

11  Conclusions (e.g. most 
important life lifecycle 
phases; most important 
drivers to impacts - 
process/material; 
improvement options) 

12  Strengths and 

weakness of the whole 
study, general 
comments 

Data on fuel consumption and emissions of the factories Copat refer to the year 2008. 

The study does not include transportation to the customer. 

- 
Primary data from packaging suppliers, Boustead model for secondary data (model 5.0) 
- 

Characterisation. 
  Climate change - IPCC  (classification A) 
  ODP - Solomon, 1992, Nordic Guidelines; (not classified) 
   Acidification potential – CML 1999; (classification B) 
  Phochemical oxidation potential – CML 1999 (classification B) 
  Eutrophication Potential - CML 1999 (classification B) 
Main  consumptions  and  impacts  are  due  to  upstream  processes,  i.e.  components 
production  and  transport  to  (67.1%  of  energy  consumption,  60%  of  global  warming, 
90%  of  ozone  depletion,  45%  of  acidification,  70%  of  eutrophication,  35.55%  of 
Photochemical ozone formation).  

Among  materials,  main  impacts  are  due  to  chipboard  production  (77%  of  energy 
consumption, 28% of global warming, 47.7% of acidification, 82% of eutrophication). It 
should be highlighted that steel and aluminium, which together account for 8.5% of the 
total  weight  of  the  kitchen,  require  for  their  production  about  15%  of  the  energy  and 
causes a big share of impacts (59% of global warming, 23.2% of acidification, 11% of 
eutrophication).  PVC  and  PVA  are  the  major  contributors  for  the  Ozone  Depletion 
Potentia, since only 1.5 kg of PCV contribute to 75% of ODP respecting other materials.l. 

For the manufacturing processes, the main contributions in all impact categories are due 
to  energy  consumption  (electricity  and  fuels  for  heating).  Lacquering  process  has  also 
relevant  impacts  for  the  presence  of  diluents  aromatic  (styrene),  particularly  for 
Photochemical  Ozone  Creation  Potential  category,  where  manufacturing  has  a 
contribution of 64.5%. 
The main weakness of the study is that the scope is from cradle-to gate. Nevertheless, 
assessment of materials, components and manufacturing of the final product represent 
useful information. 

13  Subject to independent 

no review 

review? 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

3 

3 

3 
3 
SDATA =3 

SIMPACTS 
= 5  

SOUTCOMES 
= 3  

SROBUSTNES

S 
= 3  

SREVIEW 
= 1  

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SSCOPE= 5     SDATA=2.6         SIMPACTS=  1      SOUTCOMES = 5      SROBUSTNESS=   3         SREVIEW=1 

STOTAL = 17.6 

TOTAL SCORE 
10 
1 

Item 
title 

2 
3 
4 
5 

authors 
reference and year 
type of study  
scope 

6 

functional unit 

7 

system boundaries  

8 

9 

assumptions (e.g. 
allocation) 
data sources and 
quality 
1. Raw materials 

2. Manufacturing 

3. 
Distribution/transporta
tion 
4. Use phase 
5. Packaging 
6. End of Life 

TOTAL 

Observation 
Life-Cycle  Assessment  of  Office  Furniture  Products.  Final  report  on  the  study  of  three 
Steelcase office furniture 
Center for Sustainable Systems. University of Michigan 
http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS06-11.pdf; 2006 
LCA study according to ISO 14044 
Table, desk, and chair (USA).  
 Table:   Steel 45%, Particleboard 30%, Aluminium 25%, Laminate 0.03%, Adhesive 

Scoring 
- 

- 
- 
SSCOPE 
= 5  

and Plastics.0.01%. 

 Desk 

: Particleboard 59% by weight, Steel 20%, Plywood 15%, Cherry 3%, Other 

Wood/Paper 1.2%, Adhesives and Finishes 0.7%, Backing Material 0.6%, Plastics 0.6%; 
 Steel  50%  by  weight,  Plastic  23%,  Non-ferrous  metals  21%,  Leather  4%, 

Chair: 
Other 3%. 
-  Table:  30  years  of  flat  work  space  adjustable  from  26”  to  43”  in  height  while 
supporting up to 25 lbs. 
- Desk: 30 years of stand alone 72”x36” work surface use, including storage, in a wood 
office environment. 
- Chair: 30 years of ergonomic executive seating in a wood office environment. 
Cradle-to-grave  
full  product life-cycle  including  acquisition  of all  materials  from the  ground,  processing 
and  fabrication  of  component  parts,  production  and  assembly  of  final  product, 
distribution  of  materials,  parts  and  final  product,  product  use,  and  end  of  life 
management. 
This  analysis  considers  the  life-cycle  environmental  burdens  for  material  acquisition, 
processing and forming related to parts and materials consistent with accounting for at 
least 99% of final product composition . Product and sub-assembly manufacturing are 
modeled.  Delivery  of  materials,  parts  and  final  products  are  included  inthe  system 
boundary.  Although  30  years  is  taken  as  the  nominal  lifetime  for  all  systems  studied, 
noimpacts are known to occur during use. End of life collection of discarded furniture and 
processing ofmaterials is included in the analysis. 
Stages excluded: transport of workers, customers, R&D and marketing activities, impacts 
of pint of selling and platforms of distribution, transport of waste. 
Mass allocation for manufacturing different products of Steelcase facilities. 

3 

3 

Primary  data  from  Steelcase  representatives  (United  States).  Secondary  data  from 
previous studies.  
Materials used in Steelcase products. Processing data from previous LCA studies: Plastics  
data from reports of the Association of Plastic Manufacturers in Europe (APME) (Bousted 
2005).  Steel  data  from  the  International  Iron  and  Steel  Institute  (IISI)  (IISI  2002). 
Aluminium data from studies conducted by the Aluminum Association. Wood data from 
Consortium  for  Research  on  Renewable  Industrial  Materials  (CORRIM)  (Wilson  and 
Sakimoto 2004). Particleboard process modeled by Steelcase 
Steelcase  facilities  and  contract  manufacturers.  Data  based  on  equipment  use  and 
duration of each process. This included information on the key assembly and production 
processes which focused on the equipment use and duration for each process step. Data 
on electricity, compressed air, and water use were available from the previous study for 
17  types  of  manufacturing  equipment  used  at  Steelcase.  Information  on  operating 
requirements for any equipment were collected by Steelcase. Additionally, information on 
the yield associated with product processing was estimated by Steelcase. 
Equipment operating requirements were input into SimaPro and combined with data on 
US average electricity production, compressor operation, and potable water production to 
calculate inventory results for the manufacturing stage. 
Movement  of  parts  and  sub-assemblies  to  the  production  location  (Steelcase).                                                         
Final product deliveries modelled according to information provided by Steelcase on the 
expected volume for major customer locations. 
30 years taken as nominal lifetime (no impacts) 
packaging types, weight, and material for each product 
US  EPA  data.  (Municipal  Solid  Waste  in  the  United  States;  October  2003,  Washington 
D.C.) 
Specific  recovery rates  for  different  materials  are  derived  from  data  on  durable  goods 
(incl.  appliances)  as  well  as  packaging  and  containers.  Remaining  waste  after  material 
recovery  is  either  combusted  or  landfilled  at  rates  of  14.7%  and  55.7%  respectively. 
29.6% of the remaining waste is directed towards unknown waste treatment. 

- 
3 
1 

3 

10 

Impact assessment 
categories/methods 

TRACI methodology (US, EPA): 
- Global warming potential (kg CO2 eqv.)(Classification A) 
- Acidification potential (H+ mol eqv.) (Classification E) 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

SDATA 
=2.6 
SIMPACTS 
=1  

83 

 
 
 
 
- Energy resource consumption (MJ) (not considered as key indicator) 
- Criteria pollutants/human health (kg PM2.5 Eqv) (not considered as key indicator) 
- Solid waste (kg); Total material consumption (kg) (not considered as key indicator) 
Although  direct  comparison  among  the  3  systems  is  not  possible,  relative  impacts 
relating to the relative importance of product mass versus material composition can be 
observed.  It  was  found  that  the  least  energy  intensive  product  in  relation  with  the 
product mass is that composed of wood for a greater amount (less energy intensive).  
The role of specific system parameters in the overall results were further investigated in 
a sensitivity analysis.  
Particleboard resin content and extruded aluminium recycling rate were found to be the 
most significant parameters in determining overall system performance. 
Particleboard  composition  was  varied  to  analyse  the  effects  due  to  a  reduction  of  the 
mass contribution of urea-formaldehyde resins from the current level of 9.5% to 4.9% 
by weight. Reductions for all key categories would be achieved: 20% for global warming, 
58% for acidification potential. 
The  content  of  secondary  aluminium  was  doubled  from  11%  to  22%  by  weight  to 
understand  the influence  of  recycled content  on  the  life-cycle  performance.  Reductions 
for  all key  categories  would  be achieved:  54%  of  global  warming,  62%  of  acidification 
potential. 
Study done for USA company and TRAC1 impact method. 
Detailed information at inventory level and useful sensitive analysis.  

11  Conclusions (e.g. most 
important life lifecycle 
phases; most important 
drivers to impacts - 
process/material; 
improvement options) 

12  Strengths and 

weakness of the whole 
study, general 
comments 

13  Subject to independent 

No review 

review? 

SOUTCOMES 
= 5  

SROBUSTNES

S 
=3  

SREVIEW 
=1  

SSCOPE=3      SDATA= 1      SIMPACTS= 5         SOUTCOMES =3      SROBUSTNESS= 3          SREVIEW=1 

STOTAL =16 

TOTAL 
SCORE 
11 
1 

Item 
title 

2 
3 

4 

5 
6 

7 

authors 
reference and year 

type of study 

scope 
functional unit 

system boundaries  

8 

9 

assumptions (e.g. 
allocation) 
data sources and 
quality 

1. Raw materials 

2. Manufacturing 

3. Distribution/ 
transportation 
4. Use phase 

Observation 
Life  Cycle  Assessment.  A  product-oriented  method  for  sustainability  analysis  Training 
Manual. 
UNEP SETAC. 
http://global-
mechanism.org/specials/msc_toolkit/material/Background_documents/Further%20readin
g/Life%20Cycle%20Assessment%20TrainingManual.pdf, 2008 
LCA  study  according  to  ISO14040/4044.  Consequential  approach  at  end-of-life  phase 
(avoided impacts from desk incineration to obtain energy) 
School desk made of 100% FSC certified pinewood (Mexico) 
use of the one desk for eight years, which is the estimated lifetime of the desk 

Scoring 
- 

- 
- 

SSCOPE 
= 3  

Cradle-to-grave 
The study includes all of the material and energy inputs required in the production of the 
school desk, with a few noted exceptions. It includes electricity production in Mexico and 
the operations from the sawmill to the production of the desk, as well as transportation 
within these operations. 
Life  cycle  stages  studied 
include  FSC  certified  wood  growth  and  harvesting, 
transportation, cutting of the logs into boards, manufacturing of the boards into school 
desks, distribution of the desks to the schools, and use of the  used desks as fuel in an 
industrial boiler. 
The study excludes any chemicals or water that may be used during use stage 
Economic allocation of inputs and outputs for board sawing (80% to sawn wood 
products and 20% to sawdust) and desk fabrication (95% to desk, 5% to sawdust). 
Primary data referring to Mexico and provided by CADIS, Center for LCA and Sustainable 
Design (Mexico). Secondary data: IDEMAT, Ecoinvent, Franklin, Franklin Associates (range 
of years considered is 1990 to 2008) 
There were no chemical inputs for fertilizer or pesticides in the growth of the logs, due to 
lack of data about potential fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use that may be used in non-
FSC certified forests. 
The  furniture  factory  is  adjacent  to  the  mill  so  transportation  impacts  were  negligible. 
The  boards  were  cut,  assembled  with  galvanized  screws  and  finished  with  a  lacquer 
coating.  The  manufacturing  plant uses  multipurpose  wood  working  machines  that  were 
built  in  the  1990s.  The  steel  containers  for  the  lacquer  were  collected  for  recycling, 
however the transport of the containers was excluded from the assessment. 
Transportation of the screws to the factory was also excluded from the study, as were 
packaging materials for the screws. 
The desks are trucked 80 kilometers to a retail store, and shipped an average distance of 
40 kilometers to the schools. 
The  desks  are  used  an  average  of  eight  years  before  they  are  discarded.  The  study 
excludes any cleaning chemicals or water that may be used during the life cycle of the 

1 

1 

1 

- 

84 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

 
 
 
 
5. Packaging 
6. End of Life 

10 

TOTAL 
Impact assessment 
categories/methods 

12  Conclusions (e.g. most 
important life lifecycle 
phases; most important 
drivers to impacts - 
process/material; 
improvement options) 

desks 

At the end of life, the desks are trucked 80 km to be burned as fuel in industrial boilers. 
The energy created by the combustion of the wood is an “avoided input” of natural gas 
that would have been combusted to heat water. This is calculated as a negative impact. 
Additionally, the CO2 created by the combustion of the wood is “cancelled” because the 
wood is biogenic and renewable. 

CML 2 baseline 2000 characterisation method: 
  global warming kg CO2 eq (Classification A) 
  ozone layer depletion kg CFC-11 eq (Classification A) 
  acidification kg SO2 eq (Classification B) 
  photochemical oxidation kg C2H4 eq (Classification B) 
  eutrophication kg PO4- eq (Classification B) 
  abiotic depletion kg Sb eq (not considered as key indicator) 
  human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq (not considered as key indicator) 
  fresh water ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq (not considered as key indicator) 
  terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq (not considered as key indicator) 
The  board  sawing  and  drying  stage  makes  the  largest  contribution  to  environmental 
impacts. The impacts are caused by emissions from fossil fuel combustion for electricity 
production.  Significant  impacts  were  also  created  by  combustion  of  fuel  for  desk 
fabrication processes.  

1 
1 

SDATA=1 

SIMPACTS 
= 5  

SOUTCOMES 
=3  

The energy recovery stage though incineration at end of life avoids a modest portion of 
the impacts created in the entire lifecycle. A significant amount of ozone layer depletion 
is avoided by burning the wood at the end of life instead of burning natural gas to heat 
water. 
To compare the relative scale of each of the impacts associated to the production of the 
school  desk,  each  impact  category  was  divided  bvy  the  normalization  factors  provided 
within the CML Baseline 2000 methods and referred to the global estimations for 1995. 
The  normalised  values  indicate  that  the  impact  categories  contributing  mostly  on  a 
global scale are terrestrial ecotoxicity, abiotic resource depletion and global warming..  
A variety of data in the process inventory of this wooden desk can be used to perform 
sensitivity analysis. One example is the assumed lifetime of eight years of use. Because 
the functional unit of the desk is “eight years of use”, the impacts of the production, use 
and  disposal  of  the  desk  are  distributed  over  that  period  of  time.  If  the  desk  were 
redesigned (through a variety of design strategies) to last for ten years instead of eight 
years, the  relative  impacts  of  the  desk  would  be  reduced by  (10  years –  8  years)  /  10 
years, or 20%.  
Strategies to improve the environmental performance of the desk include (among many 
others):  exploring  methods  to  cut  and  dry  the  boards  with  lower  (or  no)  fossil  fuel 
consumption,  identifying  ways  to  use  the  waste  sawdust,  and  redesigning  the  desk  to 
make it  last  more than eight  years.  The  study indicates that  alternatives  to  the  use  of 
fossil  fuels  to  produce  electricity  to  dry  the  boards  offer  the  greatest  potentials  to 
improve  the  environmental  and  human  health  performance  of  the  desks  over  their 
lifecycles. 
Strengths: analysis of FSC logs, improvement measures identified, sensitive analysis on 
lifespan  of  desks.  Weakness  point::  processes  have  been  modelled  with  reference  to 
Mexico. 

13  Strengths and 

weakness of the whole 
study, general 
comments 

14  Subject to independent 

No Independent review. 

review? 

TOTAL SCORE 

SSCOPE= 1     SDATA=3   SIMPACTS=5      SOUTCOMES = 1      SROBUSTNESS=3         SREVIEW=3 

12 

Item 

Observation 

SROBUSTNES

S 
= 3  

SREVIEW 
=1 

STOTAL = 16 

Scoring 

85 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 
2 
3 

4 
5 

6 
7 

8 

9 

title 
authors 
reference and year 

type of study 
scope 

functional unit 
system boundaries  

assumptions (e.g. 
allocation) 

data sources and 
quality 

1. Raw materials 
2. Manufacturing 

3. Distribution/ 
transport 
4. Use phase 
5. Packaging 

6. End of Life 

10 

TOTAL 
Impact assessment 
categories/methods 

11  Conclusions (e.g. most 
important life lifecycle 
phases; most important 
drivers to impacts - 
process/material; 
improvement options) 

DONATI environmental awareness 
DONATI   
Private documentation from industry, 2010. EPD nr S-P-00154; EPD nr S-P-00155; EPD 
nr S-P-00241; EPD nr S-P-00242 
Complete LCA  study according to PCR “Parts of furniture” (EPD international) 
Assessment of different Chair bases made of aluminium (polished, polished and painted 
and painted aluminium)  and nylon.  
1 base during its average life time, (estimated being 15 years, as minimum.) 
Cradle-to-grave scope 
The upstream processes include: 
• extraction and production of raw materials for components and packaging; 
• production of semi-manufactured materials; 
• manufacturing process for components and packaging; 
• all transportation involved; 
• treatment of generated waste. 
The core processes include: 
• transportation of mechanism components and packaging to Donati; 
• assembly of the mechanism including energy and water consumption at Donati; 
• packaging of the mechanism; 
• treatment of generated waste. 
The downstream processes include: 
• transportation of the mechanism to the customer; 
• use of the product; 
• end of life of the mechanism; 
• end of life of the mechanism packaging. 
Mass allocation for manufacturing. 
The  consumption  data  (water,  energies,  emissions,  waste  etc.)  is  aggregated  for  the 
same  production  site;  therefore  the  Life  Cycle  Inventory  has  been  based  on  allocation 
mass criteria (1 kg). The Life Cycle Impact results are expressed as functional unit (FU)  
The primary data is from DONATI company. Data process time for the manufacturing of 
the products is 2008. Primary data is used in most stages. Generic data of processes do 
not  exceed  10%  of  the  overall  environmental  impact  due  to  the  product.  All  LCI  data 
comes from the Ecoinvent database (2009).  
Data is based on suppliers . Data is “specific” and “selected generic”. 
Primary data is used and the data is collected on site. The electricity mix used by Donati 
is Italian. The data process time for the manufacturing of the products is 2008. 
The vehicle type and the distances are based on real data provided for Donati and for 
supplying firms.  
- 
Primary data. 
 Packaging materials: cardboard, wood, plastic and iron 
For  end  of  life treatment  data  is  based  on  technique  scenarios,  hence  selected  generic 
data is used, assuming the best treatment (recycling) as the bases are a single material. 

CML characterization. 
  global warming potential (GWP100); (Classification A) 
  ozone layer depletion potential; (Classification A) 
  acidification potential; (Classification B) 
  photochemical oxidation; (Classification B) 
  eutrophication potential; (Classification B) 
  resource use (non-renewable and renewable) (not considered as key indicator) 
  waste recyclable material; (not considered as key indicator)  
Using  secondary aluminium,  the energy  consumed in the  primary  transformation  is  not 
lost, but stays incorporated in the metal, and is available again in the following recycling 
process.  No  other  metal  is  considered  as  economical  for  recycling  purposes  as 
aluminium.  For  the  die-casting  of  aluminium  scrap  only  5%  of  the  original  energy  is 
used.  The  recycling  of  aluminium  gives  an  energy  saving  of  95%  which  is  the 
requirement for production at the raw material stage.  
The impact distribution forpolished aluminium based is as follows:  

Upstream  module  processes  (materials  processing)  have  the  highest  impacts  in  all 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

- 
- 
- 

SSCOPE 
= 1  

3 
3 

3 

- 
3 

3 

SDATA = 3 

SIMPACTS 
= 5  

SOUTCOMES 
= 1  

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
impact  categories,  followed  by  core  module  (manufacturing).  The  downstream  module 
has the lowest contribution. 

Comparing different bases, aluminium bases show higher impacts than nylon  bases for 
all impact categories. Results for Global warming are detailed in the following table: 

12  Strengths and 

weakness of the whole 
study, general 
comments 

LCA performed according to PCRs and ISOs, and primary data used. Poor information on 
interpretation  of  results  and  no  sensitive  analysisAssessment  for  a  chair  component 
(base), not for the final product. 

SROBUSTNES

S 
= 1 

13  Subject to independent 

Report for EPD. External verification by Certiquality S.r.l. 

SREVIEW 
= 5 

SSCOPE=3      SDATA= 3    SIMPACTS=1         SOUTCOMES =3     SROBUSTNESS=3       SREVIEW=3 

STOTAL = 16 

review? 

TOTAL 
SCORE 
13 

Item 

1 
2 
3 
4 

title 
authors 
reference and year 
type of study  

5 

scope 

6 

7 

functional unit 

system boundaries 

8 

assumptions  
(e.g. allocation) 

Scoring 

- 
- 
- 
SSCOPE = 
3  

Observation 

Life cycle assessment of commercial furniture: a case study of Formway LIFE chair 
Gamage, G. B., Boyle, C., McLaren S.J., McLaren, J. 
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2008) 13:401–411 
Attributional  study  according  to  ISO  standards.  Comparison  of  two  models  (aluminium 
base  and  glass-filled  nylon  (GFN)  base).  Sensitive  analysis  on  waste-management 
scenarios and content of recycled aluminium. 
Consequential approach for recycling assessment (system expansion) 
Chairs. New Zealand 
 Chair  based  aluminium:  Aluminium  59.3%,  Steel  9.1%,  Glass  filled  nylon  6.3%, 
Polypropylene  0.8%,  GFPropylene  0.3%,  PUR  4.6%,  POM  (Acetyl)  1.8%,  Acrylonitrile 
butadiene styrene 2.1%, Fabric 0.8%, Hytrel-crastin [polybutylene terephthalate (PBT)] 
7.1%, PA6 (nylon) 2.2%, Packaging 5.7% 

-  Chair base glass-filled nylon (GFN): 

Aluminium  49.8%,  Steel  9.6%,  Glass  filled 
nylon 15.6%, Polypropylene 0.9%, Glass filled polypropylene 0.3%, PUR (polyurethane) 
4.8%,  POM  (Acetyl)  1.9%,  Acrylonitrile  butadiene  styrene  2.2%,  Fabric  0.8%,  Hytrel-
crastin [polybutylene terephthalate (PBT)] 7.6%, PA6 (nylon) 2.3%, Packaging 4.2% 

Provision of comfortable office seating, with the features stated in the product 
description, for a period of 10 years in line with the product warranty. 
Cradle to grave 
The inventory of inputs and outputs included the following stages: 
–Extraction  of  raw  materials  from  the  Earth’s  crust  and  subsequent  refining  to 
commercial quality 
–Utilisation  of  raw  materials  to  manufacture  components  supplied  by  Formway’s 
suppliers 
–Transportation  of  the  components  from  the  sites  of  manufacture  to  the  Formway 
production facility in Wellington, New Zealand 
–Assembly and packaging of the LIFE chair 
–Transportation of manufactured products from Formway to the customer 
–Use phase and waste management 
The main inventory assumptions were: 
–Aluminium  with  the  world  average  recycled  content  of  34%)  was  used  for  both  the 
aluminium and GFN base chairs. 
–An average recycled content of 20% for steel components was used in both chairs (with 
validation from suppliers). 
–Polyethylene terephthalate, which was used as a proxy for Hytrel-crastin, is expected to 
display similar environmental effects as Hytrel-crastin. 

The  recycling  scenario  was  modeled  by  means  of  system  expansion,  assuming  tht 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
recylind of aluminium primary displaces aluminium production. 
Data  were  collected  directly  from  suppliers  where  possible.  Where  supplier  data  were 
unavailable,  the  ecoinvent  v1.3  database  was  used.  Some  modifications  have  been 
applied to consider the right electricity grid mix. 
Formway  Suppliers  information  (audits/questionnaires).  Ecoinvent  for  secondary  data 
when needed. 
Suppliers information for manufacturing of components and transport of components to 
Formay (by road) 
 Data  from  Formway  plant  for assembly  process  (assembling  requires electrical energy 
and manpower) 
Average case for customers. –The customer was considered to be in Sydney, Australia, as 
this would represent an average-case scenario for transport. 
No  environmental  exchange  takes  place  during  use  of  chairs  since  it  does  not  require 
enrgy or water and it was assumed that no significant repairs are made during its life. 
The  only  need  was  cleaning,  which  includes  wiping  the  surface  to  clear  dust  and  is 
expected to have negligible impacts. 

Ecoinvent.  Two  scenarios:  i)  the  entire  chiar  is  landfilled;  ii)  metal  components  are 
recycled and the remainder of the cuair is ladfilled. 
Trasnport of components to landfill/recycling facility is included. 

CML 2 baseline 2000 
 - global warming potential (GWP100) (Classification A) 
The comparison of the two LIFE chair models showed that the GWP100 was higher for 
the model with the aluminium base than for the model with the glass-filled nylon GFN 
base. 
The  results  show  that  the  main  hotspot  in  the  life  cycle  for  both  models  is  the  raw-
material  extraction/refinement  stage,  mainly  attributed  to  aluminium,  an  energy 
intensive material. 
Since  contribution  of  aluminium  was  found  to  be  significant,  sensitive  analysis  was 
carried-out to evaluate the influence of recycled content (0%, 34%, 100%) on the results 
due  to  for  aluminium  with  recycled  contents.  In  all  cases,  the  increase  of  recycled 
aluminium appeared beneficial because of resource savings and landfill avoidance. 
Sensitivity analysis for end-of-life comparing landfill and recycling how clear advantage 
for recycling (considering system expansion) 
Sensitive analysis on recycled content of aluminium in the product (0%, 34%, 100%) 

9 

data sources and 
quality 

1. Raw materials 

2. Manufacturing 

3. 
Distribution/transport 
4. Use phase 

5. Packaging 
6. End of Life 

10 

TOTAL 
Impact assessment 
categories/methods 

11  Conclusions (e.g. most 
important life lifecycle 
phases; most important 
drivers to impacts - 
process/material; 
improvement options) 

12  Strengths and 

weakness of the whole 
study, general 
comments 

13  Subject to independent 

Publication in a peer-reviewed journal 

review? 

3 

3 

3 

- 

3 
3 

SDATA = 3 
SIMPACTS 
=1  
SOUTCOMES 
=3  

SROBUSTNES

S 
=3  

SREVIEW 
=3  

TOTAL SCORE 

SSCOPE=1      SDATA= 3       SIMPACTS= 2       SOUTCOMES =3    SROBUSTNESS= 1         SREVIEW=3 

STOTAL =14 

14 
1 

Item 
title 

2 
3 
4 

5 
6 

7 

authors 
reference and year 
type of study  

scope 
functional unit 

system boundaries  

8 

Assumptions 
(e.g. allocation) 

Observation 
Environmental  assessment  of  green  hardboard  production  coupled  with  a  laccase 
activated system. 
González-García, S., Feijoo, G., Heathcote, C., Kandelbauer, A., Moreira, T. 
Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 445-453 
Consequential LCA (4 scenarios). The objective of this paper is to analyse the industrial 
process  of  green  hardboard  manufacture  considering  the  substitution  of  the  phenol-
formaldehyde resin by a two-component adhesive with a wood-based phenolic material 
and a phenol-oxidizing enzyme (i.e. laccase). Additionally, the new product is compared to 
the one manufactured with the conventional PF resin used as the main bonding agent 
Hardboard panel, domestic, Austria  
1 m3 of finished green hardboard (using bio-adhesives) for interior applications. The 
board density is approximately 900 kg/m3 and its moisture content is 7% by weight. 
The  study  covers  the  life  cycle  of  green  hardboards  production  from  a  cradle-to-gate 
perspective,  analysing  in  detail  the  hardboard  plant  and  dividing  the  process  chain  in 
three subsystems: Fibers Preparation, Board Forming and Board Finishing. 
Auxiliary  activities  such  as  chemicals,  bio-adhesive,  wood  chips,  thermal  energy  and 
electricity 
production and transport were included within the system boundaries. 
The  production  and  maintenance  of  capital  goods  were  excluded  for  the  two  types  of 
boards. 
An  important  feature  of  the  wood-based  industry  is  the  simultaneous  production  of 
several  products.  For  the  panel  industry,  the  main  product  is  the  panel,  while  residual 
wood  is  obtained  as  a  byproduct.  An  allocation  procedure  is  only  necessary  for  the 

Scoring 
- 

- 
- 
SSCOPE  
= 1  

88 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

 
 
 
 
 
 
9 

data sources and 
quality 

1. Raw materials 

2. Manufacturing 

3. 
Distribution/transport 
4. Use phase 
5. Packaging 
6. End of Life 
TOTAL 
Impact assessment 
categories/methods 

10 

11  Conclusions (e.g. most 
important life lifecycle 
phases; most important 
drivers to impacts - 
process/material; 
improvement options) 

3 

3 

- 

- 
- 
- 

SDATA= 3 
SIMPACTS 
=3  

SOUTCOMES 
=3  

panels, 
is  used  for  on-site  generation  of  thermal  energy. 
since  the  residual  wood 
Forestwastewas taken into account to complete the energy balance of the biomass plant. 
No  environmental  burden  allocation  was  assumed  to  forest  waste  from  previous 
processes and only their transport and later processing were computed. 
An Austrian hardboard plant, which has implemented the biotechnological process of 
green hardboards production, was selected to study the process in detail. LCI data were 
taken from Ecoinvent and ETH-ESU 96, 2004). 
Other  inventory  data  for  the  background  system  such  as  electricity,  paraffin  and 
aluminium  sulphate  production  were  obtained  from  the  Ecoinvent  database.  Forest 
operation data taken from literature. 
The main raw materials are green wood chips obtained from Norway spruce (Picea abies) 
and European beech (Fagus sylvatica). This material is delivered by truck from Austrian 
woodbased industries such as sawmills, satellite chip mills, etc. 
Inventory  data  for  the  foreground  system  (manufacturing)  consisted  of  average  data 
obtained  by  on-site  measurements.  It  includes:  fibers  preparation,  boards  forming  and 
boards finishings 

- 

- 
- 
- 

CML 2 baseline 2000 V2.1 

Global warming (GW) (classification A) 
acidification (AC) (classification B) 
photochemical oxidant formation (PO) (classification B)  
eutrophication (EP) (classification B) 
cumulative energy (not considered as key indicator) 

 
 
 
 
 
(ozone depletion potential not considered in this study) 

Fibers Preparation presented the highest contribution (more than 54%) to all the impact 
categories, followed by Board Forming and Board Finishing. This result was mainly due to 
the  higher  electricity  consumption  compared  to  the  other  subsystems  and  also  to  the 
laccase requirement. 
Global warming potential 
The  Fibers  Preparation  subsystem  contirbuted  with83%.  Electricity  and 
laccase 
production for 39% and 31%. Fossil fuel consumption (mainly natural gas and hard coal) 
for electricity production accounted for more than 39% of the total contribution followed 
by the diesel requirement in wood chipping stage (17%).  
Photochemical oxidants formation potential 
The  subsystem  of  Fibers  Preparation  had  the  largest  contribution  with  72%.  Board 
forming and board finishing are responsible for 24% and 3%, respectively. Both laccase 
and  on-site  thermal energy  production  showed  the  highest  contributions  to  this  impact 
category (34% each). Acidification potential 
The  Fibers  Preparation  and  Board  Forming  subsystems  were  the  most  important 
contributors  with  54%  and  42%,  respectively,  followed  by  the  subsystem  of  Board 
Finishing  On-site  thermal  energy  production  was  the  main  hot  spot  (63%  of  total 
contributions) due to the emissions of NOx and SO2 from the biomass boilers.  
Eutrophication potential 
Once again, the Fibers Preparation subsystem had the largest contribution to this impact 
category (61%) followed by Board Forming (36%) and Board Finishing (3%). The thermal 
energy plant was the main contributor to this impact category (55% of total), followed 
by  laccase  production  (22%)  and  chipping  stage  (10%).  The  production  of  the  phenolic 
compound  contributed  to  5%  of  total  eutrophying  emissions  mainly  due  to  COD 
emissions derived from the wastewater treatment plant in the biorefinery.  
The change from conventional HB to green HBs can reduce the contributions to almost 
all  impact  categories under  study excluding EP,  where the enzyme  manufacture  shows 
an important roledue to the large use of energy, as well as the carbohydrates (sugar and 
starch) and protein consumption in the laccase production process  and the emissions of 
COD in the lignin based material production.  
The  entire  energy  demand  could  be  reduced  by  45%  since  almost  30%  of  energy 
required  in  the  subsystem  of  Wood  preparation  is  associated  to  the  production  of 
laccase. Important reductions can be achieved regarding PO (it is possible to reduce the 
environmental  profile  up to  55%  changing  conventional  HB to  green  HBs),  in  particular 
due to the avoidance of the emission of formaldehyde by means of the production and 
use of green bonding agents instead of PF. 
Normalisation was done for the green Hardboard system, obtaining the following results:  
1. Hightly significant: AC 
2. Significant: EP 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

89 

 
 
 
 
 
3. Lightly significant: GW and PO 
The current green HB production process improves the environmental profile up to 18% 
in comparison with the conventional process using PF. Sensitive scenarios were done by 
improving the green process. The reduction in the dose of green adhesive (up to 25%) 
only improves the environmental profile by 19%. However, both reductions of 100% in 
the laccase and increases of 25% in the lignin material dose were also performed, and 
the normalized index could be reduced by 93% compared with the conventional process. 
Weakness:  Cradle-to-gate  assessment  of  a  very  specific  and  innovative  board 
manufacturing technology. 

12  Strengths and 

weakness of the whole 
study, general 
comments 

13  Subject to independent 

Publication in a peer-reviewed journal 

review? 

SROBUSTNES

S 
=1  

SREVIEW 
=3  

TOTAL SCORE 

SSCOPE= 3    SDATA=0         SIMPACTS=  1      SOUTCOMES = 1      SROBUSTNESS= 1         SREVIEW=1 

STOTAL =7 

15 
1 
2 
3 
4 

5 
6 

7 

Item 
title 
authors 
reference and year 
type of study  

scope 
functional unit 

system boundaries  

8 

9 

10 

assumptions (e.g. 
allocation) 
data sources and 
quality 
1. Raw materials 
2. Manufacturing 
3. Distribution/ 
transport 
4. Use phase 
5. Packaging 
6. End of Life 
TOTAL 
Impact assessment 
categories/methods 

11  Conclusions (e.g. most 
important life lifecycle 
phases; most important 
drivers to impacts - 
process/material; 
improvement options) 

Observation 
SUMMARY REPORT FOR LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF FURNITURE 
Indian Centre for Plastics in the Environment (ICPE). 
Unknown 
Comparative study on PP, steel and wood. LCA study according to ISO 14040/44 

PP furniture. The applications considered: Chair, Tables. 
-  The production, use and disposal of one chair for seating of one adult human. 
-  One dining table as required for four persons. 
Cradle-to-grave.  
Included stages: 
- Raw material production 
- Furniture manufacture 
- Furniture transportation 
- Use of furniture 
-  Used furniture  management  (Reuse/ Recycle/Disposal)The  life  cycle  stages,  processes 
and data not included : 
 Infrastructural requirements 
 Manufacturing of chemicals not forming a part of the final product. 
 Transportation of materials by modes other than road. 
 Material inputs less than 1% of the total input. 
 Economic and socioeconomic parameters. 
Not detailed in the study  

Not explained 

The modes of disposal studied include incineration and landfill. 

Ecoindicator 99 (H) 
  -Human  Health:  Carcinogens,  Respirable  organics,  Respirable  inorganics,  Climate 
change, Radiation,o Ozone layer 
 - Ecosystem Quality: Ecotoxicity, Acidification, Eutrophication, Land use 
 - Resources: Minerals, Fossil fuels 
From  the  normalization  done,  relatively-higher  contributions  are  given  for:  respiratory 
inorganics,  climate  change  and  fossil  fuel  used,  followed  by  acidification  and 
eutrophication.  In  almost  all  cases,  steel  furniture  has  higher  impacts,  although  PP 
consume  more  fossil  fuels  than  steel  and  wood.  Wood  has  higher  impact  values  for 
climate  change  than  PP,  whereas  for  the  rest  of  impacts  PP  shows  higher  values  than 
wood furniture. 
Wooden  furniture: Wooden furniture during its life cycle has an impact on Respirable 
organics and inorganics, Climate change, Acidification/Eutrophication, Land use and Fossil 
fuels. However the impact on Fossil fuels, Climate change and Land use is relatively high. 
As  compared to  PP  furniture,  wooden  furniture  has a  lower  impact  on Resources  but a 
higher  impact  on  Human  health  and  Ecosystem  quality.  Wood  being  a  renewable 
resource  does  not  have  a  major  impact  on  resources.  The  impact  during  the 

Scoring 
- 
- 
- 
SSCOPE 
= 3  

- 
- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
SDATA = 0 
SIMPACTS 
=1  

SOUTCOMES 
=1  

90 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
manufacturing stage is primarily due to logging, transportation and incineration. Also, as 
in  higher 
compared  to  PP  furniture,  wooden  furniture  has  less  life  resulting 
environmental  load  during  its  life  cycle.  The  other  important  aspect  which  has  a  major 
bearing on the final result is the release of carbon dioxide during the production stage. 
Non recyclability is a disadvantage that wooden furniture have vis-à-vis PP furniture. 
Steel  furniture:  Steel furniture have a relatively high impact on Respirable inorganics, 
Fossil  fuels  and  Climate  change  while  the  impact  on  Minerals,  Carcinogens  and 
Respirable  organics  is  low.  As  compared  to  PP  furniture,  steel  furniture  has  a  higher 
impact across all the three damage categories. 
The  steel  manufacturing  process  is  resource  intensive  and  the  energy  consumption 
during  the  transportation  stage  is  also  high.  Steel  manufacturing  process  involves  the 
use of iron ore as a raw material, which is a non renewable resource. All these factors, 
combined  together,  result  in  a  comparatively  high  score  for  the  ‘Resources’  damage 
category.  The  steel  manufacturing  process  also  has  a  high  impact  on  climate  change, 
respiratory  organics  and  carcinogens.  The  metal  emissions  during 
the  steel 
manufacturing process results in high impact on ecosystem quality. 
PP  furniture:  The  impact  on  Fossil  fuel,  Climate  change  and  Respirable  organics  is 
comparatively  higher  than  the  other  categories.  As  compared  to  the  impact  on  Human 
health  and  Ecosystem  quality,  Polypropylene  chairs,  have  a  higher  impact  on  the 
category ‘Resources’due to the use of crude oil as a raw material and its use as a source 
of energy during the life cycle. Recycling of PP however, results in lowering the impact on 
resources.  The  PP  Chair  during  its  life  cycle  also  results  in  high  impact  on  respirable 
inorganics  and  acidification  and  eutrophication.  PP  being  lighter  tan  steel  and  wooden 
furniture also has a lower impact during the transportation stage. 
Weakness:  NO  data  on  inventory  source.  Impacts  at  end-point-level.  Geographic  scope: 
India 

12  Strengths and 

weakness of the whole 
study, general 
comments 

13  Subject to independent 

No review 

review? 

SROBUSTNES

S 
=1  

SREVIEW 
1  

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

91 

 
3.4.2 Critical review and summary on selected LCA and EPDs 

13 out of 15 LCA studies satisfy the minimal quality requirements and have been analysed further.  

In terms of functionality, the selected LCAs cover the following types of furniture: 

  One selected LCA paper refers to wooden panels: MDF (x1)  

 

Five  LCA  reports  refer  to  Office  furniture:  desk  (x2),  workplace  (x1),  table  (x1),  office  chairs  (x5) 
and base of chairs(x1), office divider panel (x1), operational table office (x1)  

  One LCA report referring to school desk (1) 

 

Five  LCA  reports  covering  domestic  furniture:  products:  bed  mattresses  (x2),  bed  structure  (x1), 
couch  (x1),  kitchen  furniture  (x2),  table  (x1),  library  (x1),  childhood  bedroom  (x1),  wardrobe  (x2), 
armchair (x2), nightstand (x1), showcase (x1), side table (x1) 

It should be observed that the number of studies selected do not coincide with the number of case studies 
analysed, since several products may be addressed in a single report. 

In terms of scope, office furniture and indoor domestic furniture are well covered. Some gaps of information 
are  present  for  outdoor  furniture,  for  which  no  specific  and  satisfactory  studies  have  been  identified. 
Information for this type of furniture should thus be complemented by referring to other studies focusing on 
issues  like  wood  treatment  for  outdoor  use.  Most  of  the  selected  studies  analyse  a  final  furniture  product 
while only two studies are focused on furniture components (panel board and a base of chair). Consequently, 
processing of materials and manufacturing of components are in some cases analysed with less detail than 
the core process of manufacturing (assembling) a piece of furniture. 

In terms of materials, the main materials analysed in LCA studies are: wood, wood-based materials, metals 
and plastics. Most of the furniture studied are made of several materials: 

domestic furniture are usually made of wood or wood-panels,  
office chairs are usually made of metals (aluminium or steel) and plastics  
desks have as main component metal or wood-boards.  

 
 
 
  Upholstering textiles used in seats (couches) are only covered by one study.  
 

glass is also present in some domestic furniture such as cabinets and libraries.  

A  specific  LCA  selected  study39,  on  wood-boards  and  studies  on  furniture  using  wooden  boards40,41  as 
components  give  useful  information  on  potential  environmental  impacts  related  to  the  manufacturing  and 
use  of  these  panels.  Regarding  solid  wood,  some  studies  assess  some  issues  such  as  forestry  operations, 
certified management wood, as well as coatings of wood. 

Metals  are  widely  covered  by  studies,  because  the  majority  of  office  and  domestic  furniture  studies  have 
some components made of metals (mainly aluminium and steel). Some of them perform sensitive analysis 
on  recycled  content  of  metals  and  relative  contributions  of  different  types  of  metals  such  as  steel  and 
aluminium. Plastics are treated in some studies where some components are made of plastics, like all office 
wheel chairs. Nevertheless, not detailed analyses by type of plastics or recycled content are carried-out. 

Regarding  the  goals  and  outcomes  from  studies,  most  of  studies  identify  hot  spots  along  the  product  life 
cycle. Some studies also perform sensitive analysis on different design options or do comparative analyses, 
which are detailed in the sub-section titled "Analysis of environmental improvement options".  

EPDs  were  not  assessed  through  the  scoring  methodology,  except  when  complete  LCA  studies  for  their 
elaboration were available. Nevertheless, they still form an important source of information for some parts 
of this section, as for the analysis of materials used in furniture and average compositions (see sub-section 
titled  "Inventory  data  & materials covered by  LCA studies and  related impacts").The  EPDs  gathered  are  the 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

92 

 
following  (see  Table  47.  List  and  characteristics  of  EPDs  of  Appendix  II. Full LCA screening data 
and tables for more details): 

  5 EPDs on wooden panels/boards 
  25 EPDs on office chairs 
  4 EPDs on domestic chairs. 
  1 EPDs on table 

Among the 13 LCA studies selected, 7 of them cover all life cycle stages from cradle to grave whereas the 
rest of them (6)  have a scope from cradle to  gate.  Nevertheless, for most cradle-to-grave studies, the  use 
stage is excluded from the system boundaries because considered to have very low contribution. 

Regarding  EPDs,  almost  all  EPDs  of  chairs  and  tables  are  from  cradle  to  grave  (29  out  of  30).  The  only 
exception  is  represented  by  the  EPD  for  a  chair  which  is  based  on  a  cradle-to-gate  analysis.  Nevertheless 
some EPDs do not cover end-of-life or use stage. 

For panels, 5 EPDs have a scope from cradle-to-grave, but they exclude use phase because impacts due to 
this stage are considered negligible. Only the emission of formaldehyde during use is reported in EPDs. For 
the end-of-life, valorisation in a biomass power plant with energy recovery is the scenario for all these EPDs. 

Although the system defined depends on the type of furniture and materials used, the general flowchart for 
a typical furniture product can be drawn as follows: 

- 

- 

Upstream  processes:  extraction,  processing  and  transport  of  raw  materials.  In  some  studies, 
manufacture of components is included in this stage. 
Core  processes:  manufacturing  of  furniture.  It  could  include  manufacturing  of  the  different 
components or only their assembling. In the manufacturing stage, processes such as surface coating 
and the application of substances such as preservatives or flame retardants or glues and paints are 
considered. Packaging may be also included within this stage. 

-  Downstream processes: distribution, use, maintenance and end-of-life. 

In particular, it is worth to observe that manufacture of components is alternatively included by some studies 
either  in  the  upstream  or  in  the  core  processes.  Whereas  information  from  companies  and  database  are 
usually  gathered  for  upstream  and  core  process,  downstream  processes  (end-of-life)  usually  refer  to 
statistics and literature. When impacts of the use phase are included, maintenance and cleaning operations 
are considered. In most cases, only a simple cleaning operation (once a month) is considered. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

93 

 
 
UPSTREAM PROCESSES: 
 Extraction of raw 

materials 

  Transport of raw 

materials 

 Processing of raw 

materials 

CORE PROCESSES: 

 Manufacturing of 
components 
 Surface coating 
 Assembly 
 Packaging 

DOWNSTREAM PROCESSES: 

 Distribution 
 Use 
 End of life 

Figure 32. General flowchart for furniture product systems (Source: own elaboration based on LCA studies) 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. Preliminary Report  

94 

 
 
 
 
 
Functional unit 

The  functional  unit  is  the  calculation  basis  used  to  quantify  inputs  and  outputs  of  the  inventory  and  the 
related  environmental  impacts.  Ideally,  the  functional  unit  of  furniture  should  relate  to  the  use  and  the 
lifespan of each product. However, because of the diversity in types and applications of furniture, different 
approaches have been applied for the definition of the functional unit.  

Product  category  rules (PCRs)  documents  for  furniture  establish  guidelines on  how  to  define  the  functional 
unit in an EPD. Functional units defined by PCRs are listed in the table below.  

Table 21. Functional units defined in PCRs 

Product 

PCR 

THE INTERNATIONAL EPD®SYSTEM. PCR BASIC MODULE CPC 
Division 38 FURNITURE; OTHER TRANSPORTABLE GOODS 
VERSION 1.1 DATED 2009-08-06 
THE INTERNATIONAL EPD®SYSTEM. Other Furniture VERSION 1.0 
2012-05-08 
THE INTERNATIONAL EPD®SYSTEM. CPC 38160 PARTS OF 
FURNITURE PCR 2009:01 VERSION 1.1 2010-02-25 

Institut Bauen und Umwelt e.V. (IBU). PCR document "Wood-
based materials”, year 2009-11. 

PRODUCT-CATEGORY RULES (PCR) for preparing an 
Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) for Product Group 
Plate furniture NPCR 021. Apr 2012 
THE INTERNATIONAL EPD®SYSTEM. UN CPC Class 3811: Seats 
PCR 2009:02 Version 1.0 
Norwegian EPD Foundation.  PRODUCT CATEGORY RULES  (PCR) 
for preparing an Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) for 
Product Group Seating solution NPCR 003 Oct 2013 
Product Category Rules (PCR) for System Cabinet PCR 2011:1.0 
JIA WONG ENTERPRISE., LTD. (Taiwan). Version 1.0 2011-03-31 

General 
furniture 

Chairs 

Cabinets 

Bed solutions 

Norwegian EPD Foundation. Product Category Rules (PCR) for 
preparing an EPD for Product Group Sleeping solution 

Tables 

Laminates 

Upholstery 
textiles 

Norwegian EPD Foundation. PRODUCT-CATEGORY RULES (PCR) 
for preparing an environmental Product Declaration (EPD) for 
Product Group Table NPCR 005 Revised version. 
Institut Bauen und Umwelt e.V. (IBU). PCR document 
“Laminates”, base year 2009. 
Product Category Rules (PCR) for preparing an  EPD for Product 
Group Upholstery textiles Last revised: 17th Nov 2006 

Functional unit 

one unit of furniture or other 
transportable products 

one unit of furniture maintained 
during its life time 
one part of furniture during its life 
time 
Unit is 1 m3 of wood-based material. 
For coated panels or panels that are 
further processed (e.g. light 
construction panels) 1 m2 can be 
declared instead. 
One square meter of storage 
provided and maintained for a period 
of 15 years. 
seating provided and maintained for 
a period of 15 years 

seating provided and maintained for 
a period of 15 years 

one unit of system cabinet for a 
product lifespan of 10 years 
1m2 of sleeping surface with 
guaranteed lifetime of 15 yrs (25yrs 
for major components). 
one square meter of table provided 
and maintained for a period of 15 
years 

1 m3 of laminate 

1 m2 of textiles provided and 
maintained for a period of time. 

In most of the PCRs related to furniture, the functional unit is one unit of product with indication of a definite 
or  indefinite  time  reference  (a  certain  amount  of  years  or  the  product  life  time)  during  which  a  certain 
function  must  be  provided.  In  general,  the  considered  average  lifetime  is  15  years  for  seating  solutions, 
sleeping solutions and tables and 10 years for cabinets. For panels, the unit is generally volume (m3). 

Types of functional units for furniture found in the literature can be broadly split into three types: 

-  Units  (i.e.  pieces  of  furniture).  This  functional  unit  is  usually  considered  for  industry  studies  on 

specific furniture models. Lifespan can also considered in the functional unit definition. 

-  Mass or volume. This functional unit is usually found in academic papers and in wooden boards or 
panels  studies  usually  analysing  different  options.  Lifespan  is  usually  not  considered  and 
comparison among different furniture products and materials are not complete. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

95 

 
- 

Function (e.g. use of a chair for sitting with indication of the lifespan). This is considered the most 
coherent approach since it directly relates to furniture function and technical life span. 

The existence of different approaches makes it difficult to compare results from different studies, since the 
results are related to the functional unit chosen. Results must be analysed on a case by case basis. Normally, 
no sensitivity analysis is done to evaluate how the functional unit choice can affect the results. 

Inventory data & materials covered by LCA studies and related impacts 

For the  LCAs selected  and  the  EPDs  gathered,  data  inventory  sources  are  detailed  and the  scheme  can  be 
summarized as follows by life stage. 

  Upstream  processes:  raw  materials extraction  and  processing,  energy  sources.  This  data  is  usually 

taken from suppliers but it is normally complemented with databases. 

  Core  process:  manufacturing  process, including  packaging  and  sometimes  distribution.  This  data  is 

usually provided by manufacturers.  

  Downstream processes: use and end-of-life. Whereas use phase usually does not include inventory 
data (only cleaning operation in some cases), end-of-life waste treatment stage is usually modelled 
based on statistics on waste management and databases. 

Information  about  the  composition  of  furniture,  in  terms  of  type  and  weight  of  the  different  materials are 
detailed in all selected studies and EPDs. The main materials analysed in LCA studies are: wood, wood-based 
materials,  metals  and  plastics.  Most  of  the  furniture  products  studied  are  made  of  several  materials.  An 
average composition has been defined for main groups of furniture studying the composition of the different 
products available in the studies and can be found in Table 22. 

Table 22. Average composition of representative furniture products 

AVERAGE COMPOSITION OF CABINETS 
(arithmetic average of 3 products) 
Material 

wood 
wood panels 
glass 
metals 
plastics 
packaging 
others 

wood 
plastic 
Polyurethane (PUR) 
fabric 
packaging 
others 

Weight percentage 
41% 
36% 
9% 
4% 
0.4% 
8.5% 
2% 

Weigh percentage 
69% 
10% 
9% 
3% 
9% 
1% 

AVERAGE COMPOSITION OF DOMESTIC CHAIRS 
(arithmetic average of 3 products) 
Material 

AVERAGE COMPOSITION OF OFFICE DESKS 
(arithmetic average of 6 products) 
Material 
wood 
wood panels 
metals 
plastics 
packaging 

Weigh percentage 
23% 
41% 
27% 
1% 
7% 

AVERAGE COMPOSITION OF OFFICE CHAIRS 
(arithmetic average of 16 products) 

Material 
Metal (alum.) 
Metal (Steel) 
plastics 
PUR 
fabrics 
Packaging 
Others 

Weigh percentage 
30% 
31% 
17% 
7% 
1% 
13% 
1% 

Environmental impact categories and methods 

In section  

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2.3  Normalisation  results  from  LCA  studies  key  environmental  indicators  were  defined  for 
furniture products, according to information from PCRs and literature. Environmental indicators found to be 
relevant  for  this  product  group  are:  Greenhouse  warming  potential,  Ozone  depletion  potential,  Acidification 
potential, photochemical ozone creation potential, Eutrophication potential. 

All  EPDs  for  furniture  products  (35)  give  information  on  these  impact  categories  using  the  mid-point 
indicators required by the Product Category Rules which they refer to. The methods used are classified as A, B 
or C according to the overall classification provided in the ILCD Handbook.. CML indeed uses IPCC method for 
GWP and WMO for ODP. 

Regarding  selected LCA  studies, they  usually cover all the impacts categories preliminarily identified, which 
can  thus  be  considered  the  key  environmental  issues  on  which  to  focus.  In  most  cases,  the  assessment 
methods used are those classified as A, B or C according to the overall scientific classification provided in the 
ILCD Handbook. 

Regarding the 13 LCA studies selected, the impact methods used are the following: 

  6 studies used CML 2000 or 1999 for 5 key environmental indicators: 

o  Global warming potential (GWP): classification A. (kg CO2 eq.) 
o  Ozone layer depletion (ODP): classification A (kg CFC-11  equivalent)Acidification potential (AP): 

classification B. (kg SO2 eq) 

o  Photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP): classification B (kg C2H4 eq) 
o  Eutrophication potential (EP): classification B (kg PO4

3- eq) 

  5 studies used CML2000  for global warming, acidification, photochemical ozone creation potential and 
eutrophication, but used the Salomon, 1992, Nordic Guidelines for Ozone Layer Depletion.(kg CFC11 eq). 

Some studies using this method impact, quantified also  other indicators: abiotic depletion potential (kg 
Antimony eq.) (4 studies), human toxicity (kg DCB-eq. ) (5 studies), ecotoxicity (kg DCB-eq.) (5 studies). 

  1  study42  only  calculated  the  indicator  of  global  warming  potential  (GWP100)  using  CML  method 

(classification A). 

  1 study from USA43 used TRACI (midpoints indicators) and covered 2 out of the 5 key indicators:  

o  Global warming potential (GWP): classification A (kg CO2 eq) 
o  Acidification potential (AP): classification E ((H+ mol eqv.) 

Other 
indicators  were  also  considered,  such  as:  Energy  resource  consumption 
pollutants/human health (kg PM2.5 Eq), Solid waste (kg), total material consumption (kg). 

(MJ),  Citeria 

Some studies using other methods have been excluded because they did not pass the cut-off criteria related 
to impacts categories. 

Identification  of  key  environmental  impacts  and  hot-spots  for  furniture 
products 

The  review  of  the  selected  LCA  studies  and  EPDs,  allowed  identifying  environmental  hot-spots  along  the 
lifecycle of furniture products, as described in the following. 

In the table below, the impact distribution of products studied in selected studies are detailed. Note that in 
IHOBE  studies44,  manufacturing  stage  includes  material  extraction  and  processing.  In  red  it  is  marked  the 
stage with higher contribution. 

Table 23. Distribution of Global warming potential impact category for selected studies 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

97 

 
 
 
Furniture 
group 
Panels 

Cabinets 

Kitchen 

Desks 

Upholstered 
seats 

Wood 
furniture 

Office 
wheel chair 

manufacturing  distribution 

use 

Study 

Study 4 (MDF, UK)39 
Study 8 (Cabinet Martex, 
IT)45 
Study 7 (Cabinet 
Mascagni, IT)46 

materials 
TOTAL  materials  packaging  transport 
94,0% 

72,0% 

61,0% 

Study 9 (kitchen, Italy)47  40,0% 
Study 5 (Desk, Italy)41 
96,0% 
Study 6 (Workplace, 
Italy)48 
Wood desk IHOBE44 
Study 3 (IHOBE, Spain)44 

88,4% 

5,5% 

28,0% 

39,0% 

60,0%* 
4,0% 

11,6% 

68,0%* 
94,0%* 

Study 1 (PROPILAE, FR)38  87,0% 

85,0% 

1,0% 

1,0% 

5,0% 

Study 1 (PROPILAE, FR) 
( table, drawer, library)38 
Study 11 (scholar desk, 
UNEP)49 
Study 2 (Childhood set, 
ES)40 
Study 3 (IHOBE, Spain)44 

Study 3 (IHOBE, Spain)44 
Study 13 (ALUMINIUM 
CHAIR Formway, New 
Zealand)42 

91,0% 

81,0% 

2,0% 

8,0% 

5,0% 

71,3% 

49,0% 

28,6% 

21,0% 

89,0%* 

84,0%* 

63,5% 

62,5% 

1,0% 

34,0% 

0,5% 

31,0% 
60,0% 

4,0% 

3,0% 

0,1% 

13,0% 

9,0% 

21,0% 

end-of-
waste 
0,5% 

1,0% 
10,0% 

5,0% 

0,0% 

-0,1% 

2,0% 

-5,0% 

3,0% 

*Note: in IHOBE studies, manufacturing stage include materials extraction and processing. In red it is marked the stage 
with higher contribution 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3% 

11% 

23% 

30% 
18% 
3% 
65%* 
79%* 

1% 

11% 

21% 

27% 

55%* 
25% 
5% 
64%* 
89%* 

5% 

Furniture 
group 
Panels 

Cabinets 

Kitchen 

Desks 

Upholstered 
seats 

Wood 
furniture 

Office 
wheel chair 

Furniture 
group 
Panels 

Cabinets 

Kitchen 

Desks 

Upholstered 
seats 

Wood 
furniture 

Office 
wheel chair 

Table 24. Distribution of Eutrophication potential impact category for selected studies 

manufacturing  distribution 

use 

Study 

Study 4 (MDF, UK)39 
Study 8 (Cabinet Martex, 
Italy)45 
Study 7 (Cabinet 
Mascagni, IT)46 
Study 9 (kitchen, IT)47 
Study 5 (Desk, IT)41 
Study 6 (Workplace, IT)48 
Wood desk IHOBE44 
Study 3 (IHOBE, Spain)44 

materials 
TOTAL  materials  packaging  transport 
45% 

89% 

77% 

70% 
82% 
97% 

1% 

4% 

Study 1 (PROPILAE, FR)38 

61% 

59% 

Study 1 (PROPILAE, FR) 
( table, drawer, library)38 
Study 11 (scholar desk, 
UNEP)49 
Study 2 (Childhood set, 
ES)40 
Study 3 (IHOBE, ES)44 
Study 3 (IHOBE, ES)44 

36% 

49,1% 

55% 

1% 

27% 

19% 

33% 
16% 

5% 

10% 

51,7%* 

0,2% 

-1,0% 

85%* 
68%* 

13% 

14% 
30% 

1% 
2% 

end-of-
waste 
51% 

2% 
5% 

34% 

5% 

*Note: in IHOBE studies, manufacturing stage include materials extraction and processing. In red it is marked the stage 
with higher contribution 

Table 25. Distribution of Acification potential impact category for selected studies 

manufacturing  distribution 

use 

end-of-
waste 
1% 

materials 
TOTAL  materials  packaging  transport 
89% 

79% 

72% 

Study 

Study 4 (MDF, UK)39 
Study 8 (Cabinet Martex, 
Italy)45 
Study 7 (Cabinet 
Mascagni, IT)46 
Study 9 (kitchen, IT)47 
Study 5 (Desk, IT)41 

45% 
75% 
Study 6 (Workplace, IT)48  95% 

Wood desk IHOBE44 
Study 3 (IHOBE, Spain)44 

Study 1 (PROPILAE, FR)38  100% 

1% 

Study 1 (PROPILAE, FR) 
( table, drawer, library)38 
Study 11 (scholar desk, 
UNEP)49 
Study 2 (Childhood set, 
ES)40 
Study 3 (IHOBE, ES)44 
Study 3 (IHOBE, ES)44 

79% 

38% 

52,5% 

45% 

1% 

2% 

2% 

35% 
8% 

2% 
2% 

-8% 

100% 

39% 

12% 

14% 

-5% 

67,5%* 

0,2% 

-20,2% 

91%* 
73%* 

9% 
23% 

0% 
4% 

*Note: in IHOBE studies, manufacturing stage include materials extraction and processing. In red it is marked the stage 
with higher contribution 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 26. Distribution of Ozone layer depletion potential impact category for selected studies 

Furniture 
group 
Panels 

Cabinets 

Kitchen 

Desks 

Upholstered 
seats 

Wood 
furniture 

Office 
wheel chair 

materials 
TOTAL  materials  packaging  transport 
84,1% 

98,0% 

84,0% 

Study 

Study 4 (MDF, UK)39 
Study 8 (Cabinet Martex, 
Italy)45 
Study 7 (Cabinet 
Mascagni, IT)46 
Study 9 (kitchen, IT)47 
Study 5 (Desk, IT)41 

90,0% 
85,0% 
Study 6 (Workplace, IT)48  99,8% 

Wood desk IHOBE44 
Study 3 (IHOBE, Spain)44 

Study 1 (PROPILAE, FR)38  84% 

75% 

1% 

0% 

8% 

0% 

100% 

100% 

57,0% 

46,0% 

11,0% 

Study 1 (PROPILAE, FR) 
( table, drawer, library)38 
Study 11 (scholar desk, 
UNEP)49 
Study 2 (Childhood set, 
ES)40 
Study 3 (IHOBE, ES)44 
Study 3 (IHOBE, ES)44 

manufacturing  distribution 

use 

14,8% 

2,0% 

16,0% 

10,0% 
15,0% 
0,2% 
73%* 
84%* 

1% 

0% 

negative 
values 

82%* 
60%* 

24% 
14% 

29% 

0% 

- 

23,0% 

17% 
36% 

end-of-
waste 
1,1% 

4% 
2% 

-14% 

0% 

negative 
values 

2% 
4% 

*Note: in IHOBE studies, manufacturing stage include materials extraction and processing. In red it is marked the stage 
with higher contribution 

Table 27. Distribution of Photochemical oxidant creation potential impact category for selected 

Furniture 
group 
Panels 

Cabinets 

Kitchen 

Desks 

Upholstered 
seats 

Wood 
furniture 

Office 
wheel chair 

studies 

materials 
TOTAL  materials  packaging  transport 
91% 

81% 

12% 

Study 

Study 4 (MDF, UK)39 
Study 8 (Cabinet Martex, 
Italy)45 
Study 7 (Cabinet 
Mascagni, IT)46 
Study 9 (kitchen, IT)47 
Study 5 (Desk, IT)41 

36% 
78% 
Study 6 (Workplace, IT)48  96% 

Wood desk IHOBE44 
Study 3 (IHOBE, Spain)44 

Study 1 (PROPILAE, FR)38  51% 

49% 

26% 

Study 1 (PROPILAE, FR) 
( table, drawer, library)38 
Study 11 (scholar desk, 
UNEP)49 
Study 2 (Childhood set, 
ES)40 
Study 3 (IHOBE, ES)44 
Study 3 (IHOBE, ES)44 

98,7% 

63,0% 

1% 

0% 

1% 

3% 

manufacturing  distribution 

use 

8% 

19% 

88% 

65% 
23% 
4% 
71%* 
97%* 

45% 

69% 

2,5% 

93%* 
88%* 

28% 
2% 

5% 

1% 

0,0% 

6% 
13% 

end-of-
waste 
1% 

1% 
0% 

-1% 

0% 

-6,3% 

0% 
-1% 

*Note: in IHOBE studies, manufacturing stage include materials extraction and processing. In red it is marked the stage 
with higher contribution 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Distribution of impacts along life cycle stages and hot spot identification 

This  distribution  of  the  impacts  is  in  general  similar  in  all  the  studies  analysed.  Environmental  impacts  of 
furniture  products are  mostly  associated  to  the  production  and the  further treatment  of  the  raw  materials 
used in the manufacture stage (this is common for all LCA studies selected). Contribution of  materials can 
vary between 72-90% according to the IHOBE Sectoral Guide44 and it can be still more significant, depending 
on the piece of furniture evaluated.  

Furniture production, mainly consisting of component assembly, is usually the second most important stage 
in terms of environmental impacts (6-20% according to a study)44. The magnitude of impacts is significantly 
lower than for materials and mainly due to consumption of energy (for instance drying step in painting and 
coating)41,45 and to the use and emission of substances in the finishing processes. 

The contribution from  furniture transport and furniture disposal is minor (1-15% and 1-4%, respectively44,). 
The % was dependent on assumptions made for distance and transport mode for waste disposal scenarios. 
Reuse of the  product can present significant advantages. According to some studies,  product transport and 
end-of-life can be of concern, from a lifecycle perspective, for ODP38,40 and eutrophication38, respectively.  

In general, impacts due to raw materials are lower for wooden furniture than for products containing higher 
amounts of metal parts38,43 Consequently, manufacturing and transport assume relatively higher importance. 
However, it must be observed that materials can offer different levels of durability too. 

When included in the assessment, it was shown that impacts of the use phase are negligible38,44. In the table 
below, the average distribution of impacts among the different life cycle stages by each impact category. It 
can be seen that materials have the highest contribution in all impact categories, followed by manufacturing, 
distribution, end of life and use phase. 

Table 28. Average life stages contribution for the different impact categories 

Materials 

Manufacturing  distribution 

use 

Global warming 
potential 

Eutrophication 
potential 

Acidification 
potential 

Ozone layer 
depletion 
potential 
Photochemical 
oxidant 
potential 

Avg: 74% 
Min.: 40% 
Max.: 96% 
Avg: 71% 
Min.: 45 
Max.: 97 
Avg: 69% 
Min.: 45 
Max.: 95 
Avg: 85% 
Min.: 57% 
Max.: 99.8% 
Avg: 69% 
Min.: 12% 
Max.: 98.7% 

Avg: 30% 
Min.:4 
Max.:89 
Avg: 18% 
Min.: 3% 
Max.: 51,7% 
Avg: 15% 
Min.: 2 
Max.: 27,3, 
Avg: 7% 
Min.: 0% 
Max.: 16% 
Avg: 36% 
Min.: 2.9% 
Max.: 88% 

Avg: 10% 
Min.: 0.1% 
Max.: 31% 
Avg: 15% 
Min.: 0.2% 
Max.: 33% 
Avg: 13% 
Min.: 0.2% 
Max.: 35% 
Avg: 18% 
Min.: 0% 
Max.: 36% 
Avg: 8% 
Min.: 0% 
Max.: 28% 

Avg: 
Min.: 
Max.: 
Avg: 
Min.: 
Max.: 
Avg: 
Min.: 
Max.: 
Avg: 
Min.: -14% 
Max.: 4% 
Avg: 
Min.: 
Max.: 

end-of-
waste 
Avg: 1% 
Min.: -5% 
Max.: 5% 
Avg: 12% 
Min.: -1% 
Max.: 51% 
Avg: 3% 
Min.: -20.2% 
Max.: 4% 
Avg: 0% 
Min.: 
Max.: 
Avg: 1% 
Min.: -6% 
Max.: 1% 

Note: studies where the manufacturing stage includes processing of materials have not been included for the 
elaboration of this table. 

Different studies on wooden furniture40,47 show that the production of wooden boards is an energy intensive 
process that constitutes the main hot-spot of the lifecycle. Board sawing and drying stage form the largest 
contributions  to  the  environmental  impacts39,40,49..  Positive  effects  can  be  achieved  through  reuse  of 
production waste in place of virgin fibres or through energy recovery39. Transport of wood raw materials can 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

101 

 
 
 
 
contribute significantly (above 50%) to the greenhouse emissions generated during the lifecycle of a piece of 
furniture when origin of wood or costumers are far from the production facility.  

Apart  from  the  5  key  indicators  selected  for  the  screening,  it  was  found  that  some  additional  sources  of 
concerns in the lifecycle of wooden furniture can be represented by the system of chemicals used38,40,46,47. For 
instance, significant levels of toxicity can be associated to the use of some resins38,40 , such as alkyd resins38 
and  urea-formaldehyde  resins43.  A  significant  contribution  to  POCP  can  also  result  from  some  finishing 
processes38,  such  as  aromatic-diluents  based  lacquering)47,  use  of  solvent  based  on  xylenes,  use  of 
naphthene and toluene for polyurethane finish and UV coating, emissions from paints and varnishes, fillers 
and diluents46. The use of acrylic adhesives in chipboards could be instead significant for ODP45. 

In other types of furniture it is possible to appreciate that also other materials can have a significant weight 
in  terms  of  environmental  impacts.  This  is  the  case  of  textile  materials  in  upholstery  furniture38  and 
component  made  of  metal,  especially  when  virgin  metals  are  used41,45.. Some  plastics  can  also  be  included 
within the hot-spot of the furniture lifecycle, such as: ABS for edge and panel boards, contributing to ODP,48 
PVC  and  PVA,  contributing  to  ODP47.  With  respect  to  packaging,  its  contribution  is  estimated  being  6%,  on 
average, in a studies where packaging impact is detailed41,45,46,47,48. 

Upstream processes: Material and component production 

As described above, main consumptions and impacts are due to the production of components. 

In  furniture  made  of  mixed  materials  (metals,  plastics  and  wood-based  panels),  contributions  of 
production and transport of components in the selected indicators is: 85-96% for global warming, 85% for 
ozone  depletion,  77-95%  for  acidification,  82-97%  for  eutrophication,  77-95%  for  photochemical  ozone 
formation.  

For  furniture  made  of  mixed  materials,  aluminium  was  found  to  have  the  highest  ratio  impact/weight,  in 
comparison with other materials such are wood-based panels: 

  Relative impacts from primary aluminium when forming 39.9% by weight of the furniture: 90% of 

energy consumption, 85% of global warming, 81% of acidification41.  

  Relative  impacts  from  primary  aluminium  when  forming  25%  by  weight  of  the  furniture:  60%  of 

energy consumption, 84% of global warming, 81% of acidification48. 

  Relative impacts from primary aluminium when forming 13% by weight of the furniture: about 47% 

of energy consumption, 65% of climate change45. 

Using  secondary  aluminium,  the  energy  consumed  in  the  primary  transformation  is  not  lost,  but  stays 
incorporated in the light metal, and is available again in the following recycling process. No other metal is as 
economical for recycling purposes as aluminium. All studies performing sensitive analysis on aluminium show 
significant benefits associated to the use of secondary aluminium. Secondary aluminium can allow reducing 
the  energy  consumption  by  89-95%  (145  MJ/kg  for  primary  aluminium  and  15.9  MJ/kg  for  recycled 
aluminium)41.  In  a  study  on  office  furniture43,  increasing  the  content  of  secondary  aluminium  by  10%  was 
found to reduce global warming by 54% and the acidification potential by 62%. 

Plastics such as PVC, PVA and ABS have a high energy demand and have high contribution in Ozone depletion 
Potential category. 
Wooden  panels  and  boards  are  normally  used  as  component  for  finished  furniture.  Consequently  most  of 
furniture  studies  include  the  manufacturing  process  of  panels  in  upstream  processes.  For  furniture  where 
wood and wood-based panels38,47 are the main component, materials stage has a lower relative contribution: 
61% of global warming, 84% of ozone depletion, 45-72.7% of acidification, 70-77% of eutrophication. For 
energy consumption the contribution is 67-73.3%. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

102 

 
 
LCA results vary significantly among types of wooden boards and manufacturers with up to 50% variance of 
environmental  impact  indicators  among  the  different  studies.  The  variance  is  connected  to  the  type  of 
material,  density  of  panel,  and  energy  efficiencies  of  the  production  process  as  well  as  to  the  different 
sources of energy used.  

For  most  impact  categories,  the  fibre  production  stage  has  the  highest  environmental  impact  (54%  on 
average,  depending  on  the  impact  category)  due  to  energy  use  and  chemical  additives  used  in  fibre 
preparation. Sensitive analysis showed that highest potential of reducing impacts from panels are: the use of 
recycled fibres and the reduction of use of non-renewable resins39. 

In  general  terms,  the  following  conclusions  can  be  extracted  from  LCA  studies  and  EPDs  for  panels.  The 
average contribution to the selected impact categories is as follows:  

 

 

 

 

 

The greenhouse warming potential is the impact category more significant for wooden panels. Most 
of  the  climate  change  impact  is  associated  with  the  production  stage,  since  raw  materials 
(wood/paper) are carbon neutral materials with respect to the feedstock.  

Raw materials (approximately 25–85%) and production (20–75%) are the main contributors for the 
ozone depletion potential. 

Raw materials (about 30–80%), production (about 15–55%), transportation (about 8–20%) and EoL 
(about 20%) are the main contributors for the acidification potential. 

Raw  materials  (40-90%),  production  (9-50%),  transportation  (6%)  and  EoL  (around  20%)  are  the 
main contributors to the eutrophication potential.  

Raw  materials  contribute  approximately  25-80%,  production  (15-70%)  and  transportation  (5%)  to 
the photochemical oxidant creation potential. 

Packaging materials are included in some studies in materials stage. Packaging contributes on average in 6% 
of materials’ impact.  
The use of different materials for the same application has been object of some comparative analyses for 
the same type of furniture and function. Wood, especially if sourced  from sustainable harvesting  practices, 
has been shown to be the best material for use in many different applications as it has lower impacts on the 
environment compared to other materials such as metals and plastics for the same applications40. Comparing 
to metals and plastic, wooden materials were found to be the least energy intensive 43. Because of this, they 
scored  less  for  most  of  the  impact  categories  studied,  such  as  global  warming  or  acidification.  It  is  also 
important to highlight that timber is a renewable resource in comparison to other materials such as metal or 
plastic. Nevertheless, wooden materials have higher impacts for human health and ecosystems quality when 
comparing to plastic materials due to substances used in the processing of the fibres and the panels.  

Regarding plastics, one study42 shows that some plastics used in furniture such as Glass-Filled Nylon GFN or 
Polypropylene  show  better  environmental  performance  where  they  are  compared  to  metals  (steel  and 
aluminium) for the same applications and functions. Main impacts from plastics are due to the use of oil as a 
raw material and as a source of energy. Being lighter than steel and wooden furniture, plastics have also a 
lower impact during the transportation stage50. 

In all studies where metals are present, they have the highest impacts per weight, basically due to the fact 
that  they  are  very  intensive  energy  materials.  Primary  aluminium  is  the  metal  more  intensive  energy 
compared to other plastics like steel. 

One  of  the  determinant  parameter  conditioning  the  environmental  behaviour  of  materials  is  the  embodied 
energy.  From  a  study  review  of  EPDs  office  seating  solution51  it  was  concluded  that  potential  impacts  of 
categories like  Global  Warming  Potential, Eutrophication  Potential, Acidification  Potential  and  Heavy  Metals 
have a strong correlation with energy consumption data of EPDs for seating solutions.  In the table below it 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

103 

 
can be seen that wood have relative low energy demand comparing to other materials, whereas aluminium is 
the most energy demanding material52. 

Table 29. Energy embodied in some materials used in furniture (average and indicative values)52  

Material 

Aluminium 
Plastics (general) 
PVC 
Galvanised mild steel 
Mild steel 
Glass 
Medium Density 
Fibreboard (MDF) 

Embodied Energy in 
Materials (MJ/kg) 
170.0 
90.0 
80.0 
38.0 
34.0 
12.7 

Material 

Glued-laminated timber 
Laminated veneer timber 
Plywood 
Particleboard 
Kiln dried sawn softwood 
Kiln dried sawn hardwood 

Embodied Energy in 
Materials (MJ/kg) 
11.0 
11.0 
10.4 
8.0 
3.4 
2.0 

11.3 

Air dried sawn hardwood 

0.5 

Transport of raw materials 

One source of environmental impact of materials is the geographic origin of these materials, since transport 
associated  from  origin  to  manufacturing  plant  can  be  significant.  Some  of  the  raw  materials  that  can  be 
imported  from  long-distance  sites  are:  tropical  wood  or  metals,  among  others.  Transport  of  raw  materials 
from  the  site  of  extraction/processing  to  the  assembly  plant  can  have  contributions  going  to  1%  to  39% 
depending on the impact category and the origin of raw materials (see  Table 23, Table 24, Table 25, Table 
26,  Table  27).  Measures  to  decrease  the  environmental  burdens  due  to  transport  are  provided  in  Section 
4.3.5. One of the most effective measures could be to prioritize local suppliers. 

Manufacturing stage 

For a final furniture  product, manufacturing consists basically in the processes of finishing and assembling 
different components. This stage has lower contribution than material processing (around 10%, depending on 
the impact categories for the selected studies).  For the manufacturing, the main contributions in all impact 
categories are due to energy consumption (electricity and heating). However, also the use of chemical is one 
of the hot-spots39,41,45,46,47,48,49. 

Manufacturing  processes  with  higher  contributions  are  those  including  treatment  of  materials  (such  as 
surface  coating,  glueing,  etc)  which  require  chemicals  and  energy.  Coating  processes  can  demand  high 
amonuts  of  electricity  and  heat  for  drying  (up  to  70%  and  78%  of  total  energy  demand  and  GWP  of  the 
manufacture process, respectively)41,45,46,47,48. 

Lacquering  process  has  also  relevant  impacts  for  the  presence  of  aromatic  diluents,  particularly  in 
Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential category. 

For  furniture  products  where  coating  is  applied46,  core  processes  have  the  highest  contribution  on 
photochemical ozone formation, (more than 80%), mainly due to atmospheric emissions resulting from the 
coating systems (emission of solvent in paints and  varnishes, fillers and diluents). Substances with especial 
contribution  are:  solvents  base  of  xylene  contained  in  the  products  of  the  application  of  the  polyurethane 
finish, naphthenes due to the presence of cycle primarily alkanes in the products of UV coating, toluene as a 
diluent in paint products, both UV and polyurethane-based.. 

Distribution 

Distribution of the final product to the end user is modelled in some studies, with data from manufacturer 
and sales statistics.  This stage  is in  general  less  significant  from a  life  cycle  perspective  than  materials or 
manufacturing since on average it has a contribution of 8-18% depending on the impact category. Sensitive 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

104 

 
 
 
analysis  however  shows  improvement  potential  if  efficiency  measures  on  distribution  are  applied  (such  as 
promote efficient vehicles or regional distribution with shorter distances)40. 

Transport activities are especially important in terms of  Ozone Depletion Potential (18% of  contribution on 
average) due to tailpipe emissions from trucks. Moreover,  consumption of heavy fuel oil is characterized by 
significant  emissions  of  nitrogen  oxides  responsible  for  the  Acidification  Potential  (13%  on  average)  and 
Photochemical Oxidant Creation Potential and Global warming potential (see Table 26).  

Use 

The  use  stage  does  not  contribute  appreciably  to  environmental  impacts.  In  studies  where  cleaning  or 
maintenance operations are  considered, impacts  were not so  relevant (1-2% of impacts)38. For upholstered 
furniture, sensitivity analysis on cleaning operations showed a variance of 0.5% for all indicators38. 

Durability of furniture is an important parameter since it will determine the lifespan. Sensitivity analysis on 
lifespan  showed  significant  reductions  of  impacts  by  increasing  durability.  For  instance,  increasing  the 
lifetime of a desk from 8 to 10 years would decrease impacts by 20%49. 

For panel boards and furniture made of wooden panels, indoor VOC emissions (especially formaldehyde) can 
be significant, but this was not reflected in the selected LCA studies, which did not assess indoor emissions. 

End of life 

The End of Life can be responsible for relevant impacts in some furniture products (around 5% on average, 
but it can have higher values depending on the end-of-life scenarios).  

In all studies where different waste treatment scenarios were compared, options to recover value from the 
product after use seems to be feasible and to offer great possibilities to reduce the environmental impacts. 

For instance, reuse of components can dramatically reduce impacts by avoiding the production of other new 
units.  One  LCA  study42  qualitatively  shows  that  recycling  of  furniture  can  decrease  the  GWP100  in 
comparison to landfilling. Also the reuse of wood  waste  as secondary  material or for energy purposes was 
found  to  produce  significant  environmental  benefits  compared  to  the  disposal  in  landfill39.  This  applies  to 
both the final product after its use and to the waste produced along the production chain. 

Analysis of environmental improvement options 

Some  selected  studies  performed  streamlined  sensitive  analysis  on  different  parameters  (e.g.  content  on 
specific  substances,  percentage  of  recycled  materials,  distribution  distance)  in  order  to  quantify  the 
environmental improvement potential offered by some design options. 

The  Spanish  Ecodesign  Guide44, identified  a  broad  set  of  ecodesign  options  to  be  potentially  applied  in  the 
furniture  sector,  based  on  results  obtained  in  the  LCA  studies  of  representative  furniture  products.  In  the 
guide  document,  for  each  eco-design  measure,  the  technical, economic  and  environmental  implications  are 
detailed as well as examples of its application. 

Main  results  are  summarized  for  each  life  stage  in  the  table  below.  A  comprehensive  list  of  potential 
environmental improvement measure for each life stage is shown, estimating its environmental improvement 
potential  (high;  medium;  low)  and  technical  feasibility  (high:  change  with  no  technical  implications  in 
process/technologies; medium: feasible since alternatives exist in the current market but the measure implies 
changes/adaptation  in  processes;  low:  possible  but  few  or  experimental  alternatives  exist  and  adaptations 
can  imply  technical  limitations  and  additional  costs).  For  each  measure,  results  of  sensitive  analysis 
performed in the selected LCA studies are detailed when available. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

105 

 
 
Life Cycle 
Stage 

Strategy 

Measure 

Environmental 
improvement 
potential 
(high, medium, 
low)44 

Technical 
feasibility 
(high, 
medium, 
low)44 

Sensitivity analysis done in selected LCA 

Use materials and production processes with low energy 
consumption associated. 
Select suppliers local to the furniture manufacturing site. 
Avoid the use of halogenated flame retardants. 
Wood: Avoid the use of wood from protected species and use 
wood produced in forest plantations  
Use wood and wood fibres from sustainable sources. (Wood) 
Use wood without chemical or dangerous treatment.  (Wood) 
Use wooden boards with low VOC emissions. (Wood) 

High 

High 
High 

High 

High 
High 
High 

Medium 

High 
Medium 

High 

High 
High 
Medium 

Use boards with low formaldehyde emissions. (Wood panels) 

High 

Medium 

Using recovered and recycled wood. (Wood boards) 

High 

High 

Use recycled plastics. (Plastics) 

High 

Medium 

Use recyclable plastics. (Plastics) 
Eliminate dangerous plastics additives. (Plastics) 

High 
High 

High 
Medium 

Use recycled-sourced metals. (Metals) 

High 

High 

RAW 
MATERIALS 

STRATEGY: 
Selection of 
materials 
with low 
environmen
tal impact. 

Sensitivity  analysis  on  the  amount  of  resin  content  in  wooden  panels. 
Decreasing  the  mass  contribution  of  urea-formaldehyde  resin  from  the 
current  level  of  9.5%  to  4.9%  in  particleboard  composition  results  in 
reductions  for  all  key  categories  (20%  of  global  warming,  58%  of 
acidification potential) 

Several  studies  on  panels  performed  sensitive  analysis  on  the  effect  of 
reducing the total demand of virgin fibres by using recycled fibres. Studies 
showed  that  increasing  the  percentage  of  recycled  fibres  content  allow 
higher environmental impacts reductions (specially with higher percentage, 
where  the  benefits  from  recycling  are  higher  than  the  energy  used  for 
recycling process, and net benefit are higher that incineration with energy 
recovery).  For  the  case  of  MDF  panels,  there  is  a  potential  reduction  of 
0.52 tonnes of CO2 eq. per tonne of rMDF produced. 

Promotion  of  recycled  plastic  materials  in  a  childhood  set  wooden 
furniture: Two scenarios were considered: 1) use of recycled plastic for the 
100% of the weight of the sleeping base and legs was proposed, and 2) 
use of recycled plastic only for the 50% of these parts. The environmental 
index  (sum  of  the  10  impacts  of  CML  normalized  for  Western  Europe) 
decreased  slightly  (0.05%  and  0.03%  respectively)  although  remarkable 
reductions  can  be  achieved  for  Acidification  Potential  and  Photochemical 
Oxidant Formation Potential. 

Sensitive analysis on the content of recycled aluminium, confirm that the 
use  of  aluminium  with  high  recycled  content  was  beneficial;  since 
production of recycled aluminium is less energy intensive than production 
of  primary  aluminium  (only  about  5%  of  the  energy  required  to  produce 
the  primary  metal  initially  is  needed  in  the  recycling  process).  These 
energy  savings  bring  important  environmental  savings  for  furniture 
products. For office furniture. per one percent increase in recycled content, 
the reduction in the different impact categories was: 0.54% of reduction in 
Global  Warming  Potential,  0.56%  of  energy  reduction,  0.62%  of 
acidification potential.  

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. Preliminary Report  

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Use recyclable metals. (Metals) 
Use paints and varnishes without organic solvents. 
 Avoid the use of toxic substances in foams padding. (Foams) 
Limit the use of chrome tanned leather. (Leather) 
Use natural materials for the manufacture of textiles.  
Use recycled materials in the manufacture of polymeric 
textiles. (Textiles) 
Avoid the use of toxic or hazardous chemicals to the 
environment in textiles. (Textiles) 
Use of biodegradable and low-toxicity lubricants. (Lubricants) 
Use recycled glass. (Glass) 
Reduce the percentage of lead and / or copper metal 
coatings of glass mirrors. (Glass) 

High 
High 
High 
High 
Medium 

Medium 

High 

Medium 
High 

High 

High 
Medium 
Medium 
Low 
Medium 

Low 

Medium 

Medium 
Medium 

Medium 

Design components for a lower amount of material. 

High 

Medium 

Use lighter materials 
Design products to have minimum number of production 
stages. 
Avoid the use of adhesives or additives containing heavy 
metals and their compounds. 
Use solvents reused. (Paints / Varnishes) 
Avoid the use of toxic or hazardous chemicals to the 
environment in assembly adhesives. (Adhesives) 
Avoid using adhesives with alkylphenol, alkyl or halogenated 
solvents.  
Limit VOC content in adhesives used in the assembly. 

Medium 

Medium 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

Medium 

Medium 

High 

Low 

Medium 

Medium 

Medium 

Improve enrgy efficiency and promote the use of renewable 
energy 

High 

Medium 

STRATEGY: 
Reduce the 
use of 
materials 

MANUFACTU
RING 

STRATEGY: 
Select 
production 
techniques 
environmenta
lly efficient 

Optimization of the amount of materials used in a childhood set wooden 
furniture: As the production of the wooden materials was identified as the 
main hot spot in all the impact categories under assessment, the strategy 
focused on the reduction of the thickness of the wooden boards (from 35 
mm to 30 mm). The environmental index (sum of the 10 impacts of CML 
normalized for Western Europe) decreased by 7.2%. 

Use of renewable energy in the manufacturing of a childhood set wooden 
furniture:  7%  of  the  total  electricity  consumption  from  photovoltaic. 
Electricity  is  taken  from  the  Spanish  national  grid  which  depends 
considerably  on  fossil  fuels.  The  environmental  index  (sum  of  the  10 
impacts  of  CML  normalized  for  Western  Europe)  decreased  by  2.1%, 
highest  reductions  for  acidification  potential,  freshwater  and  marine 
aquatic ecotoxicity. 

Minimization  of  energy  use  in  the  manufacturing  of  a  childhood  set 
wooden  furniture:  decreasing  by  20%  the  energy  use  during  the 
manufacture process  allows  a  reduction  by  5.4%  of  the  environmental 
index  impact  (sum  of  the  10  impacts  of  CML  normalized  for  Western 
Europe). 
Re-use of production waste for the manufacture of other products. The on-
site re-use of 1% (strategy 2a), 2.5% (strategy 2b) and 4% (strategy 2c) 
of the waste generated in the production process. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. Preliminary Report  

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Design the product to take up little space in storage and 
transportation. 
Minimize the use of packaging.  
Use reusable or returnable packaging.  
 Use recyclable packaging. 
Using recycled packaging materials.  

Medium 

Medium 
Medium 
High 
High 

Medium 

Medium 
Medium 
High 
High 

Use packaging materials with low environmental impact.  

High 

High 

DISTRIBUTIO
N 

Select 
efficient 
distribution 
systems 

Use of naturally occurring biodegradable polymers in the 
packaging.  
Use mono-material packaging.  
Avoid the use of halogenated plastics in packaging.  
Require reusable or returnable packaging suppliers.  
Adhere to a rental system and reuse packaging.  

High 

High 
High 
High 
High 

Medium 

High 
High 
Medium 
Medium 

Select a transport system for the distribution of the product 
with low environmental impact.  

Medium 

Medium 

Optimizing the design of delivery routes. 

Medium 

Medium 

Highest reductions were achieved in categories such as ODP, HTP and PE 
since  these  are  considerably  influenced  by  contaminant  substances 
derived from the board production (such as fluorides and CFC). 
For the manufacturing of wood desks, it was found that alternatives to the 
use  of  fossil  fuels  to  produce  electricity  to  dry  the  boards  offer  the 
greatest  potentials  to  improve  the  environmental  and  human  health 
performance of the desks over their lifecycles. 

Childhood  set  wooden  furniture.  Substitution  of  plastic  bags  used  for 
packaging  with  cardboard  as  well  as  reduction  of  the  amount  of  plastic 
bags  (three  scenarios  considered:  10%,  20%  and  30%  of  reduction).  The 
highest  reduction  corresponds  to  the  alternative  based  on  the  total 
substitution  of  plastic  bags  by  cardboard.  This  reduction  (specifically  in 
categories  such  as  Abiotic  Depletion  Potential,  Acidification  Potential  and 
Eutrophication  Potential)  is  due  to  the  less  energy  and  fossil  fuel 
requirements  in  the  production  process  of  the  cardboard  instead  of  the 
plastic bags. 

Childhood  set  wooden  furniture:  Prioritize  the  use  of  Euro  V  vehicles. 
Substitution  of  Euro  4  trucks and  vans  (used for  the  delivery of  material 
inputs, waste and final product distribution) with Euro 5 ones. Reducing the 
environmental  burdens  associated  to  the  transport  processes  specifically 
in  categories  such  as  Acidification  Potential,  Eutrohpication  Potential  and 
Human  Toxicity  Potential  due  to  lower  NOx,  barium  and  cadmium 
emissions.  However,  in  other  categories  the  environmental  burdens  were 
slightly increased e.g. by 0.3% the CO2 emissions. 
A sensitivity analysis has been performed in the French study on covering 
different  furniture  products,  different  sensitive  analysis  are  performed 
regarding distribution: 

o Influence of the location where of fabrication of some components 
are  produced.  For  upholstered  furniture,  sensitive  analysis  was 
done for the nature of textile and site of fabrication of textile/cover. 
It showed that air acidification is a sensitive indicator of transport 
of textile, but has low variation in general due to the low weight of 
cover regarding all furniture. 

o Influence of the location where of fabrication of the final furniture 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. Preliminary Report  

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
product  is manufactured  (not  only  the  components,  but  the entire 
product). 

Sensitive analysis on lifespan shows that impacts can be reduced 
significantly by extending the lifespan of a furniture product. In the case of 
a desk with an assumed lifetime of eight years of use, as defined in the 
functional unit. If the desk were redesigned (through a variety of design 
strategies) to last for ten years instead of eight years, the relative impacts 
of the desk would be reduced by (10 years – 8 years) / 10 years, or 20%.  

Sensitivity analysis on cleaning operations for upholstered furniture 
(changing frequency), only modified 0.5% the overall impact of all 
indicators.  

STRATEGY: 
Reduce the 
environmenta
l impact 
during use 

Inform the user about the proper use and maintenance. 
Design the product for easy cleaning. 
Minimizing energy consumption during the use stage 
(furniture energy consumers). 
Facilitate removal of the product components. 
Designing the product taking into account their entire life 
cycle.  

Medium 
Medium 

Medium 

Medium 

High 

High 
High 

High 

High 

High 

Increase and ensure product durability.  

High 

High 

USE 

STRATEGY: 
Optimize the 
life cycle 

STRATEGY: 
Optimize the 
function 

END OF LIFE 

STRATEGY :  
Optimize the 
end-of-life 
system  

Harmonize the lifetime of the individual components.  
Design the product to permit replacement of worn parts.  
Designing modular products.  
Use as few references in the manufacture of furniture.  
Provide replacement parts to the user.  
Apply environmental information providers.  
Use a suitable timber to use.(Wood) 
To ensure the durability of the textiles and leather parts. 
(Textiles / Leather) 

Design textile covers that are removable and washable. 
(Textiles) 

Optimize product functionality.  
Offer different wheels of different materials to choose for 
different soil types.  
Offer renting and leasing services to replace the sale.  
Adequately protect product during transport to prevent 
damage. 
Minimize the number of materials and components.  
Compatible materials for use in the recycled material 
consisting of several parts.  
Provide information on assembly/disassembly of the product.  
Provide user information about materials used in product.  
Inform users of the potential end product life 
Marking plastic parts with an identification code. (Plastics) 
Clear coatings on metallic surfaces. (Metals) 
Use recycled glass (avoid using wired and/or laminated 
glass).  

High 
High 
High 
High 
High 
High 
High 

High 

Low 

HIgh 

Medium 

Medium 

Medium 

High 

High 

HIgh 
HIgh 
HIgh 
HIgh 
Medium 

HIgh 

High 
High 
High 
High 
High 
High 
High 

High 

High 

High 

Medium 

Medium 

High 

Medium 

Medium 

High 
High 
High 
High 
High 

High 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. Preliminary Report  

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sensitivity  analysis  on  different  ecodesign  measures  in  furniture  case 
studies 

A  sensitivity  analysis  is  also  included  in  this  ecodesign  guide44  that  assesses  the  jointly  introduction  of 
different ecodesign criteria for some case studies. 

Product: Melanine desk. Source: Ihobe, 2010 

Ecodesign measure 

Practical improvement 

Reduction of thickness of panels 

Change from wood legs to plastic legs 

Packaging from manual to automatic 
process 

Reduction of weight 
Reduction of weight 
Procurement from local supplier 
Optimisation of packaging Reduction 
of weight 

Envi. impact variation 
(Ecoindicator 99, single score) 
Production: -29% 
Distribution: -59% 
Use: 0% 
End-of-life:  -19% 
TOTAL: -38,23% 

Product: Siento chair. Source: Ihobe, 2010 

Ecodesign measure 

Practical improvement 

Redesign of back (tubular) 

Reduction of glues 

Reduction of packaging box 

Reduction of weight 
Optimization of distribution (size) 
Reduction of weight 
Reduction of glues 
Optimisation of packaging Reduction 
of weight 

Envi. impact variation 
(Ecoindicator 99, single score) 

Production: -29% 
Distribution: -59% 
Use: 0% 
End-of-life:  -19% 
TOTAL: -38,23% 

Different  eco-design  options  were  assessed  in  the  study  of  a  children's  furniture  set40.  Different  strategies 
were evaluated though Design for Environment (DfE) methodology, selecting those with higher viability to be 
implemented and their potential of improvement (optimization of materials used, re-use of internal wastes, 
minimization of energy use, use of renewable energy, limited amount of packaging materials, promotion of 
fuels  with  lower  impact  and  priorization  of  Euro  V  vehicles  in  transport).  These  measures  assess  applied 
jointly allowed global reduction of short-medium period environmental impacts of 14% of reduction). 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

110 

 
 
 
 
3.4.3 Conclusions of selected LCA and EPDs 

A total of 13 LCA studies were selected for this revision based on a set of quality requirements. These are 
considered to  provide  useful  insight  for the technical and  environmental analysis of furniture  products and 
the  related  revision  of  EU  Ecolabel  and  GPP  criteria.  Moreover,  35  verified  EPDs  from  international  EPD 
schemes  are  available  for  furniture  products  (25  for  office  chairs,  5  for  wooden  panels/boards,  4  for 
domestic chairs and 1 for tables). Apart from these documents, other studies are also useful to handle some 
issues of relevance for the revision process (e.g. hazardous substances).  

LCA  studies  cover  a  broad  group  of  product  broad  enough  to  assess  the  revision  process  of  EU  Ecolabel. 
Different types of furniture are analysed: wooden panels, office and school furniture and domestic furniture.  

The selected studies provide useful outcomes regarding: 

- 

- 

- 

Key environmental impacts of different furniture product systems  

Relative  contribution  of  different  life  stages  to  the  impacts  (materials,  manufacturing,  packaging, 
distribution, use and end-of-use) and main sources of concern. 

Improvement  potential  options  (design,  raw  materials,  production  processes,  distribution,  life 
duration and end of life scenarios). 

All of these elements can be used to address the revision process. The main outcomes from the LCA review 
and the analysis of ecodesign measures can be summarised as it follows:  

-  Materials.  Materials  and  processing  of  materials  have  the  greatest  impacts  in  most  impact  categories. 
Impacts  for  metals  and  plastics  are  generally  higher  than  for  wood  but  durability  is  an  important  issue  to 
take  into  account.  A  lot  of  energy  is  embedded  in  virgin  metals.  Burdens  can  be  decreased  by  improving 
resource efficiency and by recycling. Wooden materials also demand energy in their production processes, for 
instance for sawing and drying. Transport of materials is less important than processing, but it could become 
more  relevant  when  non-local  materials  are  used.  Improvement  potential  options  have  been  found  at 
material level like the incorporation of recycled materials or the minimization of hazardous substances. 

-  Manufacturing.  Manufacturing  seems  to  be  the  second  most  relevant  stage  of  the  lifecycle.  Energy 
consumption is the most important parameter, especially in processes where heating is used, such as drying 
in  painting  and  coating.  The  use  of  adhesive  and  coating  substances  can  also  be  an  important  source  of 
concern in some impact categories. 

-  Packaging.  Packaging  is  assessed  in  terms  of  materials  used  and  impacts  related.  In  general  its 
environmental load is low but not negligible. Improvement potential options have been found. 

-  Distribution.  Distribution  is  not  deeply  investigated  since  normally  only  average  scenarios  are  used. 
However, this seems to be an issue of secondary importance only for some impact categories (e.g. ODP and 
GWP).  Improvement  potential  options  have  been  found  like  using  local  suppliers,  or  improvement  the 
efficiency of vehicles. 

-  Use.  When  maintenance  is  included  in  the  assessment  it  results  to  have  negligible  impacts.  Durability  is 
instead a key issue to minimize the impacts of furniture products. 

-  End-of-Life.  End-of-life  impacts  vary  depending  of  the  waste  treatment  scenarios.  Burdens  due  to 
landfilling  are  relatively  low  compared  to  the  other  lifecycle  stages.  However,  significant  improvement 
potential  can  be  achieved  by  reusing  and  recycling  products  or  parts  of  them  or  by  recovering  the  energy 
content of waste. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

111 

 
4 Technical analysis 

In this section a preliminary technical analysis is developed following the different life stages of the system 
products. A specific section has been developed for the assessment of hazardous substances, which includes 
the substances used in processing of raw materials, manufacturing and packaging. 

4.1 Raw materials 

The  LCA  screening  shows  that  the  lifecycle  environmental  impacts  of  furniture  are  mainly  due  to  the 
materials (on average 80-90% of the total impacts). Moreover, the kind of materials used is highly relevant 
since materials will condition the environmental behaviour of a product during the different life stages such 
as: manufacturing process, product design and lifespan, and end-of-life.  

The most common materials used in the production of furniture are: 

  Wood: Solid wood and wood based products such as panels are widely used in furniture sector. Tables, 
desks  and  cupboards  are  the  typical  products  where  wood  panels  are  used.  The  main  categories  of 
wooden panels include particleboard, fibreboard and plywood. 

  Metal:  Is  a  base  material  used  for  example  in  cupboards,  tables  and  chair  legs.  If  the  furniture  is 
constructed and maintained properly, it may last for several years. Nowadays chairs and tables made up 
of metal are used extensively for exterior usage due to it can withstand strong sunlight, wind, snow, rain 
and hail. The main types of metals used in furniture industry are: 

- 

- 

- 

Aluminium: It does not rust, is tough, light and durable. This material is used extensively for stamped 
and cast furniture, especially in molded chairs.  

Steel: Stainless steel is used widely for  modern interior furnishings. It is especially suited for  chair 
legs, supports and body pieces due to its high tensile strength, allowing it to be applied using hollow 
tubes and reducing weight. 

Iron:  the  properties  that  offer  cast  iron  (hardness,  heaviness  and  general  tough  composition)  are 
adequate  for  outdoor  use,  and this  material  is common  used  for  bench  legs and  solid  iron  tables. 
The furniture made up of pure iron corrodes when it is exposed to air. 

-  Other metals are also used in fittings, like zinc, nickel, chrome, brass, bronze, magnesium or lead. 

- 

Plastic:  Initially, they are comparatively less environment friendly as compare to wood or steel due to 
they  are  made  of  harmful  constituents  but  they  are  used  extensively  because  of  their  light  weight 
structure and high strength. Also they are very cheap as compare to any other material and giving the 
appropriate colour or shape, the plastic furniture can make it look like wood or steel furniture. A strength 
is that plastic can be recycled. The most common type of polymers used in furniture sector are: 

- 

(i)  Thermoplastic  polymers:  When they are subjected to heat, thermoplastics can be soften and 
bend. Then they become brittle and shatter when cooled down. Corrosion occurs due to its delicate 
structure. The common types of thermoplastics used in tables and plastic garden furniture are: 

 

 

 

Polystyrene (PS) 

Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) 

Polyethylene  terephthalate  (PET): PET  is  made  out  of  ethylene  and paraxylene.  Their  derivates 
(ethylene glycol and terephthalic acid) are made to react at high temperature and high pressure 
to  obtain  amorphous  PET.  Afterwards,  the  resin  is  crystallized  and  polymerized  to  increase  its 
molecular weight and its viscosity. The major impact of PET is the high energy demand, much 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

112 

 
higher  than  PP  or  PE,  however,  PET  mechanical  recycling  rates  are  high  compared  to  other 
plastics53. 

 

 

Polyolefins:  Polyolefins  such  as  Polyethylene  (PE)  and  Polypropylene  (PP)  are  simpler  polymer 
structures  that  do  not  need  plasticizers,  although  they  do  use  additives  such  as  UV  and  heat 
stabilizers, antioxidants and in some applications flame retardants. The polyolefins pose fewer 
risks and have the highest potential for mechanical recycling. Both PE and PP are versatile and 
cheap: PP has particularly good resistance to deformation and for this reason is an appropriate 
material for hinges.  

Polycarbonate  (PC):  Special  attention  should  be  given  to  polycarbonates  due  to  the  possible 
presence of bisphenol A. According to table 3.1 of Annex VI of CLP Regulation, bisphenol A (4,4'-
isopropylidenediphenol  EC  201-245-8,  CAS  80-05-7)  is  classified  as:  Repr.2,  STOT  SE  3,  Eye 
Dam.1 Skin Sens. 1 (H361f, H335, H318, H317) 

  Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) 

- 

(ii)  Thermosetting  polymers:  Thermosetting  polymers  provide  stronger  structure  for  furniture 
components, being more durable than thermoplastics. They are used as padding materials. 

 

 

 

Polyurethane  foams (PUR)  are  generally  used  in  upholstered  furniture  as a  filling  material  for 
sofas, seats, back of seats, arm rests, etc. 

Phenol-formaldehyde,  melamine  formaldehyde  and  urea  formaldehyde  resins  are  used  as 
adhesives, binders and surface coatings in various furniture products and wood-based panels.. 

Epoxy  resins  used  as  the  matrix  component  in  many  fibre  reinforced  plastics  and  graphite-
reinforced plastics. 

- 

- 

- 

Textiles: The most common types used in furniture are: Cotton, Polyester and Polyamide 

Leather: The main different types of leather are aniline, semi-aniline, coated or pigmented leather. 

Padding materials: According to the Swedish furniture industry, the average Swedish furniture products 
consist  of  15%  w/w  padding  materials.  They  are  used  in  upholstered  furniture  as  filling  materials  for 
seats,  backs  of  chairs,  sofas  and  arm  rests.  Padding  materials  are  mainly:  Polyurethane  foams  (PUR-
foams)  or  Latex  foams.  The  use  of  hazardous  blowing  agents  is  a  particular  concern  with  these 
materials. For example, CFC, HFC and HCFC shall not be used as blowing or auxiliary blowing agents in 
the production of PUR. Padding materials shall meet the European Ecolabel for bed mattresses providing 
compliance  with  the  criteria.  In  the  case  of  textiles  and  padding  materials  in  the  furniture,  they  shall 
meet the European Ecolabel for textiles and bed mattresses respectively, providing compliance with the 
criteria. 

-  Other  materials  used  in  furniture  industry  include  glass,  stone,  cane,  bamboo,  rattan,  etc.  Special 
attention should be given to glass material due to the possible presence of hazardous substances such 
as  metals  like  cupper  or  lead  especially  in  treated  glasses  or  mirrors  such  as  mirrored  glass  where  a 
metal coating made of silver, aluminium, gold or chrome is applied to one side of the glass. 

4.1.1 Wood and wood-based products  

Wood materials used in furniture can be either solid wood or wood-based materials such as panels.  

Regarding the types of wood, hardwood is usually used for outdoor furniture whereas softwood, both as solid 
wood and wood panels, is mainly used for indoor furniture. Woods used in outdoor applications are usually 
durable  and  naturally  more  resistant  to  rain,  sunlight,  rot  and  insect  infestation.  Some  woods,  such  as 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

113 

 
 
redwood, cypress, and the cedars, contain chemical compounds that naturally repeal bugs, bacteria, and other 
agents of decomposition. Others woods such as white oak and black locust have natural physical barriers as 
rot resistance and moisture prevention. Examples of species used in outdoor furniture are: Red Cedars, Teak, 
Eucalyptus, White Oak and Acacia (Locust). 

The key environmental aspects of solid wood are mainly related to the legal and sustainable character of the 
originating  forest  management.  The  impacts  related  to  uncontrolled  wood  logging  are  for  example  loss  of 
biodiversity, erosion and soil degradation. 

As the majority of wood used in furniture is treated, attention must be paid also to the surface treatment of 
wood,  especially  for  outdoor  use.  The  environmental  and  health  impacts  of  wooden  products  are  linked 
mainly to the substances used such as glues and finishings. These substances usually contain formaldehyde 
resins, melamine, epoxy, polyurethane resins, ethylene vinyl acetate, etc., and will be discussed later in detail. 

Energy  used  to  transform  wood  materials,  especially  for  boards,  contributes  significantly  to  environmental 
impacts like global warming potential and photochemical oxidant formation. 

Geographic origin of timber54 

The total wood supply to the EU accounted for 230 million m3 in 2011. The supply comprised 176 million m3 
of domestically harvested saw and veneer logs and 53 million m3 of imported timber  

In  2011,  timber  importation  by  EU-25  represented  the  17%  by  value  of  worldwide  import  trade.  Wood 
product  imports  comprised  35%  softwood,  25%  temperate  hardwood,  13%  tropical  hardwood,  and  27% 
unknown species types (further processed products, particularly furniture from China). Around 18% of all EU 
wood  products  imports  were  derived  from  China  in  2011,  mostly  comprising  wood  furniture  and  plywood. 
Around  35%  of  imports  are  from  Russia  and  Commonwealth  of  Independent  States  (CIS)  or  post-soviet 
States. The rest are coming from South and North America, Africa and other countries from Asia. 

Technical  innovation  has  increased  the  range  of  applications  for  European  wood.  This  includes  heat 
treatment,  allowing  increased  use  of  European  species  for  external  applications  formerly  dominated  by 
tropical  wood.  There  have  also  been  new  staining  and  finishing  techniques  to  alter  the  look  and  feel  of 
European hardwoods, particularly oak.  Nevertheless, EU imports remain an important component of overall 
wood supply, particularly in wood species and products where there is insufficient domestic availability. These 
include  temperate  and  tropical  hardwoods,  durable  softwoods,  like  North  American  western  red  cedar  and 
Russian larch, and plywood, where EU production is limited. And volumes of semi-finished and finished wood 
product imports from lower production cost regions are actually increasing, notably furniture. 

Figure 33 shows the total supply of solid timber in Europe, where 77% is European production and 23% are 
imports.  From  wood  produced  in  Europe,  around  88%  of  logs  extracted  are  softwood  and  12%  hardwood. 
Most saw and veneer logs extracted in the EU are converted into sawn wood. While nearly all softwood logs 
are converted into sawn lumber, a higher share of hardwood goes into veneer and plywood.  

Apart from ‘solid timber products’; i.e. products derived from saw logs and veneer logs, it is also important to 
mention  the  large  volume  of  wood  panels,  like  MDF,  OSB  and  other  particleboard,  made  in  Europe  from 
smaller logs and waste. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

114 

 
 
Figure 33. Supply of solid timber in EU-25 (imports and production) 

Source: 2011 Statistics - EU Totals Timber trade monitoring in support of effective, efficient and 
equitableoperationof the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR)54 

Use of wood from protected species 

The use of tropical timber is widespread in the furniture sector. However, in many occasions these species are 
threatened, or are part of the habitat of endangered species.  Although no reliable statistics are available, a 
2012  joint  study  by  the  United  Nations  Environment  Programme  and  Interpol  states  that  illegal  logging 
accounts  for  up  to  30%  of  the  global  logging  trade  and  contributes  to  more  than  50%  of  tropical 
deforestation in Central Africa, the Amazon Basin and South East Asia55.  

In 2003 the EU initiated an action plan to counter unlawful felling known as the FLEGT action plan (Forest 
Law  Enforcement,  Governance  and  Trade).  In  March  2013,  the  application  of  the  Regulation  (EU)  No 
995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010  started. This regulation lays 
down  the  obligations  of  operators  who  place  timber  and  timber  products  on  the  market.  It  covers  a  wide 
range  of  timber  products,  including  plywood,  veneer,  particle  board  and  furniture.  This  new  regulation  set 
three main obligations for wood traders: 

 

 

 

It prohibits the  placing of illegally harvested timber and products  derived  from such timber on the 
EU market, whether they are of domestic or imported origin.  
Timber  accompanied  by  a  FLEGT  (Forest  Law  Enforcement,  Governance  and  Trade)  or  CITES 
(Convention  on  International  Trade  in  Endangered  Species)  license  will  be  accepted  as  legal.  In  all 
other cases, operators must exercise 'due diligence’ when they sell imported and domestic timber or 
timber products. 
Traders (those after the operators in the supply chain) need to keep records of their suppliers (and 
customers). In this way the operators can always be traced. 

Use of certified wood 

Wood  can  be  produced  in  plantations  or  extracted  from  natural  forests.  Wood  obtained  from  sustainably 
managed forests does not  have significant negative environmental effects.  Unsustainable timber  practices, 
such  as  uncontrolled  logging,  can  involve  serious  disorders  in  the  natural  balance  of  the  forest,  e.g. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

115 

 
 
 
 
deforestation, biodiversity loss, soil erosion and land degradation. The main certification schemes related to 
sustainable forestry are listed in Table 30. 

Table 30. Sustainable management forestry systems.  

SCHEME 

FSC - Forest Stewardship Council 

PEFC - Programme for the Endorsement of Forest 
Certification Schemes 

CSA - Canada's National Sustainable Forest 
Management 

SFI - Sustainable Forestry Initiative 

MAIN DATA 

Total certified area (2013): 180,552 millions ha 
( 43.05% in Europe) 
No. countries: 79 
Total no. certificates: 1211 
Total certified area (2012): 247 millions ha 
(35% in Europe) 
No. countries: 37 
No. Certificates: 9.520 certificats of supply chain custody 
PEFC. 
Canada. endorsed by the Programme for the 
Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) 

USA and Canada. Endorsed by the Programme for the 
Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC). 

Regarding  the  type  of  wood  certified,  in  Europe  the  availability  of  softwood  from  certified  forestry  is 
generally high, whereas the availability of hardwood is significantly lower.  Regarding the kind of forest, 64% 
of  forest  area  certified  by  FSC  was  natural  forest  (11.583  million  ha),  28%  is  semi-natural  and  mixed 
plantation & natural forest (50.91 million ha), and 7.61% is plantation (13.74 million ha)56.  

Figure 34. Types of forest certified by FSC. (source: FSC facts and figures July 2013)56. 

Recycled wood 

The  use  of  recycled  wood  is  widely  spread  nowadays  in  the  furniture  industry.  Many  types  of  chipboard 
contain  recycled  fibres.  This  brings  several  environmental  benefits  such  as  the  reduction  of  raw  materials 
consumption  and  the  related  minimization  of  waste  streams  coming  from  forestry,  timber  production  or 
wood products waste.  

Comparisons  between  panel  boards  made  of  virgin  fibres  and  recycled  fibres  coming  from  panels  and 
furniture  waste, showed that there is a reduction in many environmental impacts with increase in  recycled 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

116 

 
 
 
fibre content in panels39. Compared to virgin panels production, the content of recycled fibres in boards shows 
a  reduction  in  most  impacts  categories  such  as  global  warming  potential,  eutrophication  and  ecotoxicity. 
When  the  recycled  content  is  increased,  these  reductions  are  higher.  There  is  a  potential  reduction  of  0.52 
tons of CO2 eq. per ton of panel produced with recycled fibers. 

However, a problem associated with the use of recycled fibres is the risk of contamination, so it is necessary 
to ensure the quality of the boards obtained. Some contaminants that could be found in recycled wood are: 
arsenic  (As),  cadmium  (Cd),  chromium  (Cr),  copper  (Cu),  lead  (Pb),  mercury  (Hg),  fluorine  (F),  chlorine  (Cl), 
pentachlorophenol (PCP) or creosote (benzo(a)pyrene). The presence of contaminants in recycled wood should 
be  tested  according  to  the  European  Panels  Federation  (EPF)  Standard  For  delivery  conditions  of  recycled 
wood57. This Standard fixes maximum threshold of these substances. 

Table 31. Maximum limits for contaminants according to EPF standard for recycled wood 

Elements and compounds 
Arsenic (As) 
Cadmium (Cd)  
Chromium (Cr)  
Copper (Cu)  
Lead (Pb)  
Mercury (Hg)  
Fluorine (F)  
Chlorine (Cl)  
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)  
Creosote (Benzo(a)pyrene)  

Limit values (mg/kg recycled wood-based material) 
25 
50 
25 
40 
90 
25 
100 
1000 
5 
0,5 

Pentachlorophenol, once widely used as a fungicide, was banned in 1987 for this use. Impregnation oils from 
coal  tar  (known  as  tar  oils  or  creosotes)  were  the  first  wood  preservatives  to  gain  industrial  importance. 
Creosote  consists  of  polycyclic  aromatic  hydrocarbons  (PAH´s)  which  some  of  these  substances,  especially 
benzo(a)pyrene  was  classified  as carcinogenic.  Therefore,  legislative  authorities have  issued  restrictions  for 
the  use  of  creosote.  Tar  oils  containing  more  than  50  mg/Kg  benzo(a)pyrene  were  banned  in  Europe. 
Moreover,  according  to  the  Biocidal  Products  Regulation18,  only  biocidal  products  containing  biocidal  active 
substances approved by European Commission and authorised by product type shall be used for wood. 

The  use  of  recycled  wood  in  the  manufacture  of  particleboards  or  fibreboards  requires  deliveries  of  the 
material to the processor to ensure that reclaimed raw materials and the finished panel product are strictly 
controlled  in  respect  of  contaminating  chemical  elements  and  compounds  that  might  be  present  at 
unacceptable levels in recycled wood. 

A  number  of  national  quality  control  schemes  exist.  The  most  prominent  in  Europa  is  the  German  criteria 
defined  for  purposes  of  the  RAL-  Gütezeichen  label  “Recyclingprodukte  aus  Gebrauchtholz”.  In  the  United 
Kingdom the wood-based panels sector supports the European Panel Federation´s (EPF) “Industry Standard 
for delivery conditions of recycled wood”, which is based on a responsible care approach. The EPF limit values 
reflect what is considered to be the most appropriate safety level adopted in any  sector, namely those laid 
down in the European standard EN 71-3:1994 “Safety of Toys”. 

Technological developments in the toys market and the scientific knowledge have raised issues regarding the 
safety of toys. Increased concerns from consumers lead to a revision of the EN 71-3:1994. The new EN 71-
3:2013  supports  the  new  chemical  requirements  of  the  EU  Toys  Safety  Directive  (2009/48/EC),  which  take 
effect from 20 July 2013.  

A comparsion of the migration limit of the controlled elements in EN 71-3:2013, EN 71-3:1994 and current 
limits according standard for delivery conditions of recycled wood are presented in Table 32. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

117 

 
 
Element 

EN 71-3:2013 

EN 71-3:1994 

Category 
I (mg/kg) 

Category II 
(mg/kg) 

Table 32. Comparison of the migration limit of the controlled elements in EN 71-3:2013, EN 71-
3:1994 with those for the EPF standard for delivery conditions of recycled wood 
Current 
limits 
according 
Standard for 
delivery 
conditions of 
recycled 
wood 
- 
- 
25 
- 
- 
50 
25 

Any toy 
material 
except for 
modelling 
clay (mg/kg) 

70000 
560 
47 
18750 
15000 
17 
- 

5625 
45 
3.8 
1500 
1200 
1.3 
- 

1406 
11.3 
0.9 
375 
300 
0.3 
- 

- 
60 
25 
1000 
- 
75 
60 

- 
60 
25 
250 
- 
50 
25 

Modelling 
clay (mg/kg)  

Category 
III (mg/kg) 

37.5 

0.02 

10.5 
622.5 
13.5 
1200 
7.5 
75 
37.5 
4500 
15000 
0.9 
3750 

9.4 

0.005 

2.6 
156 
3.4 
300 
1.9 
18.8 
9.4 
1125 
3750 
0.2 
938 

460 

0.2 

130 
7700 
160 
15000 
94 
930 
460 
56000 
180000 
12 
46000 

- 

- 

- 
- 
90 
- 
60 
- 
500 
- 
- 
- 
- 

- 

- 

- 
- 
90 
- 
25 
- 
500 
- 
- 
- 
- 

- 

- 

- 
40 
90 
- 
25 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

Aluminum 
Antimony 
Arsenic 
Barium 
Boron 
Cadmium 
Chromium 
Chromium 
(III) 
Chromium 
(VI) 
Cobalt 
Copper 
Lead 
Manganese 
Mercury 
Nickel 
Selenium 
Strontium 
Tin 
Organic tin 
Zinc 

Wood-based panels 

Wood-based panels are widely used in many types of indoor furniture, such as cupboards, tables and desks. 
Particleboard, fibreboard  and  plywood  are  the  three  main  categories of  wooden  panels.  They  are  produced 
under  heat  and  pressure  with  the  addition  of  an  adhesive  to  glue  particles,  fibres  or  sheets  of  wood.  The 
main panels in Europe are particleboard and Medium Density Fibreboard (MDF) which account for 65% and 
20%  of  the  total  panel  production,  respectively.  In  19  countries  of  the  European  Free  Trade  Association 
(EFTA), an MDF consumption of 8.7 million cubic metres was reported in 2003, as well as 2.3 million cubic 
metres  for  other  European  regions  (22  countries)58.  MDF  is  mainly  used  in  the  furniture  and  the  building 
sector. 

 

 

Fibreboard is made of cellulose fibres by dry, dry / wet or humid processes through the application 
of heat and pressure, along with the addition of an adhesive material. Commodities may come for 
example from forest residues or sawmill. Medium Density Fibreboard (MDF) boards are an example 
of fibreboard. 
Particleboard  is  manufactured  by  applying  heat  and  pressure  to  wood  particles  together  with  an 
adhesive.  The  wood  particles  used  for  particle  board  can  be  chipped,  chips,  sawdust  or  similar. 
Oriented Strand Board (OSB) are an example of particleboard. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Plywood or laminates boards consist of several layers of wood glued together under pressure to give 
the shape. The sheets can be of different types of wood. The most used at European level are beech, 
birch and poplar. 

Figure 35. Breakdown of major wood-based panels 

Regarding  board  panels,  different  EPDs  detailed  the  composition  of  different  types  of  boards  (laminates, 
chipboards and fibreboards) as can be seen in Table 33. 

Table 33. Materials present in the different panel boards studied (LCA reports and EPDs) 

Source ref. 

EPD reference 

Main materials (weight %) 

EGGER Laminates 
Flex, MED, Micro 

EGGER 
EUROSPAN® Raw Chipboard 
EURODEKOR® 
Melamine faced Chipboard 

EGGER 
EUROLIGHT® Raw and 
Laminated 
Lightweight Board 

EPDs 
Laminates 
and boards 

Glunz AG 
TOPAN® MDF 
AGEPAN® Wood Fibreboards 

Paper ratio 57 %  
Resin ratio  42 % (Melamine-formaldehyde resin and Phenolic-
formaldehyde resins) 
Additive ratio 1 % 
Wood chips, primarily spruce and pine wood, approx. 84-86 % 
Water approx. 4-7 % UF-glue (urea resin) approx. 8-10 % 
Paraffin wax emulsion <1 % 
Decorative paper with a grammage of 60-120 g/m² 
Melamine formaldehyde resin 
Surface layers: 
Wood chips, primarily spruce and pine wood, approx. 84-86 % 
Water approx. 4-7 % 
 UF-glue (urea resin) approx. 8-10 % 
Paraffin wax emulsion <1 % 
Decorative paper with a grammage of 60-120 g/m² 
Melamine formaldehyde resin 
Intermediate layers: 
Hexagonal honeycomb out of recycled cardboard with a cell 
width of 15 mm 
Corrugated cardboard honeycomb out of recycled cardboard 
Glueing of intermediate and surface layers: 
PUR bonding system 
Wood chips, primarily pine, approx. 80% 
Water (moisture) approx. 5% to 9% (depending on air-
conditioning) 
UF adhesive (urea formaldehyde resin) approx. 11% 
Paraffin wax emulsion 0.5% to 3% 
The coating on coated boards comprises: decorative paper with a 
grammage of 60-120 g/m² and Melamine formaldehyde resin 

Decorative High-Pressure 
Laminates 
International Committee of 
the Decorative Laminates 
Industry (ICDLI) 

Decor paper app. 2-12% 
Kraft paper app. 55-62% 
Melamine resin app. 2-12% 
Phenolic resin app. 20-32% 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

119 

 
 
 
For MDF, it was found that the fibre production and preparation stage has the highest environmental impact 
(more than 55%) due to energy use and chemical additive production.  Subsystem of wood preparation has 
the largest impacts related to human health resources, as this subsystem is the most dependent on the use 
of  electricity.  Damage  to  Ecosystems  is  mainly  caused  by  synthetic  resins  such  as  the  urea-formaldehyde 
(UF). Other production processes such as board forming and board finishing have lower contributions.  

Regarding the transport of sourcing materials (or waste in the case of recycled fibres), local materials were 
shown to have the lowest environmental impacts, but differences are not significant39. 

Regarding end of life, since board panels are usually used as composite materials, recycling or reuse is not 
possible  as  a  rule.  Panels  usually  have  a  high  heating  value  (17-18  MJ/kg  aprox.),  so  the  generation  of 
process  energy  and  electricity  (cogeneration  plants)  is  possible.  Comparisons  among  different  waste 
treatments shows that disposal by landfill has the highest environmental impact. On-site energy from waste 
has the  lowest  impact  of  the  disposal  routes.  Experimental  recycling  has lower impacts  if  avoided  impacts 
from virgin fibres are considered39. 

From the selected LCA studies, the average contribution to the different impact categories is as follows:  

 

 

 

 

 

The greenhouse warming potential is the impact category more significant for wooden panels. Most 
of  the  climate  change  impacts  are  associated  with  the  production  stage,  since  raw  materials 
(wood/paper) are carbon neutral materials with respect to the feedstock.  

Raw materials (approximately 25 – 85%) and production (20 – 75%) are the main contributors for 
the ozone depletion potential. 

Raw materials (about 30 – 80%), production (about 15 – 55%), transportation (about 8 – 20%) and 
EoL (about 20%) are the main contributors for the acidification potential. 

Raw  materials  (40-90%),  production  (9-50%),  transportation  (6%)  and  EoL  (around  20%)  are  the 
main contributors to the eutrophication potential.  

Raw  materials  contribute  approximately  25-80%,  production  (15-70%)  and  transportation  (5%)  to 
the photochemical oxidant creation potential. 

Content of recycled fibres 

Reducing the total demand of virgin fibres by using recycled fibres reduces environmental impacts. However 
it should be taken into account that normally much of the internal panel industry  waste is used to  provide 
process heat, allowing the reduction or avoidance of fuel combustion. 

Use of resins 

Usually synthetic resins are used in the manufacturing of these boards. Several consequences are associated 
to this type of adhesives:  

  Use of non-renewable raw materials (variation in the availability and cost) 
 
 

Formaldehyde emissions  
Limited recyclability of the final product.  

The most used resins are: 

  Melamine-formaldehyde  resin:  aminoplastic  resins  used  for the  impregnation  of  decorative  papers 

 

and overlay papers for hard, transparent lamination. 
Phenolic-formaldehyde  resins:  phenoplastic  resins  for  the  impregnation  of  the  core  layers;  brown 
and relatively elastic phenolic-formaldehyde resins are used here.  

  Urea-formaldeyde  resins:  the  aminoplastic  adhesive  hardens  fully  during  the  pressing  process 

through polycondensation. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

120 

 
  MDI (4,4' Methylene bisphenyl isocyanate) and PMDI adhesive (polymer 4.4’ diphenyl methane 

diisocyanate)  

Alternatives to petroleum based wood adhesives exist and efforts are being devoted to develop adhesives by 
using renewable-based substitutes based on lignin, tannin or starch79. 

The effect of substituting non-renewable resins or reducing the amount of resins in panelboards, have been 
examined in some LCA studies43 showing environmental benefits. However, some studies indicate that these 
environmental benefits are lower than those achieved by other measures such as increasing the content of 
recycled fibres or reducing the energy39 consumption. 

In  a  cradle-to-gate  study  of  hardboard79  a  new  green  hardboard  using  a  two-component  bio-adhesive, 
formulated with a wood-based phenolic material and a phenol-oxidizing enzyme, was compared to the one 
manufactured  with  the  conventional  phenol-formaldehyde  resin.  The  results  showed  that  the  green 
Hardboard  production  process  improved  the  environmental  profile  up  to  18%  in  comparison  with  the 
conventional process using phenol-formaldehyde resin. 

In the study of office furniture of Steelcase43, a sensitivity analysis was done for a desk. The particleboard 
resin  content  in  particleboard  composition  was  varied  to  examine  the  effects  of  reducing  the  mass 
contribution  of  urea-formaldehyde  resin.  Results  show  that  for  1%  of  urea-formaldehyde  reduction, 
reductions  of  impacts  categories  were:  0.2%  Global  Warming  Potential,  0.44%  of  energy  resource 
consumption,  0.58%  of  acidification  potential.  Reducing  the  mass  contribution  of  urea-formaldehyde  resin 
from the  current  level  of  9.5%  to  4.9%  achieved  the  following  impacts  reduction:  20%  of  global  warming, 
58% of acidification potential. 

For MDF board manufacturing, reduction of the resin content was assessed (typically 11% to 12% was added 
during the trials to ensure good wetting of recycled fibres). It was found that there was a positive effect of 
reduction of the resin content to 10% by weight regarding the environmental impacts. However, this effect is 
not large in relation to other production impacts and may be deemed insignificant39. 

Genetically modified organisms 

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are organisms that have been transformed by the insertion of one or 
more  isolated  genes.  Scientists and the  public  have  expressed  worries with  regard  to  the  risks  of  potential 
gene  flow  (gene  transfer  to  breeding  populations  or  wild  relatives,  potentially  leading  to  hybridization  or 
introgression, sometimes referred to as genetic pollution) and environmental impacts (e.g. the displacement 
of local species). 

In  agriculture,  genetically  modified  organisms  (GMOs)  are  already  reality:  the  area  of  genetically  modified 
crops increased from 2.8 to 67.7 million hectares between 1996 and 2003, and genetically modified crops 
were being raised commercially in 18 countries in 2003. More than half the area of soybean planted globally 
is transgenic. The forestry sector is far behind agricultural crops in this respect59. 

A study from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) suggested that as of 2002, 
less than 500 ha of genetically modified forest trees (poplar clones) were being grown commercially in China. 
Populus is the genus of forest tree in which genetic modification has been researched most widely, although 
some genetic modification research has been reported for about 19 genera of forest trees. 

The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) bans all forms of genetically engineered trees on certified lands.  The 
potential hazards of GMO trees include the following60: 

1.  Reduced  diversity:  plantations  using  one  or  few  transgenic  clones  will  contain  less  landscape-level 
diversity  than  is  currently  found  in  plantations  using  species or  varieties resulting  from traditional 
tree-breeding. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

121 

 
 
2.  Asexual  transfer  of  genes  from  GMOs  with  antibiotic  resistance  to  pathogenetic  micro  organisms, 
and/or  suppression  of  mycorrhizae  and  other  micro-organisms,  arising  from  use  of  GMOs  with 
antibiotic resistance. 

3.  Spread  of  herbicide  resistance  gene  in  sexual  progeny  to  trees in  environments  where  those  trees 
are undesirable and where the target herbicide is used, and/or increased weed resistance to target 
herbicide,  and/or  increased  use  of  target  herbicide  arising  from  use  of  GMOs  with  herbicide 
resistance. 
Increased  resistance  of  target  insect  pests,  and/or  deleterious  effects  on  natural  enemies  of  the 
target  insects,  and/or  deleterious  effects  on  non-target  insects  such  as  butterflies,  pollinators  and 
soil microbes, arising from use of GMOs with insect resistance. 

4. 

5.  Changes to structural integrity, adaptation and pest resistance of trees, rate of decay of dead wood, 
and soil structure, biology or fertility, arising from use of GMOs with modified lignin chemistry. 
6.  Dispersal  of  transgenes  to  wild  or  weed  populations,  with  potentially  negative  impacts,  from  non-

sterile GMO trees, or from those with incomplete or unstable sterility. 

7.  Restricted  or  monopolistic  access  to  advantages,  arising  from  high  costs  or  limited  availability  of 

GMO trees. 

8.  Reduced biodiversity of organisms dependent on flowers and fruits, arising from use of sterile GMOs. 
9.  Reduced  adaptability  to  environmental  stress,  changes  to  interaction  with  other  organisms,  and 

increased weediness or invasiveness, in GMO trees with new features. 

Non-Wood Forest Products (NWFP) 

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) defines NWFPs as 

 “products  of  biological  origin  other  than  wood  derived  from  forests,  other  wooded  land  and  trees  outside  forests (FAO 
2007). The term encompasses all biological materials other than wood which are extracted from forests for human use, 
including edible and non-edible plant products, edible and non-edible animal products and medicinal products (e.g. honey, 
nuts, pharmaceutical plants, oils, resins, nuts, mushrooms, rattan, cork).”  

Although most NWFPs predominantly have value for local trade, some are important export commodities for 
international trade. Bamboo and rattan are considered the two most important NWFPs61,62.  

Main Non Wood Forest Products (NWFP) that can be found in furniture products are:  bamboo, rattan, cane, 
wicker, hemp, osier, sisal, cork and reed. Nowadays the certification FSC is available for bamboo and cork. 

In furniture industry, NWFP materials can be used as stemp or could also appear in new board materials and 
composites. Some examples of furniture industrial applications are: 

  New  industrial  bamboo  materials  with  different  properties  and  possibilities,  such  as  Bamboo  Mat 
Board  (BMB),  Strand  Woven  Bamboo  (SWB),  Bamboo  Particle  Board,  and  various  Bamboo 
Composites. 

  Chipboard with addition of biomass remains from agriculture (straw or flax). Plastic composites with 

addition of biomass. 
Linoleum used for tabletops and cupboards (linoleum can be confused with PVC). 

 
  Cork covering for boards. 

Bamboo 

Demand  for  bamboo  products  has  increased  significantly.  At  present  bamboo  is  also  available  as  FSC-
certified material, although little bamboo from certified areas is available. Other Ecolabel Schemes such as 
Nordic  Ecolabelling  have  criteria  regarding  bamboo  to  ensure  that  raw  materials  do  not  derive  from  areas 
where biodiversity or social conservation values are under threat.  

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

122 

 
 
Bamboo  is  a  type  of  grass  and is the  fastest  growing  plant  on  earth.  Because  of  its  high  growth  rate  and 
easy  processing,  bamboo  is  a  promising  renewable  resource  that  could  potentially  substitute  for  slow 
growing  hardwood.  Bamboo  has  good  mechanical  properties,  has  low  costs  and  is  abundantly  available  in 
developing  countries.  Its  rapid  growth  and  extensive  root  network  makes  bamboo  a  good  carbon  fixator, 
erosion controller and water table preserver. The bamboo plant is an eminent means to start up reforestation, 
and often has a positive effect on groundwater level and soil improvement through the nutrients in the plant 
debris63. 

Over 1200 bamboo species grow in Asia, Central America and South America and some species grow in parts 
of Africa and Australia. Bamboo grows wild as a “weed” and does not normally require fertiliser or spraying. 
Bamboo is often cultivated by peasant farmers, but because of the increased pressure on bamboo there is a 
danger that the felling of forests and the  use of insecticides and fertilisers will result in the destruction of 
well-functioning  eco  systems.  According  to  INBAR  (the  International  Network  for  Bamboo  and  Rattan) 
bamboo  is  viewed  as  a  natural  resource  and  is  harvested  from  unregulated  natural  forests  in  South-West 
China. In many places however the practice followed during harvesting is such that it may harm habitats that 
are dependent upon bamboo (such as the Red Panda and the Giant Panda) and also destroy the eco system 
in general. Bamboo is also cultivated in plantations of various types.  

Through  industrial  processing  of  bamboo  virtually  anything  that  can  be  made  from  wood  can  also  be 
developed  in  industrial  bamboo  materials.  The  industrial  processing  of  bamboo  and  in  particular  the 
lamination of bamboo strips into boards (Plybamboo), which is mostly applied in flooring, furniture board, and 
veneer, started in China in the early 1990s. China is still the leading industrial bamboo producer worldwide 
and supplies more than 90% of bamboo flooring and board materials in Western Europe. 

As mentioned in the previous section, bamboo is often perceived as being environmentally friendly. There are 
many  qualitative  arguments,  mainly  around  the  biomass  production  of  bamboo,  that  justify  this  positive 
perception. However, many of the industrially produced bamboo materials (Plybamboo, Strand Woven (SWB), 
etc.) go through many energy intensive production steps, produce a lot of waste and are supplemented with 
many chemical substances (glue, lacquer, etc.). The same applies to many wood based products. 

The  environmental  performance  of  various  bamboo  materials  were  compared  with  alternatives  in 
applications in the building and furniture sector in which  the  specific properties of bamboo can be  utilized: 
bendability  (Plybamboo,  BMB),  aesthetics  (stem,  Plybamboo,  SWB)  and  durability  outdoors  (SWB)  based  on 
current use in Western Europe. 

  Stem: In all applications where the bamboo stem may be used, European grown wood scores better 
in  terms  of  environmental  impacts.  Due  to  its  efficiency  in  form  and  processing,  and  the  high 
growing  speed,  in  annual  yield  the  stem  scores  significantly  better  than  even  the  fastest  growing 
softwood species. However, due to the irregular form and high transport costs, the market potential 
of the stem for mass applications in Europe is limited which makes this high annual yield of limited 
use. 
Indoor  boards  (e.g.  Plybamboo):  In  applications  where  Plybamboo  is  typically  used  (flooring, 
tabletops), it  performs worse in terms of environmental impacts than locally  grown hardwood and 
wooden  board  materials  (MDF,  plywood)  based  on  fast  growing  softwood  species.  However,  it  has 
lower  impacts  than  FSC  certified  tropical  hardwood  (Teak)  and  tropical  hardwood  derived  from 
natural forests.  

 

  Outdoor  applications  (e.g.  Strand  Woven  Bamboo  (SWB):  For  outdoor  applications  most 
softwoods are  not eligible due to their low durability, and tropical  hardwood is often used. In high 
end  applications  (e.g.  decking),  SWB  has  higher  environmental  impacts  than  suitable  plantation 
grown tropical hardwood species such as Teak and Azobé. However, SWB scores significantly better 
in  environmental  behaviour  than  timber  which  is  derived  from  natural  tropical  forests  and  FSC 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

123 

 
certified tropical hardwood. Therefore, if SWB can help replace tropical timber from natural forests it 
may be considered an environmental friendly alternative. 

4.1.2 Metals 

The  most  relevant  types  of  metals  for  the  production  of  furniture  are  aluminium,  steel  (mainly  stainless 
steel) and iron (especially in outdoor furniture). They are used as a base material, for example in table and 
chair legs, and cupboards. However other types of metals may also be used in fittings such as screws and 
fixings. In general, the most significant impacts related to metal production are109: 

Influence on landscape by mining activities to obtain bauxite, iron ore and other minerals. 

 
  Metal  contamination  in  local  water  sources  and  emissions  of  dust  and  noise  during  mining 

processes. 

  Materials  and  energy  consumption,  release  of  heavy  metals  (mostly  through  wastewater)  and 
emission  of  dust  and  pollutant  gases  (e.g.  fluorine,  nitrogen  oxide,  sulphur  oxide)  during  metal 
manufacturing. 
Emissions  of  heavy  metals  and  other  compounds  when  the  metal  undergoes  surface  treatment 
(galvanisation, painting, lacquer, enamelling) in order to extend durability and aesthetic value, except 
for stainless steel which does not need surface coating. 

 

  Use of non-renewable resources,  
  Although reserves are supposed to last for several hundred years.  

At the end-of-life, metals are totally recyclable. In order to facilitate recycling, it is important to ensure that 
the metal parts of furniture can easily be removed for their selective collection for recycling.  

Recycled metals 

The  use  of  secondary  (recycled)  metals  appears  as  one  of  the  most  efficient  measures  to  reduce  the 
environmental impacts associated to metals. Nowadays the majority of metals used in the furniture sector 
(steel, aluminium) come from recycled sources in a certain percentage. 

Increasing the share of recycled materials in metal considerably reduces the energy needed to produce steel 
and  aluminium.  For  example  the  energy  needed  to  produce  1kg  of  100%-recycled  aluminium  is 
approximately 10% of that needed for the production of primary aluminium. Beyond energy savings this also 
reduces the impacts of mining and final waste streams. 

The use of secondary metals (recycled metals) can lead to two major environmental benefits: 

 

 

 Reduced  consumption  of  natural  resources:  the  use  of  recycled  metals  reduces  the  need  for  raw 
materials in the mining operations and reduces the use of other additional materials in the process 
of obtaining the required alloys. 
Reduction  of  waste  generated:  Using  recycled  metals  will  have  achieved  that  metallic  waste  from 
various  sectors  have  been  exploited  by  a  second  merger,  so  that  the  amount  of  final  waste  to 
landfill will be reduced. 

Aluminium 

Many  properties  such  as  its  lightweight,  strength,  recyclability,  corrosion  resistance,  durability,  ductility, 
formability and conductivity make aluminium a valuable material widely used in furniture products. 

The total aluminium metal supply in Europe in 2011 was 13.2 million tonnes. From this aluminium, 35% was 
produced by European primary smelters, 30% was net-imported and 34% was recycled by European refiners 
and remelters64. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

124 

 
 
Recycled  aluminium  production  (refining  and  remelt)  in  Europe  reached  around  4.3  million  tonnes in  2010, 
2.2 millions of which produced by refiners. Worldwide, some 7.7 million tonnes were produced by aluminium 
refiners. 

For  primary  aluminium,  the  main  environmental  impacts  are  due  to  non-renewable  resources  and  energy 
consumption  needed  for  transforming  the  raw  material  (bauxite)  to  aluminium,  and  the  waste  generated. 
Producing one tonne of Aluminium requires 5 tonnes of bauxite. Open cut mining of bauxite degrades 50m2 
of land per tonne of Aluminium produced. The most notorious by-product of Aluminium production is caustic 
red mud and red sand52. 

The  LCA  studies reviewed  on  aluminium furniture42,47  showed  that  aluminium  was  the  material  with  higher 
impacts  in  relation  with  its  weight.  These  studies  also  confirm  that  the  use  of  secondary  aluminium  had 
important environmental impact benefits. Sensitivity analysis pertaining to the recycled content of aluminium 
showed  that  use  of  aluminium  with  high  recycled  content  was  beneficial;  this  is  because  production  of 
recycled aluminium is less energy intensive than production of primary aluminium. 

Aluminium  is  100%  recyclable  with  no  downgrading  of  its  qualities.  The  re-melting  of  aluminium  requires 
little  energy: only  about  5%  of  the  energy  required  to  produce  the  primary  metal  initially  is needed  in  the 
recycling process. Whereas primary aluminium has an energy demand between 170-14547 MJ/kg, secondary 
aluminium requires only 8MJ/kg52 - 15.9MJ/kg47. These energy savings bring important environmental savings 
for  furniture  products47.  For  office  furniture97,  the  contribution  of  secondary  aluminium  to  the  overall 
composition of products made from extruded aluminium was done. Per every one percent increase in recycled 
content,  the  reduction  in  the  different  impact  categories  was:  0.54%  of  reduction  in  Global  Warming 
Potential, 0.56% of energy reduction, 0.62% of acidification potential.  

As  stated  above,  aluminium  is  a  metal  totally  recyclable.  Sensitive  analysis  performed  in  LCA  studies 
assessing  differentwaste-management  scenario  showed  that  recycling  at  end-of-  life  resulted  in  a 
significantly lower GWP100 and landfilling at end-of-life42.  

Steel 

Steel furniture comprises chairs, tables, cabinets, racks, sofa sets, etc. They are required in almost all places, 
e.g. for domestic purposes, offices, factories, etc.  

The  European  steel  industry  is  competitive  and  well  established  in  a  majority  of  Member  States.  Steel  is 
produced in an energy intensive process by reducing iron ore, or by melting recycled scrap. A wide variety of 
steel products is used in different industries like shipbuilding, automotive, construction and transport. Steel is 
recovered  from  end-of-life  goods  and  recycled  without  loss  of  its  intrinsic  properties,  which  adds  to  its 
competitiveness and environmental benefits. With a production of around 200 million tonnes of crude steel in 
2008, the EU represented 16% of the world steel output and is the second biggest producer behind China. 

Recycling has grown in parallel with increased steel consumption. In 2007, the production of secondary steel 
represented  56%  of  the  total  European  steel  production.  Recycling  of  steel  scrap  has  economic  as  well  as 
environmental advantages for the steel industry by saving resources and energy. 

The  production  of  one  ton  of  steel  requires  1,500kg  iron  ore,  225kg  limestone,  750kg  coal  (coke)  and 
150,000 litres of water. Each tonne of steel produced generates the following wastes: 145kg of slag, 230kg 
of  granulated  slag,  2  tonnes  of  CO2  and  40kg  of  noxious  gas  (carbon  monoxide,  sulphurous  oxides  and 
nitrous oxides). Approximately 150,000 litres of contaminated water are also produced52. 

The  use  of  recycled  steel  has  several  impact  savings  due  to  the  avoided  consumption  of  non-renewable 
resources and energy. One ton of recycled steel results in a saving of109: 

  1,135 ton of iron mineral 
  0,055 ton of limestone 
  0,635 ton of carbon 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

125 

 
From the analysis on environmental benefits of steel recycling, it was established that there are numerous 
advantages of scrap utilisation. The major environmental benefits of increased scrap usage comes from the 
fact that production of one tonne of secondary steel consumes only 9–12.5 GJ/t, whereas the primary steel 
consumes 28– 31 GJ/t and consequently enormous reduction in CO2 emissions65. 

Iron 

Cast iron is used mainly for outdoor finishings and settings, such as those used for bench legs and solid iron 
tables. It is suited for outdoor use due to its hardness, heaviness and general tough composition. Cast iron is 
a durable and recyclable material, which can be recycled indefinitely with no decline in properties.  

4.1.3 Plastics 

Approximately  50%  of  plastics  are  used  for  single-use  disposable  applications,  such  as  packaging, 
agricultural films and disposable consumer items. Around 25% is  used for long-term infrastructure such as 
pipes, cable coatings and structural materials. The remainder is used for durable consumer applications with 
intermediate lifespan, such as in electronic goods, furniture, vehicles, etc66.  

The  main  plastics  used  in  furniture  are:  Polystyrene  (PS),  polyvinyl  chloride  (PVC)  and  polypropylene  (PP). 
Others like polycarbonate, polyamide6 (PA6)/nylon or ABS (Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene) are also used. 

Plastics constitute a large range of products conventionally produced from natural gas or crude oil. Some of 
the impacts related to plastic production are36: 

 
 
 

 
 

The use of non-renewable resources; 
The use of energy 
The use of additives such as stabilisers, plasticisers or flame retardants which can present inherent 
hazardous properties; 
The release of pollutant and hazardous substances during production.  
Release of pollutant and hazardous substances during handling of waste. Although plastics can also 
be recycled, waste can be problematic if plastic parts cannot be easily removed from the furniture 
and their type identified. 

Many plastics used by industry contain chemical additives to provide specific characteristics to the materials 
such as flexibility, durability, colour, etc. Some of these additives (polybromate flame retardants, phthalates, 
perfluorinated  compound  (PFC),  heavy  metals)  can  be  dangerous  for  the  environmental  and  the  human 
health (see section 5 on hazardous substances). 

Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) 

PVC furniture is most commonly found outside as patio or poolside furniture. PVC furniture is considered to 
be sturdy and long-lasting, which is why it is commonly featured outdoors with constant contact with the sun 
and other elements. 

Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is a synthetic polymer material (or resin), which is built up by the repetitive addition 
of the monomer vinyl chloride (VCM). The chlorine in PVC represents 57% of the weight of the pure polymer 
resin. 

PVC  has  been  at  the  centre  of  a  controversial  debate  during  the  last  two  decades.  A  number  of  diverging 
scientific, technical  and  economic  opinions  have  been  expressed  on  the  question  of  PVC  and  its  effects on 
human health and the environment. Some Member States have recommended or adopted measures related 
to specific aspects of the PVC life cycle. However, these measures vary widely67. PVC is discussed in terms of 
environmental  impact  and  health  and  environment  issues  mainly  due  to  the  use  of  the  vinyl  chloride 
monomer (VCM) and additives such as phthalates.  

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

126 

 
 
From  a  PVC  life  cycle  perspective68,  the  production  of  intermediates,  particularly  the  processes  from  the 
resource  extraction  of  crude  oil  and  rock  salt  up  to  the  VCM  production,  play  a  major  role  for  the 
environmental  impacts.  Most  of  the  impacts  are  caused  by  emissions  to  air  and  water,  especially  by 
hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide emissions to air.  

The  production  of  stabilisers  and  plasticizers  plays  a  significant  role,  whereas  the  production  of  pigments 
offers  a  comparatively  low  optimisation  potential,  because  of  the  small  volumes  involved.  The  most 
commonly  used  plasticisers  are  phthalates,  of  which  di-2-ethylhexyl  phthalate  (DEHP)  has  traditionally 
accounted  for  50%  of  European  phthalate  use.  Others  include  diisononyl  phthalate  (DINP),  di-isodecyl 
phthalate (DIDP), di-butyl phthalate (DBP) and butylbenzyl phthalate (BBP). All these phthalates are classified 
as toxic for reproduction. 

PVC  is  also  difficult  to  recycle  given  the  presence  of  additives  including  heavy  metals  such  as  lead  and 
cadmium (though their use is decreasing or, in the case of cadmium, been banned in some countries). PVC is 
considered as a contaminant in other recycling streams. Currently only a small amount of post-consumer PVC 
waste  is  recycled,  whereas  some  82%  of  post-consumer  PVC  waste  is  landfilled,  and  15%  is  incinerated. 
Incineration,  in  conjunction  with  municipal  waste  disposal,  is  a  simple  option  that  allows  for  the  partial 
recovery of energy and  metals if state-of-the-art technology is applied. In case of uncontrolled incineration 
(or incineration under non-BAT conditions) concerns relating to dioxin formation are raised. From an LCA point 
of view, PVC is undesirable in mixed wastes since the usability of the waste is limited69.   

Some  ecolabel  schemes,  e.g.  the  Nordic  Ecolabel,  prohibit  the  use  of  PVC  in  furniture.  The  rationale  is that 
PVC is not suited for combustion because the content of chlorine may contribute to increased development of 
dioxin in the waste gas from the waste incineration plant. Certain PVC-based products, like doors and window 
frames,  are  recollected  and  recycled  for  production  of  new  PVC.  The  problem is  that  with  the  exception  of 
these  products,  consumers  are  generally  unable  to  distinguish  between  materials  containing  PVC  and  the 
ones not containing PVC. Therefore a large part of the PVC waste ends in municipal waste fractions which are 
incinerated, even though PVC is defined as not suitable for combustion70.  

Polyolefins (PE and PP)  

Polyolefins such as polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP) are simpler polymer structures that do not need 
plasticizers,  although  they  do  use  additives  such  as  UV  and  heat  stabilizers,  antioxidants  and  in  some 
applications flame retardants. The polyolefins pose fewer risks and have the highest potential for mechanical 
recycling. Both PE and PP are versatile and cheap, and can be designed to replace almost all PVC applications. 
PE can be made either hard, or very flexible, without the use of plasticizers. PP is easy to mould and can also 
be used in a wide range of applications. 

In  comparison  with  PVC,  PE  and  PP  use  fewer  problematic  additives,  have  reduced  leaching  potential  in 
landfills, reduced potential for dioxin formation during burning (provided that brominated/chlorinated flame 
retardants are not used), and reduced technical problems and costs during recycling. 

Recycled plastics 

The use of recycled plastics is currently feasible in the furniture sector, although some limitations can exist 
for some components such as colour limitations, resistance requirements to mechanical and physical stress 
or other technical properties. However, in general, most of the furniture components do not need virgin plastic 
and they could be produced from recycled plastics.  

For  indoor  furniture,  use  of  recycled  plastic  is  relatively  common.  For  office  chairs,  from  the  29  available 
Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), 15 used recycled plastic at some extent. 

In  the  Nordic  Ecolabelling  criteria  for  outdoor  furniture70,  products  consisting  of  more  than  10  weight  % 
plastic,  a  minimum  of  50%  of  the  plastic  must  consist  of  recycled  material.  A  study  done  by  Nordic 
Ecolabelling about the possibilities for using recovered plastic in furniture stressed that plastic does not have 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

127 

 
unlimited durability and that there are restrictions on the number of times it can be re-used. This is because 
the long polymers of the plastic break down and become shorter as a result of both preparation and use of 
the plastic. As a result the mechanical properties and durability deteriorate. Many polymers are affected by 
UV light and the acid content of the atmosphere. Therefore anti-oxidants and stabilisers are added to protect 
the plastic and thereby extend its durability. The additives deteriorate over time. Polypropylene in particular 
becomes brittle and breaks into pieces when the anti-oxidants in the plastic have been consumed. In the case 
of some types of plastic, anti-oxidants are also added to recycled plastic. However, this has a negative effect 
since  as  a  result  the  plastic  will  contain  many  different  types  of  additives  where,  for  example,  the  anti-
oxidant  and  filler  used  will  not  always  perform  well  together.  This  can  cause  quality  problems.  The  report 
concludes that if recycled plastic is to be used, then it is likely that production waste will be the only type that 
is  suitable  for  the  production  of  furniture.  This  is  because  the  traceability  of  the  plastic  flows  is  better 
allowing  purer  plastic  in  terms  of  additives  and  plastic  types  to  be  used.  Recycled  postconsumer  plastic  is 
best suited for simpler products without the same quality requirements as regards the plastic.  

The use of recycled plastic will be more limiting for outdoor furniture since it is more exposed to sunlight and 
the acid in the atmosphere than furniture for indoor. Plastics for outdoor furniture will need to have a high 
content of anti-oxidants and stabilizers, and it will be difficult for outdoor furniture to source recycled plastic 
with the required of quality. 

Bio-Plastics (Polymers made with renewable resources) 

Nowadays  500,000  tonnes  of  bioplastics  are  produced  every  year.  The  European  market  for  bioplastics  is 
growing at an annual rate of roughly 20 percent. The applications for bioplastic materials and products are 
increasing steadily. Today, bioplastics can be found mainly within the following market segments: packaging, 
food-services,  agriculture/horticulture,  consumer  electronics,  automotive,  consumer  goods  and  household 
appliances.  Other  markets  start  to  use  bioplastic  materials  as  well,  such  as  building  and  construction, 
household,  leisure  or  fibre  applications  (clothing,  upholstery)  and  furniture  (e.g.  chairs,  tables,  shelves, 
cupboards). 

In  Europe  in  2010,  120  tons  of  biopolymers  were  used  for  the  building  sector  and  furniture.  However, 
worldwide  furniture  manufacturers  seem  more  interested  to  focus  on  the  recyclability  of  energy  intensive 
materials rather than on the utilization of renewably sourced biopolymers.  

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

128 

 
Figure 36. Evolution of the use of bioplastics in Europe 
Source: European Bioplastics 

There are two possible categories of plastics that can be derived from renewable resources. One option is the 
production of new monomers (such as polylactic acid) to make new, possibly  biodegradable, polymers (e.g. 
Polylactic acid or PLA). The commercial challenge is to compete with existing large volume plastics in terms 
of  production  economics  and  adapting  processing  equipment.  The  other  route  is  to  make  high  volume 
monomers  such  as  ethylene  (or  other  ethylene  derivatives)  from  ethanol  derived  from  renewable  sources. 
This can then be used in existing polymerisation plants making the well-known polyethylene grade ranges. In 
both cases the chemistry is proven, but a key consideration will be the amount of non-renewable energy used 
in the overall manufacturing chain. 

Bio-based plastics can be made out of products obtained from raw materials produced by a natural living or 
growing systems, such as starch and cellulose. The advantage of bio-polymers is that they readily degrade 
and can be composted. Natural polymers include cellulose (from wood, cotton etc.), horn (hardened protein) 
and raw rubber. Converted natural polymers include vulcanized rubber, vulcanized fibre, celluloid and casein 
protein.  

Biodegradable  plastics  from  renewable  sources  (bio-based)  are  seen  as  a  promising  alternative  for  plastic 
products  which  have  a  short  life  cycle  or  are  impractical  to  recycle,  such  as  food  packaging,  agricultural 
plastics  and  other  disposables.  For  polymers  made  of  renewable  sources,  it  is  important  to  consider  its 
sustainable origin and management.  For lasting applications like furniture products, bioplastics have a very 
limitated use due to some requirements such as durability. Current developments of new types of bioplastics 
with improved funcitionality can expand the use of bioplastics to new sectors using semi-durable and durable 
products. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

129 

 
 
 
4.1.4 Glass 

Flat glass is the material that goes into a variety of end products including applications such as furniture. Flat 
glass  is  the  second  largest  sector  in  the  glass  industry  in  the  European  Union  after  container  glass  and  it 
represents around 30% of total glass production worldwide. In 2008, Glass for Europe statistics revealed that 
the sector reached a production capacity of 12.7 million tonnes of float glass. 

In most cases, transport costs make it uneconomic for flat glass to travel long distances by land. Typically, 
200 km would be seen as the norm, and 600 km as the economic limit for most products, though this varies 
between markets. It is possible for float glass to be economically transported along longer distances by sea 
provided additional road transportation is not required at both ends. This tends to favour float lines with local 
port access unless a local market is available for the line’s output. This is the reason why the vast majority of 
glass produced at the EU borders such as in Algeria, Egypt, Ukraine, etc. can be easily transported and sold in 
the European Union. 

The main types of flat glass are: 

  Annealed glass: is the basic flat glass product that is the first result of the float process.  

 

 

Toughened glass: is treated to be far more resistant to breakage and to break in a more predictable 
way when it does break, thus providing a  major safety advantage in almost all of its applications. 
Toughened glass is made from annealed glass treated with a thermal tempering process. Toughened 
glass has extremely broad applications in products for buildings, automobiles and transport, as well 
as  in  other  areas.  Car  windshields  and  windows,  glass  portions  of  building  facades,  glass  sliding 
doors  and  partitions  in  houses  and  offices,  glass  furniture  such  as  table  tops,  and  many  other 
products typically use toughened glass.  

Laminated  glass:  Laminated  glass  is  made  of  two  or  more  layers  of  glass  with  one  or  more 
"interlayers" of  polymeric material bonded between the  glass layers.  Laminated glass  offers  many 
advantages. Safety and security are the best known of these, so rather than shattering on impact, 
laminated  glass  is  held  together  by  the  interlayer.  Laminated  glass  is  used  extensively  in  building 
and housing products and in the automotive and transport industries. 

  Coated glass: Surface coatings can be applied to glass to modify its appearance and give it many of 
the  advanced  characteristics  and  functions  available  in  today's  flat  glass  products,  such  as  low 
maintenance,  special  reflection/transmission/absorption  properties,  scratch  resistance,  corrosion 
resistance, etc. 

  Mirrored glass: To  produce  mirrored glass, a metal coating is applied to one side of  the glass. The 
coating  is  generally  made  of  silver,  aluminium,  gold  or  chrome.  For  simple  mirrored  glass,  a  fully 
reflective metal coating is applied and then sealed with a protective layer.  

 

 

Patterned: Patterned glass is flat glass whose surfaces display a regular pattern. The most common 
method  for  producing  patterned  glass  is  to  pass  heated  glass.  Patterned  glass  is  mostly  used  in 
internal decoration and internal architecture. Today, it is typically used for functional reasons, where 
light but not transparency is desired.  

Extra  clear  glass:  Extra  clear  glass  differs  from  other  types  of  glass  by  its  basic  raw  material 
composition. In particular, this glass is made with a very low iron-content in order to minimise its sun 
reflection properties.  

The  extraction  of  raw  materials for  the  production  of  glass  is not  as problematic  as  for other  components 
because this material is made of resources that are abundant in nature, such as sand, soda ash, limestone, 
with a dash of dolomite and feldspar. However, extraction is carried out in mines, with high consumption of 
natural resources, use and destruction of large areas of land, altered morphology and physical chemistry soil, 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

130 

 
air pollution, alteration of the water balance of groundwater, water infiltration contaminated waste, ground 
subsidence and imbalances in vegetation, etc.  

Production  of  glass  entails  high  amounts  of  energy,  since  processes  are  done  at  high  temperatures.  This 
energy consumption has relevant impact contribution to overall glass impact. 

Another problematic issue can be the presence of hazardous substances such as metals like cupper or lead  
(especially in mirrors or treated glasses). 

Regarding recyclability, processed glass like laminated glass (with a polymer layer) or mirrored glass (with a 
metal layer) can be difficult to recycle. Although some recycling processes exist that separate the different 
components, they are expensive and limited. So they are few accepted in current glass recycling systems. 

Glass can be an important component in some furniture and can have relevant contribution to environmental 
impacts. As an example a mirrored glass in cabinet (19.3% of cabinet weight), contributes to 16.4% of global 
warming  caused  by  materials  and  20.8%  of  acidification  caused  by  materials  (mainly  due  to  electric  and 
thermal energy consumption). 

One of the more efficient measures to reduce environmental impacts from glass material production is the 
use  of  recycled  glass.  The  glass  components  of  furniture  can  be  easily  made  of  a  percentage  of  recycled 
glass with no major technical limitations below 85%. The main environmental benefits are37: 

 
 
 

Energy savings (20%) 
Reduction of consumption of natural resources 
Reduction of waste generated 

4.1.5 Textiles and leather 

Textiles are used in upholstered furniture such as seats, backs of chairs, sofas and arm rests. Textiles can be 
produced  from  various  materials,  both  from  natural  fibres  such  as  cotton,  wool,  jute  or  flax  and  synthetic 
fibres  such  as  polyester  and  polyamide.  Virtually  all  types  of  textiles  are  applied  in  the  furniture  industry. 
Leather is also used, though less frequently. 

Textile fibres are usually treated with various finishing agents to make them durable, hard-wearing, soft or to 
give  them  different  appearances  (e.g.  bleaching  and  dyeing).  Natural  fibres  may  also  be  treated  with  a 
mothproofing agent. Textiles used in upholstery are easily inflammable and are often treated with a flame 
retardant. 

Leather is  generally  tanned  with  chromium salts  or  plant  extracts  in  a  number of  different  processes.  It  is 
then oiled (e.g. with linseed oil) and dyed (typically with synthetic dyes). Surface treatment (finishing) gives 
the leather its final appearance and makes it dirt- and water-resistant. Various finishing substances are used 
that may damage the environment and health.  

The impacts of the different fabrics used for upholstery are mainly due to the production phase 36. The main 
environmental impacts and health related issues are associated with: 

 
 

 

 

The use of pesticides (in case of natural fibres) during the cultivation phase; 
VOC  (volatile  organic  compound)  emissions  to  air  (in  the  case  of  plastic  fibres)  during  the 
production phase; 
The  emission  of  dyes,  pigments,  fungicides,  chromium  compounds,  etc.  to  water  –  during  the 
treatment of fibres and tanning of skin fibres to produce leather; 
The  presence  of  hazardous  substances  in  the  product,  such  as  formaldehyde,  heavy  metals  and 
azo dyes.  

For upholstered furniture38, a sensitivity analysis was done for the nature of textile and site of fabrication of 
textile/cover. The study showed that air acidification is a sensitive indicator of transport of textile, but have 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

131 

 
 
low variation in general due to the low weight of cover regarding all furniture. Regarding the type of textile, 
linen has lower impacts than cotton (due to lower water consumption and chemical use) and polyester (with 
lower impacts than cotton, but higher impacts than linen due to the use of fuel-oil). 

According to statistics of the International Council of Tanners, in 2007 the furniture sector used 3210 million 
square feet of leather in the world (14% of total leather production). Environmental impacts from leather can 
be  related  to  the  different  life  stages  of  the  material72:  Agriculture,  cattle  breeding  and  slaughtering; 
processing  of  leather  (tanning  process),  plastics  and  other  synthetic  materials,  manufacturing  of  finished 
products  (usually  less  relevant).  Main  hot  spots  identified  in  different  studies  are:  slaughtering,  tanning 
chemicals  (where  usually  chromium  salts  and  other  heavy  metals  are  used)  and  the  solid  waste  and 
wastewater arising from tannery operations. 

4.1.6 Padding materials 

The  main  foaming  materials  used  in  upholstered  furniture  are  polyurethane  foams  (PUR),  polyester  or 
polyether, and latex foams. They are used as filling material for seats, backs of chairs, sofas and arm rests.  

The most important aspects, which can be tackled in setting criteria for padding materials, are:  

Presence of hazardous residues in the foams  

  Use of hazardous substances in the production process (see section 5.3.) 
 
  Durability of the final product  
  Use of raw materials  

4.2 Manufacturing 

The  processing  of  components  is  usually  considered  as  part  of  the  materials  stage  in  LCA  studies.  The 
components are: 

  Wood  components:  wood  process  starts  with  logging  activities  and  further  processing  include 
sawing,  protective  treatment  and  drying  of  wood.  Transport  of  timber  is  usually  included  in  wood 
components processing; 

  Wooden  panels:  wooden  panels  are  made  of  virgin  or  recycled  sawn  wood  or  fibres,  which  are 

processed under heat and pressure with the addition of adhesives and resins; 

  Metal  parts:  metal  materials  are  transformed  through  different  forms  (sheets,  cast  pieces  or 

 

extrusion profiles) depending on the final product; 
Plastic parts: polymers are processed through different processes depending on the final component 
(injection, calendering, film blowing, etc.); 

  Glass: flat  glass components are made  by float process.  Depending on the type of glass, different 

thermal or coating process are applied to give the glass specific properties. 

Usually furniture manufacturers receive elaborated or semi-elaborated components from suppliers. Once the 
components  are  manufactured,  assembly  and  finishing  are  the  main  actual  production  steps  for  a  final 
furniture item. This stage implies the assembly of the different components and/or furniture parts in order to 
produce  the  final  product.  Manufacturing  processes  vary  depending  on  the  kind  of  furniture  and  materials 
used.  

Apart from assembly, other manufacturing process can be done, depending on the type of furniture:  

 
 
 

cutting of wooden panels, metal sheets or plastic pieces; 
edging; 
drilling; 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

132 

 
 
 
 
 
 

assembly (used of adhesives); 
surface treatment of the final furniture; 
packaging of furniture (used of packaging and adhesives). 

The manufacturing stage has lower impacts than the materials stage (which include raw materials extraction, 
material  processing  and  transport  of  these  materials).  On  average,  it  was  found  that  manufacturing  stage 
has a contribution of 10% in the overall environmental impact of a furniture product. For the manufacturing, 
the main contributions in all impact categories are due to energy consumption (electricity and heating). 

Manufacturing  stages  with  higher  contribution  are  those  including  treatment  of  materials  such  as  surface 
coating,  glueing,  etc.  with  the  use  of  chemicals  and  energy  consumption.  Coating  processes  (such  as  UV 
coating, PUR, application of insulation rolls or paints) can lead to significant electricity and fuel consumption 
(70% of total manufacturing energy demand) mainly due to drying process in furnaces. 

Nevertheless, energy  consumption in  manufacturing process is lower than energy embodied of materials.In 
the studies done by Unione Industriali Pordenone41,45,46,47,48 some energy patterns from manufacturing process 
is detailed: 

 

 

Electricity: used for facilities (30% aprox.) and productive processes such as cutting, edging, coating, 
finishing (70% aprox.).  
Thermal  energy:  used  for  heating  facilities  (50%  aprox.)  and  productive  processes  (furnace  for 
coating processes). 

Table 34. Energy consumption in manufacturing processes (core processes) 

Cabinet (Mascagni) 
kitchen 
Desk (Martex) 
Cabinet (Martex) 
Workplace 
EPDs on office chairs (average) 

Energy 
consumption 
(MJ) 
153.9 MJ /10kg 
131.5 MJ/10kg 
17.2 MJ/10kg 
79.2 MJ/10kg 
69.3 MJ/10kg 
74 MJ/Seat 

% of energy consumption in  
manufacturing process (of total 
energy demand of product) 
26.7% 
32.9% 
2.1% 
14.9% 
10.3% 
7% 

Observations 

No painting 

In section 3.4.2, the different manufacturing processes and the use of different substances are assessed in 
detail,  including  preservatives,  flame  retardants  and  surface  coatings  (both  for  components  and  finished 
furniture) as well as glues and adhesives used during assembly of furniture.  

4.3 Packaging 

The  main  function  of  packaging  is  to  protect  the  product.  Due  to  the  bulky,  heavy  and  delicate  nature  of 
furniture,  it  is  easy  to  damage  during  transit.  Therefore  a  protective  packaging  is  required.  Normally  two 
types  of  packaging  are  required:  transportation  or  secondary  packaging  (such  as  pallets)  and  primary 
package (to be transported from shop to final user site). 

In some cases, especially with small furniture, the weight of the packaging can contribute significantly to the 
total weight of the packed furniture. From the LCA screening, the average contribution of packaging in weight 
is as follows:  

  13% of the total product weight for office chairs 
  9% of the total product weight for domestic chairs 
  7% of the total product weight for office desks 
  8.5% of the total product weight for cabinets/wardrobes 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

133 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  44% of the total product weight for tables. 

The material used for packaging is usually corrugated cardboard, but packaging can also contain plastics (e.g. 
PS and PP), paper or metal pieces (e.g. steel). 

The  use of single-use  packaging in the furniture industry is extensive. Packaging has  a very short lifespan, 
being discarded immediately after distribution. The main environmental problems related to packaging come 
from the consumption of raw materials and packaging waste. Environmental impacts could be reduced by: 

 
 
 

using packaging made from recycled materials,  
using packaging that is easy to recycle 
using reusable packaging. 

LCA studies48 showed that the contribution in weight of packaging, its composition and relative contribution in 
some key environmental impacts. A summary of the findings is provided in the table below. 

Table 35. Composition and environmental impacts of packaging 

% weight 

Cabinet 1 

4.7%  

Kitchen 

4% 

Desk 

15% 

Cabinet 2 

17% 

Composition of packaging 
Cardboard (84%) 
Polystyrene (16%) 
Cardboard  (97.2%) 
Polyester polyethylene-furanate (PEF) 
(1%) 
Polystyrene (1.8%) 
Cardboard (90%) 
Polystyrene (7%) 
Polypropylene (3%) 
Cardboard (92.5%) 
Polystyrene (7.5%) 

Overall contribution to impacts 
3.1% energy consumption 
4% GWP 

2.8% energy consumption 
14.1% of acidification 

6.3% energy consumption 

8.3% energy consumption 
13.4% acidification 

4.4 Distribution 

The distribution stage refers to the distribution of the final furniture product from the manufacturer to the 
retailer and the final consumer. In the EU market, transport is usually done by road transport or boats. 

In some LCA studies and EPDs, distribution is not included in the scope, since this stage is considered to be 
out of control of manufacturer. However, LCA studies considering distribution, show that the contribution to 
overall environmental impacts is about 6% (see section 3.4.2. Distribution and transport processes may have 
relevance  in  the  impact  categories  of  ozone  depletion,  acidification  (14%  of  overall  impact)  and 
eutrophication (10% of overall impact)38. 

Nevertheless,  this  stage  can  be  relevant  if  the  finished  product  is  imported  from  plants  at  long  distances 
from  the  end-consumer.  This  is  the  case  for  the  increasing  percentage  of  furniture  coming  from  low-cost 
economies. 

Transport of raw materials or processed materials is normally included in the materials stage. In some cases, 
transport of finished components from suppliers to furniture manufacturers is also assesse 

d. Sensitive analysis on the origin of finished components, show significant variations of impacts depending 
on  the  country  of  manufacturing.  These  differences  not  only  come  from  transport,  but  also  from  the 
production stage and the technology used in different countries. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

134 

 
 
 
 
 
4.5 Use 

Most LCA studies do not include the use stage in the environmental assessment, since it is assumed to not 
have  significant  impacts.  Some  studies  include  cleaning  or  maintenance  during  the  use  phase.  Where  use 
stage was considered it had negligible environmental impacts.  

Processes  that  enlarge  the  lifespan  of  a  furniture  product  are  maintenance,  remanufacturing  or  reuse. 
Enlarging the lifespan results in avoided impacts from the manufacturing of new furniture pieces. 

The lifetime of products depends on several factors:  the technical lifetime (how long they work for), the real 
lifetime (how long people expect to keep them) and the economic lifetime (cost of maintenance versus cost 
of replacement)73,74.  

A standard furniture has a lifespan of 30 years, which means that most often when furniture comes to the 
end of its life (usually less than 30 years) it still has residual life75. However, the average lifespan is 15 years. 
This  fact  indicates that  extending  the  life  of  furniture  is  the  best  choice  to  save  impacts  derived  from  the 
manufacturing of new items. Design for durability and information to the user could contribute to extent the 
lifespan of furniture.  

Fitness for use and ergonomics refer to whether a product fulfils the expectations with respect to its function 
and contributes to a healthy environment for the user. A product that is not fit for purpose or not comfortable 
will be replaced sooner. The same applies to safety standards. 

Durability,  fitness  for  use,  ergonomics  and  safety  depend  on  quality  standards.  There  are  standards  at 
European level and also for the different Member States where durability criteria can be set. 

Reparability  is  an  important  element  with  respect  to  the  maintenance  of  furniture  and  its  durability. 
Reparability depends on: 

- 

- 

The ease of disassembly, which in turn depends on the way the parts or materials are 
connected/assembled (the type of glue, the use of screws or welding, etc.); 
Availability of spare parts. 

From LCA studies and EPDs, the average life span expected by type of furniture has been defined. In some 
studies processes of maintenance and cleaning have been defined as well. 

Table 36. Average life span and maintenance operation by type of furniture 

Furniture 

Study 

Life span 

Desk 

Office table 
School desk 

Office 
chair/siento 

Ihobe guide44 

20 years 

Steelcase43 
Steelcase43 
SETAC49 
Steelcase43 

30 years 
30 years 
8 years 
30 years 

Ihobe guide44 

10-15 years 

Formway42 

10 years 

PCRs /EPDs 

15 years 

Table 
Cabinets 

PCR on tables 
PCR on cabinets 

15 years 
10 years 

Maintenance 
1 cleaning/week, 1cl of water/cleaning (wet 
rags), 10 l water/ life span 
- 
- 
- 
- 
1 cleaning/week, 1cl of water/cleaning (wet 
rags), 5-7.8 l water/ life span 
- 
One vacuum cleaning every 2 years. A textile 
change once in the maintenance period. 
- 
- 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

135 

 
 
 
4.6 End-of-life 

According to statistics from the European Federation of Furniture Manufacturers (UEA) furniture waste in the 
EU  accounts  annually  for  more  than  4%  of  the  total  municipal  solid  waste  (MSW).  80-90%  of  this  is 
incinerated or dumped in landfills, whereas the remaining part is recycled.. 

Some furniture is reused or refurbished to have a second life instead of becoming waste. Re-using furniture 
is  an  important  market.  In  the  UK,  14%  of  desks,  14%  of  office  chairs,  17%  of  sofas  and  17%  of  all  the 
dining tables reaching the ‘end-of-life’ are reused in some form every year73,74.  

According to Article 4 of the Waste Framework Directive15 the hierarchy for furniture waste management (in 
descending order of preference) should be: 

1.  Reusing 
2.  Recycling 
3.  Energy valorisation 
4.  Disposal to landfill 

LCA selected studies showed than on average, end-of-life stage can have a contribution of 15% on average 
on the different key environmental impact indicators. In  all studies with  sensitive analysis among  different 
waste treatment scenarios, options to recover furniture after use have always great potential to reduce the 
environmental  impacts.  Recycling  furniture  showed  lower  impacts  than  landfill.  For those  components non-
recyclable energy valorisation has the lowest impact of the disposal routes. 

Recyclability of furniture will depend on the recyclability of the used materials and the possibility to separate 
different  components.  Regarding  materials,  the  recyclability  potential  and  limitations  can  be  defined  in 
general terms as follows: 

-  Wood.  In  general  wood  can  be  recycled  as  sawn  wood  or  sawdust  to  be  used  in  wooden  panels. 

Nevertheless treated wood can have limited recyclability. 

-  Wooden  panels.  Wooden  panels  have  limited  recyclability  due  to  the  presence  of  resins.  For  all 
Environmental Product Declaration (EPDs) on wooden panels, the waste treatment considered for panels 
is the energy valorisation in a biomass power plant since panels usually have a high heating value (17-
18 MJ/kg aprox.) 

-  Metals. All metals are totally recyclable and they can be easily recycled. 
- 

Plastics.  Plastic  can  be  recycled, although  some  plastics  such  as  PCV  or  multilayer materials can  have 
more limited recyclability.  
Glass. Some treated flat glasses such as laminated glass or mirrored glass can be difficult to recycle due 
to the presence of different materials layers (polymers or metals) 

- 

4.6.1 Reusing – Remanufacturing 

A  study  estimated  the  energy  and  economic  saving  potential  associated  to  reusing/refurbishing/re-
manufacturing of non-wood chairs and a wooden desk. The analysis has shown that reusing / refurbishing / 
remanufacturing furniture products like chairs and desks leads to both energy and economic savings75.  

Waste  &  Resources  Action  Programme  (WRAP)73,74  has  studied  the  environmental,  economic  and  social 
benefits  of  reusing  office  furniture  (desks  and  office  chairs)  and  domestic  furniture  (sofas  and  dinning 
tables).  The  key  environmental  benefits  associated  with  reuse,  besides  economic  and  social  benefits,  are 
quantified for each type of furniture: 

Desks 

  Savings of 0.2 to 0.4 tCO2eq per t of desks directly reused instead of landfilled. 

Office Chairs 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

136 

 
  Direct reuse of 1 tonne of office chairs (e.g. via a second-hand shop) can result in a net GHG saving 

 

of 3 tonnes CO2-eq. This is just over 35kg CO2-eq per chair.  
Providing 1 tonne of office chairs to a preparation for reuse network can result in a net GHG saving 
of 2.6 tonnes CO2-eq net. This is approximately 30kg CO2-eq per chair.  

  As  well  as  the  carbon  benefits,  there  are  parallel  resource  and  energy  savings  as  a  result  of  this 

reuse activity.  

Sofas 

 

 

Providing 1 tonne of sofas for direct reuse e.g. second-hand shop can result in a net GHG saving of 
1.45 tonnes CO2-eq. This is approximately 55kg CO2-eq per sofa.  
Providing 1 tonne of sofas to a preparation for reuse network can result in a net GHG saving of 1.05 
tonnes CO2-eq net. This is about 40kg CO2-eq per sofa.  

  As  well  as  the  carbon  benefits,  there  are  parallel  resource  and  energy  savings  as  a  result  of  this 

reuse activity.  

Dining Tables 

 

 

Providing  1  tonne  of  dining  tables  for  direct  reuse  e.g.  second-hand  shop  results  in  net  GHG 
emissions  (as  opposed  to  savings)  of  0.38  tonnes  CO2  eq.  This  is  approximately  10kg  CO2-eq  per 
table. However, these are lower than landfill emissions (1 tonne CO2 eq per tonne dining tables).  
Providing  1  tonne  of  dining  tables  to  a  preparation  for  reuse  network  can  result  in  a  net  GHG 
emissions  (as  opposed  to  savings)  of  0.76  tonnes  CO2  eq.  This  is  approximately  20kg  CO2-eq  per 
table. However, these are lower than landfill emissions (1 tonne CO2 eq per tonne dining tables).  
  As  well  as  the  carbon  benefits,  there  are  parallel  resource  and  energy  savings  as  a  result  of  this 

reuse activity.  

4.7 Life-cycle costing considerations 

Life  cycle  costing  (LCC)  is  defined  in  the  International  Organization  for  Standardization  standard,  Buildings 
and  Constructed  Assets,  Service-life  Planning,  Part  5:  Life-cycle  Costing  (ISO  15686-5)  as  an  “economic 
assessment  considering  all  agreed  projected  significant  and  relevant  cost  flows  over  a  period  of  analysis 
expressed in monetary value. The projected costs are those needed to achieve defined levels of performance, 
including reliability, safety and availability.” 

In  the  context  of  green  public  procurement  (GPP),  the  use  of  LCC  is  essential  to  demonstrate  that 
procurement  processes  and  decisions  have  to  move  beyond  considering  the  purchase  price  of  a  good  or 
service. The  purchase  price alone does not reflect the financial and non-financial gains that are offered  by 
environmentally and socially preferable assets as they accure during the operations and use phases of the 
asset life cycle. 

“Green”  and  socially-preferable  assets  may  carry  considerably  higher  purchasing  price  tags  than  their  less 
sustainable  substitutes.  This  is  particularly  the  case  in  middle-  and  lower-income  countries  where  the 
markets for green and social goods and services are in their infancy. It is true that the price premiums paid 
for sustainable assets may be largely offset through efficiency gains, cost savings and lowered risks during 
the product/project lifetime. 

In some countries, the production of sustainable and LCC-efficient goods and services is just starting, which 
means  that  the  only  way  to  source  sustainable  alternatives  will  be  through  expensive  imports  or  paying  a 
very  high  cost  premium  to  stimulate  local  industries.  In  lower  income  economies,  differences  on  prices 
between conventional and green products can be higher, as much as 10 to 50 per cent. However, according to 
the  2009  IISD  Report  for  LCC  in  Sustainable  Public  Procurement,  the  large  volumes  demanded  by  public 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

137 

 
 
procurement contracts can make economies of scale more feasible, and the prices of these products can be 
expected to decrease as more producers enter the market. 

LCC can be most feasibly applied to certain categories of products and services. The level of applicability of 
life cycle costing for furniture is considered moderately applicable. 

The results of taking a life-cycle approach for purchasing decisions has been well documented for products 
such  as  electrical  appliances,  where  an  energy  efficient  version  will  cost  less  over  the  longer  term  due  to 
reduced  energy  costs.  Unfortunately  there  has  been  comparatively  little  work  done  on  quantifying  the 
lifecycle costing of office furniture.  

The  EU  study  “Costs  and  Benefits  of  Green  Public  Procurement  in  Europe”  evaluated  the  cost  difference 
between green and non-green products in the furniture sector. Three pieces of furniture have been selected 
for price comparison between 4 countries (i.e. Sweden, Germany, Spain and Czech Republic): mobile cabinets, 
open storage units and office chairs.  

Green products were defined as those certified with the Nordic Swan, Blue Angel, AENOR, Czech flower and 
Austrian ecolabels. Prices differences can be found in Table 37.  

Table 37. Differences in purchasing cost for green and non-green furniture.  
Cost of mobile cabinets in Euros (incl. VAT) 

Costs 

Differences 

SV 
DE 
ES 
CS 

SV 

DE 
ES 
CS 

SV 
DE 
ES 
CS 

Non-green version 
174 
223 
129 
142 
Cost of open storage units in Euros (incl. VAT) 

Green version 
236 
201 
219 
225 

Absolute 
62 
-22 
90 
83 

Costs 

Differences 

Non-green version 
433 

Green version 
437 

Absolute 
4 

226 
223 
143 

236 
228 
19 
Cost of office chairs in Euros (incl. VAT) 

462 
451 
162 

Costs 

Differences 

Non-green version 
335 
295 
311 
319 

Green version 
398 
355 
369 
378 

Absolute 
62.5 
59.5 
58 
59.5 

Relative 
36% 
-10% 
70% 
58% 

Relative 
1% 

104% 
102% 
13% 

Relative 
19% 
20% 
19% 
19% 

The  study  showed  for  almost  all  product  types  and  selected  Member  States  that  green  versions  are  more 
expensive than non-green versions (the only exception are mobile cabinets in Germany). However, in all cases 
a very big variety of different products exist, making it difficult to find two products which are functionally 
identical  with  the  exception  of  the  compliance  with  environmental  criteria.  The  price  differences,  therefore, 
might also reflect differences in quality or fitting that may have a greater influence than differences between 
green and non-green versions. 

For a single piece of furniture the most significant cost by far will be the purchase price (although disposal of 
large items may also involve some costs). However, the frequency of replacement also needs to be carefully 
considered – if a more expensive product lasts three times as long as a cheap model then it will likely prove 
economical in the long run36. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5  Analysis  of  hazardous  substances  used  in  the  furniture  sector 
according to REACH  

5.1 Background 

Regulation  (EC)  1907/2006,  mainly  known  as  REACH,  concerning  the  Registration,  Evaluation,  Authorisation 
and  Restriction  of  Chemicals,  entered  into  force  on  1st  June  2007.  REACH  does  not  allow  placing  on  the 
market of substances on their own, in mixtures and in certain cases in articles in quantities equal or superior 
to 1 tonne per year if they have not been registered by every legal entity that manufactures or imports them 
from outside the European Union. REACH will be gradually implemented in the European Economic Area (EEA) 
through a phased approach with a timeline that extends until June 2018.  

The Regulation (EC) 1272/2009 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP), 
entered  into  force  on  20th  January  2009  and is  based  on  the  United  Nations’  Globally  Harmonised  System 
(GHS). The CLP Regulation ensures that the hazards of chemicals are properly communicated to workers and 
consumers in the European  Union through  classification and labelling of chemicals by standard  statements 
and pictograms on labels and safety data sheets. Before placing chemicals on the market, the industry must 
establish  the  potential  risks  to  human  health  and  the  environment  of  substances  and  mixtures,  classifying 
them in line with the identified hazards. Like REACH, the requirements in CLP will be gradually implemented 
and replace the Council Directive 67/548/EEC (the DSD) as well as Directive 1999/45/EEC (the DPD). The date 
from which substances classification and labelling must be consistent with CLP was December 2010 and for 
mixtures  will  be  June  2015.  Then  the  CLP  Regulation  will  fully  replace  the  DSD  and  DPD.  Therefore, 
identification of hazardous substances for furniture will focus on substances classified under CLP regulation. 

The aim of REACH and CLP is to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment from 
the risks that can be posed by chemicals, as well as promote alternative methods for the assessment of the 
hazards  of  substances  and  ensure  the  free  movement  of  registered  substances  along  the  EEA  while 
enhancing the competitiveness of the EU chemicals industry.  

Moreover, REACH and CLP place  greater responsibility on industry to manage the risks that chemicals may 
pose  to  the  health  and  the  environment,  as  well  as  to  provide  sufficient  information  on  the  safety  of  the 
products  that  would  be  communicated  through  the  supply  chain.  Manufacturers  and  importers  will  be 
required to identify and manage risks linked to the substances they manufacture and/or import in quantities 
of  1  tonne  or  more  per  year.  To  ensure  that  they  actually  meet  these  obligations,  a  registration  process 
should  require  them  to  submit  a  dossier  jointly  containing  this  information  to  European  Chemicals  Agency 
(ECHA).  In  addition,  communication  of  technical  advice  to  support  risk  management  should  be  encouraged 
throughout the  supply chain  to other  professionals such  as downstream users or distributors to  meet their 
responsibility  in  relation  to  the  management  of  risks  arising  from  the  identified  uses  of  substances.  They 
have  to  demonstrate  to  ECHA  how  the  substance  can  be  safely  used  and they  must  communicate  the  risk 
management measures to the users. 

Obligations under REACH are determined by the company's role: manufacturer, importer, downstream user or 
distributor. Mainly, furniture manufacturers are defined, according to REACH, as: 

   Downstream users because they use substances and/or mixtures for finishing treatments (surface 
treatments).  These  include  substances  used  to  treat,  preserve,  paint,  remove  paint,  varnish,  stain, 
lacquer, clean, seal and glue furniture and wood products 

 and/or 

   Article  producers  because  according  to  Article  3  (4)  of  the  REACH  regulation,  they  make  or 

assemble an article within the European Economic Area (EEA). 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

139 

 
 
For substances of very high concern, Article 55 of REACH10 states that the authorisation process will: 

 "ensure  the  good  functioning  of  the  internal  market  while  assuring  that  their  risks  are  properly  controlled  and  these 
substances  are  progressively  replaced  by  suitable alternative  substances  or  technologies  where  these  are  economically 
and technically viable".  

Consequently,  any  manufacturer,  importer  or  downstream  user  applying  for  authorisation  to  use  any 
substances  included  in  Annex  XIV  should  demonstrate  that  risks  arising  from  their  use  are  adequately 
controlled,  that  the  use  can  be  justified  for  socio-economic  reasons  and  that  no  suitable  alternatives  are 
available. In the case that the risks cannot be managed, authorities can restrict partially or totally the use of 
these  substances  of  concern.  The  companies  that  do  not  undertake  this  procedure  will  not  be  able  to 
manufacture, sell or use their products and would consequently be forced to stop their activity.  

Certain  substances  of  concern  may  be  subject  to  controls  under  the  Authorisation  process  of  REACH.  The 
following criteria will be used to identify substances of very high concern: 

  Substances that stay in the environment for a long time, build up in the tissue of animals and cause 
some form of harmful effect (persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic – PBT) , or those that stay in the 
environment for a very long time and build up in the tissue of animals very readily (very persistent, 
very bioaccumulative – vPvB).  

 

Those substances which can cause cancer, genetic mutations or cause reproductive problems (these 
substances  will  have  at  least  one  of  the  following  the  following  CLP  Hazard  statements  H350, 
H350i, H340, H360F, H360D, H360FD, H360Df, H360Fd; risk phrases R45, R49, R46, R60, R61. 

  Substances that cause similarly serious effects to those above e.g. those having endocrine disrupting 
properties  (i.e.  chemicals  which  mimic  hormones  and  disrupt  the  function  of  hormones  that  occur 
naturally in people and animals), or those for which there is scientific evidence of probable serious 
effects to human health or the environment giving rise to an equivalent level of concern to those of 
other substances listed above.  

As of June 2013, there are 144 substances on the ECHA candidate list of substances of very high concern for 
authorisation.  ECHA  prioritises  the  substances  from  the  Candidate  List  to  determine  which  ones  should  be 
included  in  the  Authorisation  List  (Annex  XIV  of  REACH)  and  therefore,  subject  to  authorisation.  This 
prioritisation is primarily based on intrinsic properties, volumes and dispersive uses of substances on the EU 
market. 

To  highlight  the  progressive  nature  of  the  work  relating  to  REACH  restrictions  the  following  steps  are 
summarised. On 17 February 2011, with Regulation 143/2011, the European Commission named 6 chemicals 
as the first entrants on the Authorization List (Annex XIV), afterwards on 14 February 2012, with Regulation 
125/2012,    8  more  substances  of  very  high  concern  were  added  to  the  list  and  on  17  April  2013,  with 
Regulation 348/2013, the European Commission approved 8 new substances in the Annex XIV of REACH.  

Table 38. Authorisation list 

SUBSTANCE NAME 

EC 
NUMBER 

CAS 
NUMBER 

SUNSET 
DATE 

LATEST 
APPLICATION 
DATE 

Ammonium dichromate 

232-143-1 

2151163 

21/09/2017 

21/03/2016 

Potassium chromate 

232-140-5  7789-00-6 

21/09/2017 

21/03/2016 

REASON FOR 
INCLUSION IN THE 
AUTHORISATION 
LIST 

Carcinogenic, 
mutagenic and toxic for 
reproduction  

Carcinogenic and 
mutagenic  

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

140 

 
SUBSTANCE NAME 

EC 
NUMBER 

CAS 
NUMBER 

SUNSET 
DATE 

LATEST 
APPLICATION 
DATE 

REASON FOR 
INCLUSION IN THE 
AUTHORISATION 
LIST 

Acids generated from 
chromium trioxide and 
their oligomers 
Group containing: Chromic 
acid, Dichromic acid, 
Oligomers of chromic acid 
and dichromic acid 

231-801-
5, 236-
881-5 

7738-94-
5, 13530-
68-2 

21/09/2017 

21/03/2016 

Carcinogenic  

Chromium trioxide 

215-607-8  1333-82-0 

21/09/2017 

21/03/2016 

Potassium dichromate 

231-906-6  7778-50-9 

21/09/2017 

21/03/2016 

Sodium chromate 

231-889-5 

21/09/2017 

21/03/2016 

Sodium dichromate 

234-190-3 

7789-12-
0; 10588-
01-9 

21/09/2017 

21/03/2016 

Carcinogenic and 
mutagenic  

Carcinogenic, 
mutagenic and toxic for 
reproduction  

Carcinogenic, 
mutagenic and toxic for 
reproduction  

Carcinogenic, 
mutagenic and toxic for 
reproduction  

Trichloroethylene 

201-167-4 

79-01-6 

21/04/2016 

21/10/2014 

Carcinogenic 

Hexabromocyclododecane 
(HBCDD), alpha-
hexabromocyclododecane, 
beta-
hexabromocyclododecane, 
gamma-
hexabromocyclododecane 

2,4 - Dinitrotoluene (2,4-
DNT) 

Tris(2-
chloroethyl)phosphate 
(TCEP) 

221-695-
9,  247-
148-4 

3194-55-
6, 25637-
99-4, 
134237-
50-6, 
134237-
51-7, 
134237-
52-8 

21/08/2015 

21/02/2014 

PBT  

204-450-0 

121-14-2 

21/08/2015 

21/02/2014 

Carcinogenic  

204-118-5 

115-96-8 

21/08/2015 

21/02/2014 

Toxic for reproduction 

Diarsenic pentaoxide 

215-116-9  1303-28-2 

21/05/2015 

21/11/2013 

Carcinogenic  

Lead sulfochromate 
yellow (C.I. Pigment Yellow 
34) 

Lead chromate molybdate 
sulphate red (C.I. Pigment 
Red 104) 

215-693-7  1344-37-2 

21/05/2015 

21/11/2013 

Carcinogenic and toxic 
for reproduction  

235-759-9 

12656-85-
8 

21/05/2015 

21/11/2013 

Carcinogenic and toxic 
for reproduction  

Diarsenic trioxide 

215-481-4  1327-53-3 

21/05/2015 

21/11/2013 

Carcinogenic  

Lead chromate 

231-846-0  7758-97-6 

21/05/2015 

21/11/2013 

Carcinogenic and toxic 
for reproduction  

Benzyl butyl phthalate 
(BBP) 

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) 
phthalate (DEHP) 

201-622-7 

85-68-7 

21/02/2015 

21/08/2013 

Toxic for reproduction  

204-211-0 

117-81-7 

21/02/2015 

21/08/2013 

Toxic for reproduction  

Dibutyl phthalate (DBP) 

201-557-4 

84-74-2 

21/02/2015 

21/08/2013 

Toxic for reproduction  

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

141 

 
 
SUBSTANCE NAME 

EC 
NUMBER 

CAS 
NUMBER 

SUNSET 
DATE 

LATEST 
APPLICATION 
DATE 

REASON FOR 
INCLUSION IN THE 
AUTHORISATION 
LIST 

Diisobutyl phthalate 
(DIBP) 

5-tert-butyl-2,4,6-trinitro-
m-xylene (Musk xylene) 

4,4-
Diaminodiphenylmethane 
(MDA) 

201-553-2 

84-69-5 

21/02/2015 

21/08/2013 

Toxic for reproduction 

201-329-4 

81-15-2 

21/08/2014 

21/02/2013 

vPvB  

202-974-4 

101-77-9 

21/08/2014 

21/02/2013 

Carcinogenic  

Source: European Chemicals Agency website 

According to the Article 6(6) of EU Ecolabel Regulation (EC) No 66/20101, the product or any part of it thereof 
shall  not  contain  substances  or  mixtures  meeting  the  criteria  for  classification  as  toxic,  hazardous  to  the 
environment, carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction (CMR), in accordance with CLP Regulation (EC) 
No 1272/2008, nor to goods containing substances referred to in Article 57 of REACH Regulation. Hazardous 
substances can be classified through the hazard statements provided in Appendix IV of this report. 

5.2 Methodology  

The main objective is to carry out a study of the furniture environmental performance during their entire life 
cycle,  identifying  the  areas  with  the  highest  environmental  impact  and  taking  into  account  the  potential 
minimization or substitution of hazardous substances according to REACH regulation as a basis.  

According to the figure below, all relevant identified environmental and human health impacts will be dealt 
with in the process of the criteria setting aimed at promoting sustainable production and consumption: 

 Figure 37. Methodology approach based on LCA and REACH 

On  the  one  hand,  Life  Cycle  Assessment  allows  characterizing  over  the  entire  life  cycle  of  the  product  the 
environmental sustainability. This involves the production of the product, the development of the product, the 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

142 

 
 
 
 
 
 
manufacturing process and the end-of-life options, taking into account eco-design actions. On the other hand, 
the analysis of hazardous substances used in the furniture sector according to the REACH Regulation (EC) No 
1907/200610 is carried out. The REACH analysis specifically takes into account the identification of hazardous 
substances in particular with regard to substances of very high concern (Annex XIV) and the candidate list for 
authorisation. Accordingly, focus has been placed on substances of very high concern (Annex XIV of REACH) 
and the candidate list for authorisation (see Appendix III for a detailed list). 

The REACH analysis follows the following stepwise approach: 

Phase 1: Identification of substances and mixtures used in the furniture 
production processes  

Analysis of the most common chemical substances present in the products (mainly for surface treatments) 
and their function has been carried out. 

The furniture sector is closely linked to other sectors subjected to REACH regulation such as paints, varnishes, 
inks, glues, foams, biocides such as fungicides, insecticide, etc. This will require an understanding of the exact 
use of the substances including a description and outcome of the process where the use is applied.  

A detailed and specific knowledge of the exact function for a particular use will allow looking for other ways 
of  performing  that  function.  This  may  be  done  using  another  substance  or  technology  or  by  changing  the 
process or end product. 

Phase 2: Obtaining information on composition (Safety Data Sheets) 

Information of the characteristics of different products existing on the market has been gathered in order to 
do  a  preliminary  analysis  of  the  most  common  substances  used.  For  this  analysis,  information  from 
literature,  as well  as a  compilation  of  Safety  Data  Sheets and  stakeholder  and  trade/sector organisations΄ 
knowledge, is collected. 

Representativeness has been taken into account, so that different kinds of furniture products included in the 
category have been studied. 

The  Safety  Data  Sheet  (SDS)  contains  information  which  can  be  used  for  considerations  of  composition  of 
substances and substitution. Essential information includes physicochemical data as well as toxicological and 
ecotoxicological information. All information relevant to the prevention of damage to human health and the 
environment must be included. 

The  objective  of  the  SDS  is  to  ensure  that  manufacturers,  importers  and  downstream  users  have  enough 
information  to  use  chemical  substances  safely.  The  supplier  must  provide  a  SDS  if  the  substance  or 
preparation  is  hazardous,  PBT  (persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic)  or  vPvB  (very  persistent  and  very 
bioaccumulative) or is on the candidate list of substances of very high concern (SHVC). 

Exposure scenarios will be annexed to the SDS providing information to the users about the risk management 
measures  that  have  to  be  implemented  or  recommended  by  the  manufacturers  for  safe  uses  of  the 
substance.  The  SDS  must  be  updated  if  an  authorisation  is  granted  or  refused,  a  restriction  is  imposed  or 
even new information on hazards properties becomes available. 

Until  the  CLP  Regulation  (EC)  No  1272/200817  entered  into  force,  different  classifications  of  the  same 
substances appeared in the safety data sheets. For this reason, we chose to use a harmonized classification 
based on information from the list of harmonized classification (according to Annex VI of the CLP Regulation, 
table  3.1:  List  of  harmonised  classification  and  labelling  of  hazardous  subtances).  If  a  specific  substance 
does  not  have  a  harmonized  classification,  we  will  use  commonly  recognized  tools  such  as  ESIS4 and 

4 European chemical substances information system: http://esis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/.  

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

143 

 
                                           
information extracted from registered substances from ECHA. The Classification & Labelling (C&L) Inventory 
from  ECHA  is  a  database  that  contains  basic  classification  and  labelling  information  on  notified  and 
registered  substances  received  from  manufacturers  and  importers;  however,  ECHA  does  not  verify  the 
accuracy of the information introduced in the Classification & Labelling (C&L) Inventory. 

Phase 3: Assessing the risk 

Based  on  the  information  provided  by  the  list  of  harmonized  classification  according  to  Annex  VI  of  CLP 
regulation, ESIS and ECHA classification and labelling inventory, a priority list of hazardous substances 
present  on  the  most  common  materials  as  well  as  used  in  the  furniture  production  processes 
(mainly  surface  treatments),  which  are  determined  to  pose  the  most  significant  potential  threat  to  human 
health and environment has been prepared.  

It  is  important  to  remember  that  less  dangerous  chemicals  are  not  necessarily  harmless.  Therefore,  risk 
management measures are still needed in many cases. 

Some other sources of information such as literature and/or databases have been taken into account, e.g. the 
hazardous substances database PRIO developed by KEMI (Swedish Chemicals Agency). 

5.3 Identification of substances in the furniture sector 

The main substances identified that are used for furniture are: 

  Biocidal  products  (fungicides,  insecticides): are  used  for the  protection  and  preservation  of  wood.  The 
ultimate goal is to extend the useful lifespan since an organic material tends to decompose by the action 
of  bacteria  and  microorganisms,  especially  under  outdoor  environmental  conditions  with  changes  in 
temperature and humidity 

  Flame  retardants:  are  a  variety  of  compounds  added  to  materials  to  reduce  their  flammability  or  to 

delay the propagation of the flame, in order to prevent fires. 

  Water repellents (e.g. waxes, paraffin etc.) 
  Adhesives, resins and glues. Adhesives are used in the production of wooden panels as well as in the 
assembly of furniture. Different types of adhesives are on the market which can be natural or synthetic 
(petroleum based adhesives): 
o  Natural adhesives are also called glues: Natural adhesives are made from organic sources such 
as vegetable matter, starch (dextrin), natural resins or from animals e.g. casein or animal glue. They 
are often referred to as bioadhesives: 
  Animal glues: often called “hot blue”, made from hides, bones and other parts of cattle. 
 
Starch (vegetable) glues: made from cassava starch in water, applied hot or cold. 
  Casein: is formulated from protein (curds) obtained from milk. 
  Other  naturals:  soybean  and  blood.  They  are  similar  to  vegetable  and  casein  and  are  used 

primarily for veneer gluing.  

o  Synthetic adhesives: These are organized into reactive and non-reactive adhesives, which refers to 

if the adhesive chemically reacts to harden.  
 

Reactive adhesives:  
- 

Thermosetting adhesives: which require heat to cure. They often contain formaldehyde as a 
major  ingredient.  Examples:  urea,  urea-formaldehyde  resins,  phenol-formaldehyde  resins, 
resorcinol and phenol-resorcinol, melamine resins and epoxy cyanoacrylate. 
Thermoplastic  adhesives:  which  undergo  irreversible  chemical  curing  reactions  to  produce 
the  glue  joint.  Examples:  thermoplastic  hot  melts  (using  polyethylene  and  polypropylene) 
and polyvinyl-acetate (PVA). 
Elastomers 

- 

- 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

144 

 
 
- 

Emulsions 

  Non-reactive adhesives: Those that do not chemically cure and, therefore, may soften with heat. 
  Hardeners: A hardener or setting agent is usually required to convert synthetic adhesives from liquid to 

solid. 
  Additives 
  Paints, varnishes and inks 
  Foams 
  Plasticers, stabilisers and anti-oxidants 
  Nanomaterials 

The  identification  of  the  different  substances  will  be  described  relating  to  the  different  materials to  which 
they are applied. In appendix V you can find an overview of the production stage where they are applied.  

5.3.1 Wood 

The  addition  of  chemical  substances  such  as  biocides,  flame  retardants,  resins,  adhesives,  paints,  etc.  are 
applied to the wooden materials in order to obtain the final article. 

Biocides 

Various agents of biocides can be used for the protection and preservation of wood. The ultimate goal is to 
extend  the  useful  lifespan  since  an  organic  material  tends  to  decompose  by  the  action  of  bacteria  and 
microorganisms,  especially  under  outdoor  environmental  conditions  with  changes  in  temperature  and 
humidity. Different compounds used to preserve wood can be applied in different ways. The most common 
ways of application are sprinkling, immersion and autoclave. 

Tributyltin  compounds  were  the  main  active  ingredients  in  certain  biocides  to  control  a  broad  spectrum  of 
organisms.  Uses  include  wood  preservation,  antifouling  pesticide  in  marine  paints  and  antifungal  action  in 
textiles.  However,  this  use  is  now  prohibited  in  the  EU  as  it  was  not  notified  under  the  Biocidal  Products 
Directive.  

These compounds are included in the Rotterdam Convention. TBT compounds are considered toxic chemicals 
which  have  negative  effects  on  human  and  environment.  In  addition,  TBT  compounds  elicit  effects  in  the 
endocrine systems of aquatic organisms and are moderately to highly persistent organic pollutants causing 
irreversible damage to the aquatic life.  

Bis(tributyltin) oxide (TBTO) was identified as a Substance of Very High Concern (SVHC) meeting the criteria 
of  a  PBT  substance  pursuant  to  Article  57  (d)  and  was  therefore  included  in  the  candidate  list  for 
authorization. TBTO is currently only used in the EU as an intermediate for manufacture of other chemicals. 
According to the ECHA background document for bis(tributyltin) oxide (TBTO), in 2001 TBT concentrations in 
water and sediment were 3.62 mg/L and 10.8 mg/kg respectively, with maximum concentration of 53 mg/kg 
TBT  in  harbours76.  However,  due  to  strongly  reduced  uses  of  TBT,  also  declining  trends  in  sediment  TBT 
concentrations were identified, e.g. in many German rivers, TBT sediment concentrations were already below 
0.005 mg/kg in 200376. 

The  Biocidal Products Regulation (EC)  No  528/2012 (BPR)15 concerns the  placing on the market and use of 
biocidal products which are used to protect humans, animals, materials or articles against harmful organisms 
like pests or bacteria, by the action of the active substances contained in the biocidal product. This regulation 
on  the  use  and  placing  on  the  market  of  biocidal  products  will  repeal  and  replace  the  current  directive  on 
biocides  (Directive  98/8/EC).  It  has  entered  into  force  on  1  January  2013  and  will  be  applicable  from  1 
September  2013,  with  a  transitional  period  for  certain  provisions.  According  to  this,  all  biocidal  products 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

145 

 
 
 
require  an  authorisation  before  they  can  be  placed  on  the  market,  and  the  active  substances  contained  in 
that  biocidal  product  must  be  previously  approved  by  product  type.  Wood  preservatives  are  covered  under 
Product type 8 in the Regulation and are defined as: products used for the preservation of wood, from and 
including  the  sawmill  stage  or  wood  products  by  the  control  of  wood-destroying  or  wood-disfiguring 
organisms.  This  product  type  includes  both  preventive  and  curative  products.  The  European  Commission 
includes  approved  active  substances  in  a  list  of  approved  active  substances  (formerly  Annex  I  of  Directive 
98/8/EC).  The  European  Commission  keeps the  list  updated  and electronically  available  to  the  public.  As of 
February 2013, the list of approved substances to be used for product type 8 was: 

Table 39. List of approved substances to be used for product type 8: wood preservatives 

PRODUCT TYPE 8: WOOD PRESERVATIVES 

Active 
substance 

EC 
number 

CAS 
number 

Inclusion 
Directive 

Classification 

Hazard 
Class 

Hazard 
Statement 

Specific Conc. 
Limits, M-
factors5 

Basic Copper 
carbonate 

235-113-6 

Bifenthrin 

n/a 

Boric acid 

233-139-2 

12069-69-
1 

82657-04-
3 

10043-35-
3 

2012/2/EU 

2011/10/EU 

2009/94/EC 

Not classified 

Not classified 

Toxic for reproduction (article 57 c) according Candidate 
List 

Repr. 1B  

H360FD 

Repr. 1B; H360FD: C 
≥ 5,5 % 

Repr. 1B; H360FD: C 
≥ 3,1 % 

Boric oxide 

215-125-8 

1303-86-2 

2009/98/EC 

Repr. 1B  

H360FD 

Clothianidin 

433-460-1  

Copper (II) 
hydroxide 

243-815-9 

210880-
92-5  

26427-59-
2 

2008/15/EC 

2012/2/EU 

Copper (II) oxide 

215-269-1 

1317-38-0 

2012/2/EU 

DDACarbonate 

451-900-9 

894406-
76-9 

2012/22/EU 

Dazomet 

208-574-7 

533-74-4 

2010/50/EU 

DCOIT (4,5-
Dichloro- 2-octyl-
2H- isothiazol-3- 
one)  

264-843-8 

64359-81-
5 

2011/66/EU 

Dichlofluanid 

214-118-7 

1085-98-9 

2007/20/EC 

Not classified 

Not classified 

Not classified 

Not classified 

Not classified 

Not classified 

Acute Tox. 4 
Eye Irrit. 2 
Skin Sens. 1 
Aquatic Acute 
1 

H332 H319 
H317 H400 

M=10 

Disodium 
octaborate 
tetrahydrate 

Disodium 
tetraborate 

234-541-0 

12280-03-
4 

2009/96/EC 

Not classified 

215-540-4 

1330-43-4 

2009/91/EC 

Repr. 1B 

H360FD 

Repr. 1B; H360FD: C 
≥ 4,5 % 

Creosote 

232-287-5 

8001-58-9 

2011/71/EU 

Carc.1B 

H350 

Etofenprox  

407-980-2  

80844-07-

2008/16/EC 

Not classified 

5 Multiplying  factors  (M-factors)  for  substances  classified  as  hazardous  to  the  aquatic  environment,  acute 
category  1  or  chronic  category  1,  should  be  assigned  to  a  substance  by  a  manufacturer,  importer  or 
downstream user. 

146 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

 
 
 
 
                                           
PRODUCT TYPE 8: WOOD PRESERVATIVES 

Active 
substance 

EC 
number 

CAS 
number 

Inclusion 
Directive 

Classification 

Hazard 
Class 

Hazard 
Statement 

Specific Conc. 
Limits, M-
factors5 

Fenoxycarb 

276-696-7 

Fenpropimorph 

266-719-9 

Flufenoxuron 

417-680-3 

IPBC  

K-HDO 

259-627-5 

n/a 

Propiconazole  

262-104-4 

1  

72490-01-
8 

67564-91-
4 

101463-
69-8 

55406-53-
6 

66603-10-
9 

60207-90-
1 

2011/12/EU 

2009/86/EC 

2012/20/EU 

2008/79/EC 

2008/80/EC 

2008/78/EC 

Sulfuryl fluoride 

220-281-5 

2699-79-8 

2006/140/EC 

Tebuconazole 

403-640-2 

107534-
96-3 

2008/86/EC 

Thiabendazole 

205-725-8 

148-79-8 

2008/85/EC 

Aquatic Acute 
1 Aquatic 
Chronic 1 

Repr. 2 Acute 
Tox. 4 Skin 
Irrit. 2 Aquatic 
Chronic 2 

H400 H410 

H361d H302 
H315 H411 

Not classified 

Not classified 

Not classified 

Acute Tox. 4 
Skin Sens. 1 
Aquatic Acute 
1 Aquatic 
Chronic 1 

Press. Gas 
Acute Tox. 3 
STOT RE 2 
Aquatic Acute 
1 

Repr. 2 Acute 
Tox. 4  Aquatic 
Chronic 2 

Aquatic Acute 
1 Aquatic 
Chronic 1 

H302 H317 
H400 H410 

H331 H373  
H400 

H361d  H302 
H411 

H400 H410 

2009/88/EC 

Not classified 

Thiacloprid 

n/a 

Thiamethoxam  

428-650-4 

111988-
49-9 

153719-
23-4 

2008/77/EC 

Acute Tox. 4  
Aquatic Acute 
1 Aquatic 
Chronic 1 

Acute Tox. 2 
STOT RE 1 Eye 
Irrit. 2 STOT SE 
3 Skin Irrit. 2 
Skin Sens. 1 
Aquatic Acute 
1 

H302 H400 
H410 

M=10 

H330 H372 
H319 H335 
H315 H317 
H400 

M=10 

Tolylfluanid 

211-986-9 

731-27-1 

2009/151/EC 

Source: European Commission website 

Product  type  18  of  the  biocide  regulation  includes  insecticides,  acaricides  and  products  to  control  other 
arthropods.  These  types  of  products  are  used  for  the  control  of  arthropods  like  insects,  arachnids  and 
crustaceans by means other than repulsion or attraction.  

As of February 2013, the list of approved substances to be used for product type 18 is: 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

147 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 40. List of approved substances to be used for product type 18: insecticides, acaricides and 

products to control other arthropods 

PRODUCT TYPE 18: INSECTICIDES, ACARICIDES AND PRODUCTS TO CONTROL OTHER ARTHROPODS 

Active 
substance 

EC 
number 

CAS 
number 

Inclusion 
Directive 

Classification 

Hazard Class 

Hazard 
Statement 

Abamectin 

n/a 

71751-41-2 

2011/67/EU 

Acute tox.2 
Acute tox. 1 
Repr. 2 
STOT RE 1 
Aquatic Acute 1 
Aquatic Chronic 
1 

H300 
H330 
H361d 
H372 
H400 
H410 

Specific 
Conc. 
Limits, 
M-
factors6 

STOT RE 
1; H372: C 
≥ 5%  
STOT RE 
2; H373: 
0,5% ≤ C 
< 5%  

M=10000 

Aluminium 
phosphide 
releasing 
phosphine 

Bacillus 
thuringiensis 
subsp. 
israelensis 
Serotype H14, 
Strain AM65-52 

244-088-0 

20859-73-8 

2010/9/EU 

Water-react. 1 
Acute Tox. 2 
Aquatic Acute 1 

H260 H300 
H400 

M=100 

n/a 

n/a 

2011/78/EU 

n/a 

Bendiocarb 

245-216-8 

22781-23-3 

2012/3/EU 

Acute Tox. 3  Acute 
Tox. 3  Acute Tox. 
4 Aquatic Acute 1 
Aquatic Chronic 1 

H331 H301 
H312 H410 

Carbon dioxide 

204-696-9 

124-38-9 

2010/74/EU 

Not classified 

Deltamethrin 

258-256-6 

52918-63-5 

2011/81/EU 

Acute Tox. 3  Acute 
Tox. 3  Aquatic 
Acute 1 Aquatic 
Chronic 1 

H331 H301 
H400 H410 

M=100
0000 

Fipronil 

424-610-5 

120068-37-3 

2011/79/EU 

Not classified 

Imidacloprid 

428-040-8 

138261-41-3 

2011/69/EU 

Acute Tox. 4 
Aquatic Acute 1 
Aquatic Chronic 1 

H302 H400 
H410 

Indoxacarb 

n/a 

173584-44-6 

2009/87/EC 

n/a 

Lambda-
cyhalothrin 

415-130-7 

91465-08-6 

2011/80/EU 

Acute Tox. 2 Acute 
Tox. 3 Acute Tox. 4 
Aquatic Acute 1 
Aquatic Chronic 1 

H330 
H301 
H312 
H400 
H410 

M=10000 

6 Multiplying  factors  (M-factors)  for  substances  classified  as  hazardous  to  the  aquatic  environment,  acute 
category  1  or  chronic  category  1,  should  be  assigned  to  a  substance  by  a  manufacturer,  importer  or 
downstream user. 

148 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
PRODUCT TYPE 18: INSECTICIDES, ACARICIDES AND PRODUCTS TO CONTROL OTHER ARTHROPODS 

Active 
substance 

EC 
number 

CAS 
number 

Inclusion 
Directive 

Classification 

Hazard Class 

Hazard 
Statement 

Magnesium 
phosphide 
releasing 
phosphine 

235-023-7 

12057-74-8 

2010/7/EU 

Water-react. 1 
Acute Tox. 2 
Aquatic Acute 1 

H260 
H300 
H400 

Margosa extract 

283-644-7 

84696-25-3 

2012/15/EU 

Not classified 

Specific 
Conc. 
Limits, 
M-
factors6 

M=100 

Metofluthrin 

n/a 

240494-70-6 

2010/71/EU 

n/a 

Nitrogen 

231-783-9 

7727-37-9 

2009/89/EC 

Not classified 

Spinosad 

434-300-1 

168316-95-8 

2010/72/EU 

Not classified 

Sulfuryl fluoride 

220-281-5 

2699-79-8 

2009/84/EC 

Press. Gas Acute 
Tox. 3 STOT RE 2  
Aquatic Acute 1 

H331 H373 
H400 

Source: European Commission website 

Only  biocidal  products  containing  biocidal  active  substances  approved  by  European  Commission  and 
authorised for use in wood are allowed for use. Based on the list of approved substances for product types 8 
and 18, the identification of substances of concern is based on its inherent environmental and human health 
hazards according to the harmonised classification set up in Annex VI, table 3.1 of CLP regulation.  

The main substances of concern found in product types 8 and 18 are highlighted in pale yellow. The different 
substances in the tables show that there are other environmentally preferable alternatives.  

The major environmental problem associated with the use of biocides is the contamination of soil and water 
from  spills  and  from  processed  timber.  If  wood  preservative  is  accidentally  leached  or  washed  out,  it  can 
reach the ground and the surrounding terrain, including groundwater, from where it could be abstracted for 
drinking water or irrigation water for agriculture. At the end of life of the treated product, substances present 
in the timber may complicate reuse or recycling and generate toxic leachate if landfilled.  

Pentachlorophenol (PCP) was used as a biocidal agent in wood products. Its harmonized CLP classification is: 
Carc.  2  Acute Tox. 2 * Acute  Tox. 3 * Acute Tox. 3  * Eye  Irrit. 2 STOT SE  3 Skin Irrit. 2  Aquatic  Acute 1 and 
Aquatic Chronic 1. Consequently, the potential for adverse ecosystem effects in areas of PCP contamination 
is  a  concern.  PCP  has  been  detected  in  surface  waters  and  sediments,  rainwater,  drinking  water,  aquatic 
organisms, soil, and food, as well as in human milk, adipose tissue, and urine. Releases to the environment 
are decreasing as a result of declining consumption and changing use methods. However, PCP is still released 
to  surface  waters  from  the  atmosphere  by  wet  deposition,  from  soil  by  run  off  and  leaching,  and  from 
manufacturing and processing facilities. PCP is released directly into the atmosphere via volatilization from 
treated  wood  products  and  during  production.  Releases  to  soil  can  be  by  leaching  from  treated  wood 
products, atmospheric deposition in precipitation and spills at industrial facilities and hazardous waste sites. 

After PCP is released into the atmosphere it decomposes by photolysis. The main biodegradation pathway for 
PCP  is  reductive  dehalogenation.  In  this  process,  the  compound  PCP  is  broken  down  to  tetrachlorophenols, 
trichlorophenols,  and  dichlorophenols.  PCP  biocides  were  finally  banned  in  1987.  In  a  parallel  way, 
dimethylfumarate  (DMFu)  as  a  biocide  is  not  allowed  in  the  EU  according  to  Decision  2009/251/EC.  DMFu 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

149 

 
 
 
being present either in the articles themselves or in sachets added to the articles seem to have caused many 
of the observed cases of DMFu-sensitisation. A number of cases of DMFu in articles have been reported via 
the EU rapid alert system for dangerous consumer products, the RAPEX system. Identified health effects from 
the use of DMFu in sofas include serious burns, eye problems and breathing difficulties. 

Flame retardants 

Flame-retardants are a variety of compounds added to materials to reduce their flammability or to delay the 
propagation  of  the  flame,  in  order  to  prevent  fires.  Flame  retardants  have  been  used  extensively  in  the 
passive protection of wood, plastics, textile and synthetic fibres. Some of the main flame retardants contain 
halogenated  organic  compounds,  e.g.  polychlorinated  polybrominated  biphenyls  (PBBs),  polybrominated 
diphenyl  ethers  (PBDEs),  tetrabromobisphenol  A  (TBBPA)  and  hexabromocyclododecane  (HBCDD).  Although 
they  have  been  widely  used  by  industry,  recent  studies warn  of  environmental  issues  and toxicity  of  these 
compounds, or that it is advisable to use flame retardants containing no halogenated compounds. 

Environmental problems associated with the use of flame retardants can arise either during the production 
process,  migration  of  the  material  under  certain  conditions  or  during  the  disposal  or  recycling  stage  since 
products can emanate generate toxic gases or corrosive decomposition. Once released into the environment, 
PBBs can enter the food chain and be bio-accumulated by certain organisms  

Based on the precautionary principle, some specific substances of concern must be discussed and considered 
for specific exclusion or restriction in EU Ecolabel furniture. They are briefly presented below: 

Table 41. Main flame retardants included in the candidate and authorisation list 

SUBSTANCE NAME 

EC NUMBER 

CAS 
NUMBER 

REASON FOR INCLUSION 

CLP Classification 

Hazard 
Class 

Hazard 
Statement 

to 

of 

The  substance  has  no 
harmonized  classification 
according 
CLP. 
EBFRIP 
Members 
(European 
Brominated 
Flame  Retardant  Industry 
Panel)  are  implementing 
the classification: 
Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) 
Aquatic  Chronic  1  (H410) 
for HBCDD 

H351 
H360FH302 
H411 

H351  H400 
H410 

Carc. 2 
Repr. 1B 
Acute Tox. 
4 Aquatic 
Chronic 2 

Carc. 2 
Aquatic 
Acute 1 
Aquatic 
Chronic 1 

Hexabromocyclododecane 
(HBCDD), alpha-
hexabromocyclododecane, 
beta-
hexabromocyclododecane, 
gamma-
hexabromocyclododecane 

221-695-
9,  247-148-
4 

3194-55-6, 
25637-99-4, 
134237-50-
6, 134237-
51-7, 
134237-52-
8 

PBT 

AUTHORISATION 
LIST (ANNEX 
XIV OF REACH) 

Tris(2-
chloroethyl)phosphate 
(TCEP) 

204-118-5 

115-96-8 

Toxic for 
reproduction 

Alkanes, C10-13, chloro 
(Short Chain Chlorinated 
Paraffins -SCCP) 

Bis(pentabromophenyl) 
ether (decabromodiphenyl 
ether; DecaBDE) 

287-476-5 

85535-84-8 

PBT and vPvB 
(articles 57 d and 
57 e) 

CANDIDATE 
LIST 

214-604-9 

1163-19-5 

PBT (Article 57 d); 
vPvB (Article 57 e) 

See table below 

Source: ECHA website 

According  to  Table  41,  bis(pentabromophenyl)  ether  (decabromodiphenyl  ether  (DecaBDE),  is  not  listed  in 
Annex  VI  of  the  CLP  Regulation  according  to  harmonized  classifications.  The  2nd  ATP  to  the  CLP  regulation 
introduced additional classification criteria based on long-term aquatic  hazard  data. However, these do not 
affect  the  classification  of  the  substance  in  view  of  the  lack  of  any  observed  chronic  toxicity  in  standard 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

150 

 
 
 
 
 
aquatic  tests  up  to  water  solubility  limit.  Some  self-classifications  that  have  been  notified  to  the  CLP 
inventory are: 

Table 42. Self-classifications of DecaBDE notified to the CLP inventory 

CLASSIFICATION 

HAZARD CLASS 

HAZARD STATEMENT 

Not classified 

Acute tox.4 
Acute tox 4 
Eye irrit 2 
Acute tox 4  

Acute tox 4 

Acute tox 4 
Muta 2 
STOT RE 2 

Aquatic Chronic 4 

H302 
H312 
H319 
H302 

H312 

H332 
H341 
H373 

H413 

NUMBER OF NOTIFIERS 

JOINT ENTRIES 

163 

28 

23 

14 

19 

√ 

Χ 

Χ 

Χ 

Χ 

 Source: ECHA website 

Certain halogenated organic flame retardants such as Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD) and all major 
diastereoisomers and Tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate (TCEP) are classified as PBT (persistent, bioaccumulative 
and toxic)  and  toxic  for  reproduction  respectively  according  to  the  authorisation  list  for substances of  very 
high concern. Furthermore, short-chain chlorinated parraffins and Bis(pentabromophenyl)ether (DecaBDE) are 
included  in  the  candidate  list  of  substances  of  very  high  concern  being  classified  as  PBT  (persistent, 
bioaccumulative and toxic) and vPvB (very persistent, very bioaccumulative). 

Short-chain chlorinated paraffins and brominated flame retardants are also included in the list of chemicals 
requiring  priority  action  of  the  OSPAR  Strategy  on  Hazardous  Substances  .They  have  the  potential  to  form 
polibrominated  and  polychlorinated  dioxins  and  furans  and  many  show  persistent  and  bioaccumulative 
properties. Moreover, they have a very negative impact in the management of the end-of-life of the products, 
as they limit recycling and generate very hazardous substances when incinerated.  

In  general,  halogenated  organic  compounds  (containing  chlorine,  bromine,  fluorine  or  iodine)  encompass  a 
large  number  of  hazardous  substances  harmful  to  health  and  environment.  Furthermore,  the  halogenated 
organic compounds do not degrade readily in the environment which increases the risk to harmful effects.  

Adhesives and resins 

Adhesives  are  used  in  the  production  of  wooden  panels  as  well  as  in  the  assembly  of  furniture.  Different 
types of adhesives are on the market which can be natural or synthetic (petroleum based adhesives). Some 
of the synthetic adhesives and resins mainly used are:  

  Urea-formaldehyde resins (UF) used in plywood, particleboard and medium-density fibreboard. 

 

Phenol-formaldehyde resins (PF) are used as a furniture adhesive. 

  Melamine resins 

Urea-formaldehyde  resins  (UF)  are  most  common  used  in  the  MDF  industry  due  to  their low  cost  and  fast 
curing  characteristics.  However,  there  are  potential  problems  associated  with  formaldehyde  emissions  as 
formaldehyde is one of the most concerning volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Formaldehyde emissions are 
greater immediately after wood panel manufacture. Workplaces or storage areas with low air exchange are 
especially dangerous because of the high concentration of formaldehyde. 

Formaldehyde is a known sensitizer and a known carcinogen based on its classification77:  

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

151 

 
 
 
  H351: suspected of causing cancer; 
  H301: toxic if swallowed: 
  H311: toxic in contact with skin; 
  H331: toxic if inhaled; 
  H314: causes severe skin burns and eye damage; 
  H317: may cause an allergic skin reaction. 

Formaldehyde  emissions  during  production  and  end-use  are  a  relevant  consequence  with  negative 
environmental impacts on ecosystem quality78. Therefore, special attention is focused on the reduction of this 
type  of  adhesives  as  well  as  on  their  replacement  by  more  environmentally-friendly,  natural  and  safer 
alternatives  such  as  lignin  based  materials:  lignosulfonates  (a  lignin  co-product  of  sulfite  pulping), 
organosolved lignin, kraft lignin, flavonoid-based tannins  from certain trees starch from renewable sources 
(chesnut  tannin,  tara  tannin,  mimosa  tannin  or  quebracho  tannin)  or  glues  derived  from  animal  tissues 
casein79. Certain types of “green” fibreboard consist of bio-based secondary raw materials such as wood chip 
or sugarcane fibers and the binding agent used is vegetable starch, all natural products containing no added 
formaldehyde. 

A comparative LCA study80 assesses the relative benefits of alternatives to reduce formaldehyde emissions 
comparing specified materials – linoleum on MDF (and a variation - linoleum on pine board) - with the MDF 
lamination process, and also with a new process – the ultra-violet powder coating of MDF. In the LCA, the unit 
for  comparison  was  1  m2  of  the  finished  board.  Results  showed  major  impacts  for  MDF  treated  with 
formaldehyde, although LCA does not assess local indoor emissions.  

On the other hand, phenol-formaldehyde (PF) resins are  more durable and do not emit formaldehyde after 
cure. However, they have a much higher cost and slower curing rate than UF resins, parameters that currently 
have  been  solved  by  manipulating  the  fiber  temperatures,  molecular  weight  distribution  of  PF  resins  and 
pressing parameters. As a result, the press times for PF-bonded fibreboard can be comparable to those for 
UF-bonded  fibreboard  and  as  advantage  the  resin  content  required  for  PF  (less  than  5%)  is  considerably 
lower  than  that  required  for  UF.  However,  the  presence  of  synthetic  resins  limits  the  recycling  and  final 
disposal of used hardboards81. 

Emission of  Volatile Organic  Compounds (VOCs) is one of the environmental impacts of furniture products. 
VOCs  are  organic  chemicals  that  easily  pass  to  the  gas  state.  They  include  a  wide  variety  of  compounds, 
including aldehydes, ketones and other light  hydrocarbons.  Among others, the VOCs are released by paints, 
adhesives and solvents used in the manufacture of furniture. VOCs are considered as an important factor in 
the quality of indoor air. Some of them, such as methane, are also greenhouse gases, and others may react 
to  form  ozone  in  the  troposphere,  which  can  cause  breathing  problems.  In  addition,  many  VOCs  are 
hazardous  for  human  health.  Thus,  the  reduction  of  VOC  emissions  from  wood  can  lead  to  significant 
benefits.  

Paints varnishes and inks 

In the assembling of furniture products, the main preparations used in the production process are:  

 

 

Paints and varnishes: these preparations protect the wood and the desired appearance; 

Inks: these preparations provide the desired color. 

Two types of paints can be identified: 

   Water-based paints include acrylic and latex products. 

   Solvent-based paints include oil-based, enamel, and alkyd products. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

152 

 
Solvent-based  paints,  sometimes  referred  to  as  “oil-based”  or  “alkyd”  paints,  contain  a  significantly  higher 
level of organic solvents than water-based paints.  

The  main  concern  on  paints  and  varnishes  is  the  use  of  organic  solvents,  which  can  evaporate  emitting 
Volatile  Organic  Compounds.  Solvent-based  paints  can  have  various  combinations  of  organic  solvents 
including aliphatics, aromatics, alcohols, ketones and white spirit. Specific examples of organic solvents are 
petroleum distillates, esters and glycol ethers. These compounds (e.g toluene, phenol, formaldehyde, xylene, 
ethylbenzene, methyl methacrylate, butyl methacrylate, heptane, ethyl acetate, etc.) are mainly volatile and 
flammable  and  mostly  often  classified  according  to  their  effect  on  human  health  as  harmful  if  inhaled, 
irritant to eyes, skin and by inhalation. According to CLP harmonised classifications: 

Table 43 CLP harmonised classifications of main concern organic solvents 

SUBSTANCE NAME 

EC 
NUMBER 

CAS 
NUMBER 

HARMONIZED CLP CLASSIFICATION 

HAZARD CLASS 

HAZARD STATEMENT 

Toluene 

203-625-9 

108-88-3 

Flam. Liq. 2 Repr. 2 
Asp. Tox. 1 STOT RE 2  
 Skin Irrit. 2 STOT SE 3 

H225 H361d H304 H373 
H315 H336 

Phenol 

203-632-7 

108-95-2 

Muta. 2 Acute Tox. 3 Acute Tox. 3 
Acute Tox. 3 STOT RE 2 Skin Corr. 1B  

H341;  H331;  H311;  H301; 
H373; H314 

Formaldehyde 

200-001-8 

50-00-0 

Xylene 

215-535-7 

1330-20-7 

Carc. 2  
Acute Tox. 3  Acute Tox. 3 Acute Tox. 
3 Skin Corr. 1B Skin Sens. 1  

Flam. Liq. 3 Acute Tox. 4 Acute Tox. 4 
Skin Irrit. 2  

H351;  H311;  H301;  H314; 
H317; H331 

H226; H332; H312; H315 

Ethylbenzene 

202-849-4 

100-41-4 

Flam. Liq. 2 Acute Tox. 4  

H225 ; H332 

Methyl methacrylate 

201-297-1 

80-62-6 

Butyl methacrylate 

202-615-1 

97-88-1 

Heptane 

205-563-8 

142-82-5 

Flam.  Liq.  2  STOT  SE  3  Skin  Irrit.  2 
Skin Sens. 1  

H225; H335; H315; H317 

Flam.  Liq.  3  Eye  Irrit.  2  STOT  SE  3 
Skin Irrit. 2 Skin Sens. 1  

H226; H319; H335; H315; 
H317 

Flam.  Liq.  2  Asp.  Tox.  1  Skin  Irrit.  2 
STOT  SE  3  Aquatic  Acute  1  Aquatic 
Chronic 1  

H225; H304; H315; H336;  
H400; H410 

Ethyl acetate 

205-500-4 

141-78-6 

Flam. Liq. 2 Eye Irrit. 2 STOT SE 3  

H225; H319; H336 

1,2-dimethoxyethane; 
ethylene glycol 
 dimethyl ether: EGDME 

203-794-9 

110-71-4 

CANDIDATE LIST: Toxic for reproduction 

Flam. Liq. 2 Repr. 1B Acute Tox. 4 

H225; H360FD; H332 

Source: ECHA website 

Emission  of  VOCs  may  occur  during  all  the  life  of  the  furniture,  although  at  lower  extent  after  the 
manufacturing stage. 

The  use  of  paints  and  varnishes  without  organic  solvents  can  permit  maintaining  good  indoor  air  quality 
helping to improve comfort, welfare and health of building occupants or users of the product, since VOCs are 
considered as an important factor in the quality of indoor air. Some of the most important effects are short 
term irritation skin, eyes and respiratory tract, and in the long term, carcinogenic, and harmful to reproductive 
and  nervous  systems.  Next  to  persistence  and  bioaccumulation  of  these  compounds,  they  contribute  to 
various environmental problems such as ozone formation and the greenhouse effect44.  

Another parameter to be considered is the presence of heavy metals in paints and varnishes, which can be 
bioacummulative  and  dangerous  for  the  human  health.  Nowadays,  a  wide  number  of  paints  and  other 
additives which are metal free exist in the market.  

An  ink  is  a  liquid  or  paste  that  contains  pigments  or  dyes  and  is  used  to  color  a  surface.  Pigments  are 
granular  solids  incorporated  in  the  ink  to  contribute  color.  Pigments  can  be  classified  as  either  natural  or 
synthetic. Natural pigments include various clays, calcium carbonate, mica, silicas and talcs. Synthetics would 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

153 

 
 
include  engineered  molecules,  calcined  clays,  blanc  fixe,  precipitated  calcium  carbonate  and  synthetic 
pyrogenic silicas. 

Fillers  are  a  special  type  of  pigment  that  serves  to  thicken  the  film,  support  its  structure  and  increase  the 
volume  of  the  paint.  Fillers  are  usually  cheap  and  inert  materials,  such  as  diatomaceous  earth,  talc,  lime, 
barites, clay, etc.  

According to the table below, some pigments are toxic, such as the lead pigments that are used in lead paint: 

Table 44 CLP harmonised classifications of main concern pigments 

SUBSTANCE 
NAME 

EC 
NUMBER 

CAS 
NUMBER 

HARMONIZED CLP CLASSIFICATION 

HAZARD CLASS 

HAZARD STATEMENT 

Lead chromate 

231-846-0 

7758-97-
6 

Lead chromate 
molybdate 
sulphate red (C.I. 
Pigment Red 
104) 

Lead 
sulfochromate 
yellow (C.I. 
Pigment Yellow 
34) 

235-759-9 

12656-
85-8 

215-693-7 

1344-37-
2 

Carc. 1B Repr. 1A 
STOT RE 2 Aquatic 
Acute 1 Aquatic 
Chronic 1  

Carc. 1B Repr. 1A 
STOT RE 2 Aquatic 
Acute 1 Aquatic 
Chronic 1 

Carc. 1B Repr. 1A 
STOT RE 2 Aquatic 
Acute 1 Aquatic 
Chronic 1  

REASON FOR 
INCLUSION IN THE 
AUTHORISATION 
LIST 

Carcinogenic  and  toxic 
for reproduction 

H350 H360Df H373 
H400  
H410 

H350 H360Df H373H400 
H410 

Carcinogenic and toxic 
for reproduction  

H350 H360Df H373 
H400  
H410 

Carcinogenic  and  toxic 
for reproduction 

Source: ECHA website 

Pigments  and  additives  based  on  heavy  metals  can  accumulate  in  the  environment  and  cause  serious 
damages to ecosystems and human health. One of the largest problems associated with the persistence of 
heavy  metals  is  the  potential  for  bioaccumulation  causing  heavier  exposure  for  some  organisms  than  is 
present  in  the  environment  alone.  High  concentrations  of  one  or  more  heavy  metals  in  a  soil  may  lead  to 
toxic effects in plants and animals.  

(VI)  exists  as  hydrochromate 

Chrome 
(CrO4  2-),  and  dichromate  
(HCr  O4-), 
(Cr2O7 2-) ionic species. Chrome (VI) is known to cause severe allergic contact dermatitis in humans and to 
be  able  to  elicit  dermatitis  at  very  low  concentrations.  Leather  goods  coming  into  close  prolonged  contact 
with the  skin are expected  to give rise to the  highest exposure of  consumer. Examples also include leather 
cover for seats and furniture, representing a risk for the development of contact allergy to chromium for the 
consumers. 

chromate 

A range of chrome (VI) compounds are on the SVHC candidate list and Annex XV dossiers have been prepared 
for  more  than  15  chrome  (VI)  compounds.  Some  examples  of  pigments  containing  chrome  (VI)  are  lead 
chromate, lead sulfochromate yellow (C.I. Pigment Yellow 34) and lead chromate molybdate sulphate red (C.I. 
Pigment Red 104) all included in the ECHA authorization list, as per REACH requirements, because they meet 
the criteria for carcinogenic and toxic for reproduction pursuant to Article 57 (a) and (c) of REACH. The listed 
potential applications include paints and  varnishes, printing inks, vinyl and  cellulose acetate plastics, textile 
printing, leather finishing and paper. Some others chrome (VI) compounds included in the authorisation list of 
SVHC  are:  ammonium  dichromate,  acids  generated  from  chromium  trioxide  and  their  oligomers  (group 
containing:  Chromic  acid,  Dichromic  acid,  Oligomers  of  chromic  acid  and  dichromic  acid),  chromic  trioxide, 
potassium chromate, potassium dichromate, sodium chromate and sodium dichromate. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

154 

 
 
 
 
Sodium dichromate82 is an additive based on chrome (VI) included in the authorisation list and used mainly as 
an ingredient in the production of: 

o  Metal finishing: aids corrosion resistance, helps clean metal surfaces and promotes paint 

adhesion 

o 

o 

o 

o 

Pigments: used in the manufacture of inorganic chromate pigment where it produces a 
range of light stable colors. Also some chromate grades are used as corrosion inhibitors 
in undercoats and primers. 

Ceramics: used in the preparation of colored glass and ceramic glazes. 

Textiles: used as a mordant for acidic dyes to improve their color-fast properties. 

Leather  tanning:  dichromate  and  chromate  salts  are  oxidizing  agents  used  for  the 
tanning of leather. 

Anthracene is used as a precursor for dyes (black pigments) and coating materials. Anthracene is included in 
the  candidate  list  of  substances of  very  high  concern  meeting  the  criteria  of  a  PBT  substance  pursuant  to 
Article 57(d) of REACH. 

Creosote  is  made  from  coal  tar  or  from  wood  tar.  Coal  tar  creosote  contains  polycyclical  aromatic 
hydrocarbons (PAH´s) which are genetically harmful for humans, affect the immune system and reproductive 
ability and are carcinogenic. Creosote and its compounds from coal tar contain substances classified as toxic 
and  carcinogenic  depending  on  the  PAH  content.    According  to  table  3.1  of  Annex  VI  of  CLP  Regulation, 
creosote  (distillate  of  coal  tar  with  EC  number:  232-287-5  and  CAS  number:  8001-58-9)  is  classified  as: 
Carc. 1B (H350). 

Wood tar creosote contains substances such as cresol, phenols and guaiacol. According to table 3.1 of Annex 
VI  of  CLP  Regulation,  cresol  is classified  as:  Acute  Tox  3  and Skin  Corr.  1B  (  H311,  H301,  H314),  phenol  is 
classified as: Muta. 2, Acute Tox. 3, STOT RE 2 and Skin Corr. 1B (H341, H331, H311, H301, H373 and H314). 
Finally, guaiacol is classified as Acute Tox. 4, Eye Irrit. 2 and Skin Irrit. 2 (H302, H319 and H315).  

Legislative  authorities  have  issued  restrictions  for  the  use  of  creosote.  Tar  oils  containing  more  than  50 
mg/Kg benzo(a)pyrene were banned in Europe. Creosote is included in the ECHA Restriction list for Annex XVII 
substances. 

Azo  dyes  are  the  name  of  the  most  important  group  of  synthetic  dyes  and  pigments  based  on  nitrogen 
representing  60-80%  of  all  organic  colorants.  They  are  used  widely  in  substrates  such  as  textile  fibres, 
leather,  plastics,  papers,  hair,  mineral  oils,  waxes,  foodstuffs  and  cosmetics.  Some  azo  dyes  may  separate 
under  certain  conditions  to  produce  carcinogenic  and  allergenic  aromatic  amines.  The  EU  Azo  colorants 
Directive 2002/61/EC sets out that Azo dyes which may release one or more of the 22 aromatic amines in 
detectable concentrations, above 30 ppm in the finished articles or in the dyed components may not be used 
in textiles and leather articles which may come into direct and prolonged contact with the human skin or oral 
cavity. The Directive came into force in September 2003. Since Annex XVII of REACH came into force in 2009, 
the  AZO  Directive  2002/61/EC  has  been  replaced  by  REACH  regulation.  Azo  dyes  are  included  in  the  ECHA 
Restriction list. 

Cobalt  (II)  cations  are  genotoxic  under  in  vitro  and  in  vivo  conditions,  and  have  carcinogen,  mutagen  and 
reproduction toxicant (CMR)  properties.  Moreover, the cobalt (II)  compounds assess are considered skin and 
eye  irritants  and  dermal/inhalatory  sensitisers.  Some  of  the  cobalt  compounds  that  are  currently  in  the 
candidate list, meeting the criteria of carcinogenic and toxic for reproduction pursuant to Article 57 (a) and  
(c) of REACH are: cobalt (II) sulphate, cobalt dichloride, cobalt (II) dinitrate, cobalt (II) carbonate and cobalt (II) 
diacetate. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

155 

 
Cobalt dichloride is used as drying agent in paints (cobalt carboxylates used as drier catalysts in alkyl based 
paints), pigments (organic textile dyes) and printing inks. In ceramics, frits and glass, cobalt dichloride is used 
in some applications as a colorant or a decolourant in the production process. 

Morevover,  aziridine  is  mainly  used  in  polymerization  products  as  a  monomer  for  polyethyleneimine 
(polyaziridines),  in  paper  and  textile  chemicals,  adhesives,  binders,  coating  resins,  varnishes,  lacquers  and 
surfactants.  Aziridine,  according  to  harmonized  classification  of  table  3.1  of  Annex  VI  of  CLP  regulation,  is 
classified as: Flam. Liq. 2, Carc. 1B, Muta. 1B, Acute Tox. 2, Acute Tox. 1, Skin Corr. 1B and Aquatic Chronic 2 
(H225, H350, H340, H330, H310, H300, H314 and H411). 

5.3.2 Plastic 

Figure 38 shows a typical example of the production process for the polymer processing industry: 

Figure 38. Plastic products 
Source: Guidance on requirements for substances in articles 

In accordance with the information given at the Plastics Europe website the following substances included in 
the Candidate list are used in plastic materials: 

Name of substance 

Table 45. Substances included in the Candidate list used in plastic materials 
EC number 

Articles 
category 

Reason for inclusion in 
CAS 
number 
Candidate List 
121-14-2  Carcinogenic (article 57a) 

204-450-0 

2,4-Dinitrotoluene 

4,4'-  Diaminodiphenylmethane 
(MDA) 
Acrylamide 

Alkanes,  C10-13,  chloro  (Short 
Chain Chlorinated Paraffins)  

Benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP)  

Monomer 

Monomer 

PA 
Monomer 
PVC 

PVC 
PP catalysts 

202-974-4 

101-77-9  Carcinogenic (article 57a) 

201-173-7 

79-06-1 

287-476-5  85535-84-

8 

and 

mutagenic 

Carcinogenic 
(articles 57 a and 57 b) 
PBT and vPvB (articles 57 d and 57 
e) 

201-622-7 

85-68-7 

Toxic for reproduction (article 57c) 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

156 

NATURAL RAW MATERIAL (for example crude oil)MONOMERMIXTURE (POLYMER PELLETS)FINISHED ARTICLEPOLYMER FOILS (ARTICLE)GLUINGCUTTINGINCORPORATION OF ADDITIVES:•FLAME RETARDANTS•PLASTICISERS•INKS•ULTRAVIOLET STABILIZERS•ANTISTATIC SUBSTANCES•ETC…REFINERYPOLYMERISATION DIFFERENT PROCESSES:•FILM BLOWING•CALENDARING•INJECTION MOULDING•ETC… 
 
 
 
 
Name of substance 

(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 

Bis 
(DEHP)  
Chromium trioxide 

Dibutyl phthalate (DBP)  

Diisobutyl phthalate 

Hexabromocyclododecane 
(HBCDD) 
and 
diastereoisomers 
Lead chromate 

all  major 

Articles 
category 

PVC 
PP catalysts 
HDPE catalysts 

PVC 
PP catalysts 
PVC 
PP catalysts 
Flame  Retardant 
EPS, XPS 

Pigment 

EC number 

204-211-0 

CAS 
number 
117-81-7  Toxic for reproduction (article 57c) 

Reason for inclusion in 
Candidate List 

215-607-8  1333-82-0  CMR 

201-557-4 

84-74-2 

Toxic for reproduction (article 57c) 

201-553-2 

84-69-5 

Toxic for reproduction (article 57c) 

247-148-4 
221-695-9 

25637-99-
4 

PBT (article 57d) 

231-846-0  7758-97-6  Carcinogenic 

toxic 

for 
and 
reproduction  (articles  57  a  and  57 
c) 
Carcinogenic 
for 
and 
reproduction  (articles  57  a  and  57 
c) 

toxic 

Lead 
chromate  molybdate 
sulphate  red  (C.I.  Pigment  Red 
104) 
Lead sulfochromate yellow (C.I. 
Pigment Yellow 34) 

Pigment 

235-759-9  12656-85-

8 

Pigment 

215-693-7  1344-37-2  Carcinogenic 

for 
and 
reproduction  (articles  57  a  and  57 
c) 

toxic 

Tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate 

Flame  Retardant, 
plasticiser 

204-118-5 

115-96-8  Toxic for reproduction (article 57c) 

Source: Website of PlasticsEurope 

Extra attention should be given to polycarbonates due to the possible presence of bisphenol A. According to 
table 3.1 of Annex VI of CLP Regulation, bisphenol A (4,4'-isopropylidenediphenol EC 201-245-8, CAS 80-05-
7) is classified as: Repr.2, STOT SE 3, Eye Dam.1 Skin Sens. 1 (H361f, H335, H318, H317). 

Bisphenol A is also used in paints, varnishes, glues (binding agents and hardeners), polyol in the production of 
polyurethane  and  various  plastics.  Bisphenol  A  can  be  released  to  the  environment  from  the  production 
process  causing  endocrine  effects  in  both  fish  and  snails.  The  main  source  of  terrestrial  exposure  is  the 
spread of sludge from sewage treatment plants. In humans there is not a direct exposure, although bisphenol 
A is present in many consumer products, especially in plastics made of polycarbonates. 

Phthalates are typically used as plasticizers in PVC. Phthalates classified as toxic for reproduction (Article 57 
(c) of REACH) such as: 

o 

o 

o 

Dibutyl phthalate (DBP), bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP) 
and Diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP) are included in Annex XIV of REACH Regulation according 
to substances subjected to authorization. 

Dipentyl  phthalate  (DPP),  N-pentyl-isopentylphthalate,  diisopentylphthalate  (DIPP)  and 
Bis(2-methoxyethyl) phthalate are included in the candidate list of SVHC.  

Diisononyl phthalate (DINP), diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP) and di-n-octyl phthalate (DOP or 
DnOP)  are  included  in  Annex  XVII  of  the  REACH  regulation  according  to  substances 
subjected  to  restriction.  According  to  this  annex,  toys  and  childcare  articles  containing 
these  phthalates  in  a  concentration  greater  than  0.1%  by  weight  of  the  plasticized 
material shall not be placed on the market. 

Polyvinyl chloride, commonly known as PVC, is the third-most widely produced plastic, after polyethylene and 
polypropylene.  It  can  be  made  more  flexible  by  the  addition  of  plasticizers,  the  most  widely  used  being 
phthalates. PVC is produced  by  polymerization of the  monomer vinyl  chloride (chloroethene abbreviated as 
VCM)  classified  as  Carc.  1A  according  harmonized  CLP  classification  and  contains  57%  of  chlorine.  The 
content  of  chlorine  may  contribute  to  increased  development  of  dioxins  in  the  waste  gas  from  the  waste 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

157 

 
 
incineration  plant.  Dioxins  are  commonly  regarded  as  highly  toxic  compounds  that  are  environmental 
pollutants and persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Therefore, PVC is not suited for combustion; however the 
problem is that PVC waste may end in the rubbish deposited by consumers, which may be finally combusted. 

5.3.3 Metal 

Primary  metals  have  higher  impacts  than  plastics  due  to  higher  demand  of  energy  and  raw  materials 
consumption;  they  have  also  some  advantages,  e.g.  metals  can  be  recycled  more  easily  than  plastic 
packaging. 

Regarding hazardous substances, sodium dichromate is a substance included in the candidate list (See ECHA 
Background Document for more info) and used mainly as an ingredient in the production of: 

  Metal finishing: aids corrosion resistance, helps clean metal surfaces and promotes paint adhesion 

 

Pigments: used in the manufacture of inorganic chromate pigment where it produces a range of light 
stable colors. Also some chromate grades are used as corrosion inhibitors in undercoats and primers. 

  Ceramics: used in the preparation of colored glass and ceramic glazes. 

 

 

Textiles: used as a mordant for acidic dyes to improve their color-fast properties. 

Leather tanning: dichromate and chromate salts are oxidizing agents used for the tanning of leather. 

5.3.4 Padding materials 

4,4-Diaminodiphenylmethane  (MDA)  is  used  primarily  for  making  polyurethane  foams  in  upholstered 
furniture. Lower quantities are used as hardeners in epoxy resins and adhesives, as well as in the production 
of  high-performance  polymers.  MDA  is  a  suspected  carcinogen  included  in  the  Authorisation  list  of 
substances of very high concern.  

Moreover,  methylene  chloride  is  an  organic  compound  widely  used  as  a  solvent  and  blowing  agent  for 
polyurethane  foams.  According  to  table  3.1  of  Annex  VI  of  CLP  regulation,  methylene  chloride  (EC  number 
200-838-9, CAS number 75-09-2) is classified as Carc.2 (H351). 

Blowing  agents  can  be  used  in  the  production  of  PUR  foams  for  upholstery  furniture.  The  use  of  many 
chlorine-containing blowing agents, such as trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11), was restricted by the Montreal 
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer in the early 1990s, due to the negative impact on the 
ozone layer.  

HFCs replaced chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), which are phased out under 
the Montreal Protocol. HFCs pose no harm to the ozone layer because, unlike CFCs and HCFCs, they do not 
contain chlorine that depletes the ozone layer. However, they are greenhouse gases with an extremely high 
global  warming  potential  and  included  in  the  Kyoto  Protocol  due  to  the  recognition  of  halocarbon 
contributions to climate change. 

Perfluoroalkyl acids are used in surface treatments due to their excellent surface properties and water and oil 
repelling properties in upholstery products (textiles and leather). Pentadecafluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and its 
ammonium  salt,  ammonium  pentadecafluorooctanoate  (APFO),  are  included  in  the  candidate  list  of  SVHC 
meeting the criteria of toxic for reproduction and PBT pursuant to Articles 57 (c) and (d) of REACH.  

The  compound  is  also  used  in  electric  wires  due  to  high  electrical  insulation  properties  and  high  ability  to 
withstand  corrosion,  fire  fighting  foam  and  outdoor  clothing.  As  a  salt,  it  is  used  as  an  emulsifier  for  the 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

158 

 
 
 
emulsion  polymerization  of  fluoropolymers  such  as  polytetrafluoroethylene  (PTFE  or  Teflon),  polyvinylidene 
fluoride and fluoroelastomers. 

The  stability  of  PFOA  is  desired  industrially,  but  a  cause  of  concern  environmentally.  PFOA  is  resistant  to 
degradation  by  natural  processes  such  as  metabolism,  hydrolysis,  photolysis,  or  biodegradation  making  it 
persist indefinitely in the environment. Furthermore, they are toxic for reproduction. 

5.3.5 Glass 

Diarsenic pentaoxide and diarsenic trioxide are used in glass products and included in the authorisation list 
meeting the criteria of carcinogenic pursuant to Article 57 (a) of REACH. 

5.3.6 Packaging materials 

Different materials are used for packaging of furniture products under study. Packaging is usually made of 
different kinds of plastic and paper or cardboard:  

Plastic packaging: Impacts come mainly from energy use in the manufacturing stage and the presence of 
hazardous substances according to section 5.3.2 regarding plastic materials. 

Paper/cardboard  packaging:  Chlorine  bleaching  process  produces  highly 
toxic  and  persistent 
organochlorines  such  as  dioxins.  Dioxins  are  recognized  as  persistent  environmental  pollutants,  regulated 
internationally by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and chlorine gas is classified as 
H400  (very  toxic  to  aquatic  life),  H315  (causes  skin  irritation),  H319  (causes  serious  eye  irritation),  H331 
(toxic if inhaled) and H335 (may cause respiratory irritation).  

5.3.7 Nanomaterials 

In accordance with the report "Nanomaterials in consumer products, availability on the European market and 
adequacy  of  the  regulatory  framework84  some  materials  intentionally  manufactured  for  use  as  nanoforms 
are used in furniture products.  

Definition of nanomaterials 

In  general  the  term  ‘nanomaterial’  usually  refers  to  ‘materials  with  external  dimensions,  or  an  internal 
structure,  measured  in  nanometres  that  exhibit  additional  or  different  properties  and  behaviour  compared 
with coarser materials with the same chemical composition85. 

The European Parliament84 recently defined the term "nanomaterials" as:  

"a  natural,  incidental  or  manufactured  material  containing  particles,  in  an  unbound  state  or  as  an  aggregate  or  as  an 
agglomerate  and  where,  for  50  %  or  more  of  the  particles  in  the  number  size  distribution,  one  or  more  external 
dimensions is in the size range 1 nm-100 nm. 

In  specific  cases  and  where  warranted  by  concerns  for  the  environment,  health,  safety  or  competitiveness  the  number 
size distribution threshold of 50 % may be replaced by a threshold between 1 and 50 %. 

By derogation from the above, fullerenes, graphene flakes and single wall carbon nanotubes with one or more external 
dimensions below 1 nm should be considered as nanomaterials." 

The  purpose  of  the  definition  is  to  provide  unambiguous  criteria  to  identify  materials  for  which  specific 
considerations in their risk assessment must be taken into account. The risks posed by the nanomaterials to 
the environment and  human health should  be assessed  using the existing  risk assessment approach in the 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

159 

 
 
 
 
EU. Only the results of the risk assessment will determine whether the nanomaterial is hazardous. However, 
based  on  the  conclusions  from  the  Scientific  Committee  on  Emerging  and  Newly  Identified  Health  Risks 
(SCENIHR)86, there is still scientific uncertainty about the safety of nanomaterials in many aspects. 

In general, nanomaterials can be grouped in three categories87: 

a) 

 Materials that are nanostructured in the bulk of the product 

   One-phase materials (solid product), 

   Multi-phase materials (solid packaging with a liquid product inside). 

b) 

 Materials that have nanostructure on the product surface 

   One-phase materials structured on the nanoscale at the surface, 

   Nanoscale thick unpatterned films on a substrate of different material, 

Patterned films of nanoscale thickness or a surface having nanoscale dimensions. 

c) 

 As particles 

Surface-bound nanomaterials, 

   Nanoparticles suspended in liquids, 

   Nanoparticles suspended in solids, 

Free airborne particles. 

On the basis of available information, furniture can be assigned to the second category: materials that have 
nanostructure on the product surface. 

It is important to mention that the nanomaterials, when used in a product, could be differentiated based on 
their  physical  state  as  embedded  to  substrate  ones  and  free  nanomaterials.  This  difference  is  important 
when  exposure  to  consumers  is  considered.  The  consumers  are  exposed  to  nano  in  case  of  free 
nanomaterials whereas they are not or less exposed in case of embedded nano-ingredients88.  

The location of the nanomaterial is related with the following exposure categories: 

a)  Expected to cause exposure: when consumers are in direct contact with the products (relevant e.g. 

for “nanoparticles in liquids” and “airborne particles”). 

b)  May cause exposure: Although the nanoparticles in the product are not considered to be released 
intentionally, they may be released from the product because of wear and tear, e.g. “surface bound 
nanoparticles”. 

c)  No expected exposure to the consumer: Negligible exposure is expected when nanoparticles are 

encapsulated in the product. 

However, even embedded forms may become free, for example by manipulations or  erosion. Therefore, it is 
critically  important  to  take  into  account  a  life  cycle  perspective.  One  prominent  example  may  be  carbon 
nanotubes,  which  are  mainly  embedded  in  composites  and,  therefore,  exposure  during  manufacturing  and 
potentially during subsequent manipulation such as recycling may be the principal concern.  

Concerns related to nanomaterials 

In a nutshell the concerns related to nanomaterials are linked to the so  called "nanomaterials paradox", i.e. 
desired effects versus unexpected hazardous impact on health. The very same properties that are desirable 
and  potentially  useful  from  a  technological  perspective,  such  as  the  high  degree  of  surface  reactivity,  are 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

160 

 
  
  
  
also the properties that may give rise to unexpected and undesired effects. It can be noted, however, that the 
nanomaterials paradox is not unique to nanomaterials as this principle applies also to pharmaceuticals. 

According  to  the  opinion  of  the  Scientific  Committee  on  Consumer  Products  (SCCP)89,  there  is  insufficient 
knowledge  on:    hazard  identification,  exposure,  uptake,  absorption  and  transport  across  membranes, 
accumulation  in  secondary  target  organs,  possible  health  effects,  translocation  of  nanoparticles  via  the 
placenta to the foetus and in vitro and in vivo test methods validated or  optimized for nanomaterials89. The 
current methods used in REACH to assess the toxicological and ecotoxicological risk may not be adequate to 
evaluate the risks related to nanomaterials. Consequently, there is a lack of knowledge regarding the damage 
nanomaterials may cause. 

Legislative framework  

REACH  is  the  legislation  applicable  to  the  manufacturer  and/or  importer,  placing  on  the  market  and  useing 
substances on their own, in preparations or in articles. Currently, nanomaterials are covered by the definition 
of a “substance” under REACH, although there is no explicit reference to nanomaterials and the same REACH 
provisions apply to all chemical substances. REACH places responsibility on industry to manage the risks that 
chemicals may pose to human health and environment, as well as to provide safety information that should be 
passed down the supply chain.  

Until  recently  ECHA  has  not  given  any  specific  guidance  concerning  nanomaterials.  In  2009  the  Commission 
launched  a  REACH  Implementation  Project  on  Nanomaterials  (RIPoN)  to  provide  advice  on  key  aspects  of 
REACH  with  regard  to  nanomaterials  concerning  Information  Requirements  (RIPoN  2)90  and  Chemical  Safety 
Assessment (RIPoN 3)91. Based on the results, on 30 April 2012 ECHA published three new appendices updating 
Chapters  R.  7a,  R.  7b  and  R.  7C  of  the  Guidance  on  Information  Requirements  and  Chemical  Safety 
Assessment.  These  three  new  appendices  are  recommendations  for  registering  nanomaterials  and  the 
adequacy  of  test  methods.  Consequently  at  the  end  of  this  year  and  in  advance  of  the  next  registration 
deadline, i.e. 30 May 2013, ECHA plans to update the guidance for registration of substances in nanoform and 
proposal  for  additional  specific  for  nanomaterials  information  requirements.  A  third  report  of  the  RIPoN 
project  relates  to  Substance  Identity  but  it  was  not  possible  to  reach  consensus  amongst  the  expert  on  the 
recommendations. Some adjustments are still needed in REACH legislation to assess and control the risks of 
nanomaterials.  

As a result, manufactured nanomaterials are expected to undergo similar tests like other chemicals. Therefore, 
assuming that they are not classified with the restricted risk phrases, they will then fulfil the requirements of 
the new Ecolabel criterion on the use of hazardous substances (the criterion which is based on article 6(6) and 
6(7) of Ecolabel Regulation 66/2010) and would be allowed.   

Apart from the previously mentioned issues, works are being conducted with regard to the evaluation of the 
legislative  framework  for  controlling  and  appropriate  disposal  of  nanomaterials  at  the  end  of  life  phase.  A 
recent study by MILIEU and Amec92 examined the legislative framework for controlling nanomaterial release. It 
was  noted  that  limitations  in  both  exposure  and  hazard  data  for  specific  nanomaterials  cause  difficulties  in 
assessment of the potential risks which nanomaterials can cause. The precautionary principle for the control of 
nanomaterials  was  emphasized  by  the  authors.  Another  study93  suggests  that  more  data  collection  and 
research should be done in the area of waste disposal for nanotechnology to ensure that appropriate means of 
control are in place.     

It  can  be  seen  that  at  present,  there  is  inadequate  information  on  risks  associated  to  nanomaterials  and  in 
order  to  better  assess  their  safety  new  test  methodologies  taking  into  account  specific  characteristic  of 
nanomaterials  are  needed,  also  the  lack  of  scientific  evidence  regarding  their  use  and  related  impacts  is  an 
important factor to consider. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

161 

 
6. Conclusions  

A comprehensive review of the furniture sector has summarised in this preliminary report as a first major step, 
as  per  the  requirements  of  the  EU  Ecolabel  Regulation1,  towards  considering  the  revision  of  EU  Ecolabel 
criteria for wooden furniture as set out in Commission Decision 2009/894/EC.  

EU Regulations of particular relevance to furniture manufacturers mainly relate to the use and emissions of 
hazardous chemicals (e.g. REACH10, CLP17, BPR18 and the VOC Directive12). However, others relate to sourcing 
of raw materials (e.g. the EUTR2 for timber and the IED13 for wood-based panel suppliers) and to consumer-
facing issues (e.g. Directive 1999/44/EC14 for consumer guarantees and Directive 94/62/EC16 for packaging). 

A  large  number  of  different  ecolabels  and  green  initiatives  address  furniture  products  to  one  degree  or 
another. The ecolabels most  closely related to the EU Ecolabel are the Nordic Ecolabel and the Blue Swan. 
Both schemes extend their scopes beyond wooden furniture, allowing a much larger number of products to 
potentially  be  covred.  Separate  Blue  Angel  criteria  have  been  developed  for  "low  emission  upholstery 
leathers"  (RAL  UZ  148),  "low  emission  upholstered  furniture"  (RAL  UZ  117),  "low  emission  composite  wood 
panels" (RAL UZ  76),  "products  made  from recycled plastics" (RAL UZ 30a) and  "low emission furniture and 
slatted  frames  made  of  wood  and  wood-based  materials"  (RAL  UZ  38).  The  Nordic  Ecolabel  has  separate 
criteria  for  "furniture  and  fitments"  and  "outdoor  furniture  and  playground  equipment".  There  is  a  clear 
potential for the EU Ecolabel to expand to include non-wooden furniture. 

Market  data  showed  a  significant  downturn  in  furniture  sales  and  production  around  2009  following  the 
global financial crisis. Sales are recovering but as of 2011, had not returned to pre-crisis levels. Germany and 
Italy are by far the 2 main EU furniture producers. Other notable producers are France, UK, Spain and Poland. 
When considering metal furniture only, the Czech Republic and Estonia appeared as significant producers too. 
On a global scale, the EU continues to be an important producer (20% of global total) which is significantly 
higher than the US (11% of global total) but much less than China (37% of global total). Germany and Italy 
each represent around 6% of global production.  Italy is the chief exporter of furniture in the EU, especially 
when considering net furniture export (export – import). Several Eastern/Central European countries were also 
significant net exporters of furniture (e.g. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Romania and Slovenia).   

A review of LCA related literature revealed that the industry is beginning to embrace the concept of having 
Environmental  Product  Declarations  (EPDs)  for  furniture  products,  as  reflected  by  the  availability  of  13 
different  sets  of  product  category  rules  (PCRs)  and  35  separate  EPDs.  A  total  of  61  LCA  studies  in  the 
literature were identified as of potential relevance. Only 15 passed through the screening stage and only 13 
reached a sufficiently high relevancy/quality score so as to merit being used in this report.  

The  dominant  source  of  life  cycle  impacts  for  furniture  products  are  associated  with  the  sourcing  of  raw 
materials and  processing.  Which  is most  important  will  depend on  which  particular  materials are  used  and 
how  they  are  processed.  For  example,  wood-based  panels  will  have  higher  impacts  during  processing  and 
metal  components  will  have  most  impacts  associated  with  raw  material  sourcing.  There  was  a  lack  of 
sufficient detail in the studies to determine how significant transport and distribution could be for furniture 
products. Impacts due to packaging were considered as non-negligible but only of minor importance (< 6%) 
of total impacts for different categories. There is a large potential for life cycle cost savings by the extension 
of  furniture  life,  either  by  reuse,  resale,  refurbishment,  remanufacturing  or  repair.  Due  to  the  considerable 
embodied energy content in most furniture materials, recycling or energy recovery and End of Life can cause 
a significant reduction in life cycle impacts compared to landfilling or incineration without energy recovery. 

The main materials used in furniture are wood (solid wood and wood-based panels), plastic (PP, PE, PVC, PS, 
ABS), metal (steel, aluminimum and iron), padding materials (polyurethane foam and latex foam), glass and 
upholstery  covering  materials  (leather  and  textile  fabrics  made  of  cotton,  polyester  and  wool).  When 
considering any possible expansion of the product group scope, attention must be paid to potentially relevant 
criteria for each of these materials. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

162 

 
 
Appendices 

Appendix I. Market data for production, exports and imports. 

Table A.I. Production data of furniture (in €) 

PRODVAL (€ million) 

PRODQNT (millions units)* 

PRODQNT (millions kg)** 

2010 

4717 

1402 

10346 

12063 

5536 

962 

1.336 

176 

852 

3795 

1023 

0 

530 

676 

669 

0 

227 

87 

453 

3633 

538 

340 

299 

964 

235 

230 

0 

FR 

NL 

DE 

IT 

UK 

IE 

DK 

EL 

PT 

ES 

BE 

LU 

SE 

FI 

AT 

MT 

EE 

LV 

LT 

PL 

CZ 

SK 

HU 

RO 

BG 

SI 

CY 

2011 

4915 

1431 

10165 

13413 

5232 

228 

1.268 

149 

778 

3290 

1026 

0 

1250 

670 

670 

0 

254 

92 

621 

3888 

546 

385 

305 

1025 

238 

200 

0 

2011 

34.96 

2.44 

81.28 

2011 

35.47 

2.08 

79.82 

150.57 

158.74 

53.83 

6.88 

16.43 

3.89 

12.52 

39.72 

5.16 

0 

5.76 

7.05 

2.51 

0 

3.17 

0.48 

11.94 

47.85 

4.77 

3.82 

2.21 

22.16 

5.16 

2.26 

0 

49.14 

6.16 

15.07 

3.19 

12.91 

35.42 

5.33 

0 

20.90 

6.29 

2.48 

0 

3.96 

0.47 

14.79 

53.65 

4.18 

4.26 

2.24 

20.70 

4.99 

1.90 

0 

2010 

108.05 

2011 

118.20 

0 

56.67 

26.27 

1.14 

9.11 

0.75 

5.96 

92.97 

16.17 

0 

1.99 

19.97 

0 

201.17 

0.85 

52.23 

65.26 

11.64 

4.28 

3.32 

4.68 

11.25 

0 

57.44 

29.09 

3.09 

7.91 

0.73 

4.29 

82.00 

19.68 

0 

16.92 

0 

84.46 

5.00 

67.21 

84.35 

13.80 

23.03 

2.64 

4.57 

10.56 

0 

*excluding metal furniture, classified as NACE code 31091100, which is expressed in kg 
**only metal furniture 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

163 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table B.I. Intra and Extra EU-27 furniture exports and imports (in millions €) 

EXPORTS (EXPVAL) (millions €) 

IMPORTS (IMPVAL) (millions €) 

FR 

NL 

DE 

IT 

UK 

IE 

DK 

EL 

PT 

ES 

BE 

LU 

SE 

FI 

AT 

MT 

EE 

LV 

LT 

PL 

CZ 

SK 

HU 

RO 

BG 

SI 

CY 

2010 

1203 

1040 

5298 

5776 

674 

66 

1221 

37 

497 

928 

1036 

15 

1185 

88 

660 

1.8 

196 

107 

534 

3.693 

399 

431 

216 

759 

126 

281 

6.8 

2011 

1179 

1027 

5874 

5895 

730 

6 

1222 

40 

541 

1030 

1026 

11 

1300 

88 

783 

0.8 

224 

114 

671 

4020 

430 

452 

224 

861 

141 

256 

3.5 

2010 

4373 

1979 

5246 

1252 

3759 

251 

863 

393 

330 

1433 

1657 

183 

984 

319 

1448 

41 

47 

67 

51 

433 

416 

189 

140 

203 

99 

147 

113 

2011 

4262 

1902 

5449 

1266 

3385 

220 

832 

284 

288 

1270 

1693 

193 

1053 

333 

1635 

39 

56 

72 

64 

452 

431 

222 

148 

225 

92 

141 

97 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

164 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix II. Full LCA screening data and tables 

Table 46. List of Product Category Rules for furniture 

REFERENCE 

SCHEME 

SCOPE 

THE INTERNATIONAL EPD®SYSTEM. PCR BASIC 
MODULE CPC Division 38 FURNITURE; OTHER 
TRANSPORTABLE GOODS VERSION 1.1 DATED 2009-
08-06 
Basic module 38: Furniture, other transportable goods 
not elsewhere classified 

THE 
INTERNATIONAL 
EPD®SYSTEM 
(ENVIRONDEC) 

Includes furniture, jewellery, musical 
instruments, sports goods, games, toys, 
fairground amusements, prefabricated 
buildings and other manufactured articles. 

THE INTERNATIONAL EPD®SYSTEM. Other Furniture 
VERSION 1.0 2012-05-08 

Product group UN CPC Class 38140 "Other furniture 
no elsewhere classified." 

THE INTERNATIONAL EPD®SYSTEM. UN CPC Class 
3811: Seats PCR 2009:02 Version 1.0 
Product group UN CPC Class 3811 Seats 

THE INTERNATIONAL EPD®SYSTEM. CPC 38160 PARTS 
OF FURNITURE PCR 2009:01 VERSION 1.1 2010-02-
25 
Product group UN CPC Class 38160 "Parts of 
furniture" 
Product Category Rules (PCR) for System Cabinet PCR 
2011:1.0 JIA WONG ENTERPRISE, LTD. (Taiwan). 
Version 1.0 2011-03-31 

Institut Bauen und Umwelt e.V. (IBU). PCR document 
"Wood-based materials”, year 2009-11. 

Institut Bauen und Umwelt e.V. (IBU). PCR document 
“Laminates”, base year 2009. 

Norwegian EPD Foundation. PRODUCT CATEGORY 
RULES (PCR) for preparing an Environmental Product 
Declaration (EPD) for Product Group Seating solution 
NPCR 003 October 2013 

Norwegian EPD Foundation. Product Category Rules 
(PCR) for preparing an Environmental Product 
Declaration (EPD) for Product Group Sleeping solution 
Norwegian EPD Foundation. PRODUCT-CATEGORY 
RULES (PCR) for preparing an environmental Product 
Declaration (EPD) for Product Group Table NPCR 005 
Revised version. 

Includes all other furniture goods not specified 
in the CPC classes 3811 (Seats); 3812 (Other 
furniture, of a kind used in offices); 3813 
(Other wooden furniture, of a kind used in the 
kitchen); 3815 (Mattress supports and 
mattresses); 3816 (Parts of furniture).  
Examples of other furniture goods (Class 
3814), are tables, wardrobes etc., unless not 
primarily used in offices (Class 3812) or in the 
kitchen (Class 3813). 

Seating solutions 

The product category includes parts and 
component of furniture for offices, kitchen, 
bedroom and other functions. 

System Cabinets 

- chipboard (P1 – P7) 
- MDF / HDF (dry method) 
- fibreboard (wet method) 
- OSB (1-4) 
- plywood 
- special wood materials (e.g. decorative 
synthetic-resincoated wooden materials) 

products that provide the function of seating 

THE 
INTERNATIONAL 
EPD®SYSTEM 
(ENVIRONDEC) 

THE 
INTERNATIONAL 
EPD®SYSTEM 
(ENVIRONDEC) 

THE 
INTERNATIONAL 
EPD®SYSTEM 
(ENVIRONDEC) 

JIA WONG 
ENTERPRISE 

Institut Bauen 
und Umwelt e.V. 
(IBU). 

Institut Bauen 
und Umwelt e.V. 
(IBU). 

Norwegian EPD 
Foundation. 

Norwegian EPD 
Foundation. 

products that provide the function of a 
sleeping solution 

Norwegian EPD 
Foundation. 

products that provide a function as tables 

PRODUCT-CATEGORY RULES (PCR) for preparing an 
Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) for Product 
Group Plate furniture NPCR 021. April 2012 

Norwegian EPD 
Foundation. 

plate furniture, a subcategory of furniture. The 
rules apply to products that provide the 
function of tables, cabinets, cabinet frames, 
shelves, office‐desks, counters, dressers or 
similar.  

165 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

 
 
 
 
 
REFERENCE 

SCHEME 

SCOPE 

Product Category Rules (PCR) for preparing an  
environmental Product Declaration (EPD) for Product 
Group Upholstery textiles Last revised: 17th 
November 2006 
BP X30-323-4 Meubles en bois. Principes généraux 
pour l'affichage environnemental des produits de 
grande consommation - Partie 4 : méthodologie 
d'évaluation des impacts environnementaux des 
meubles en bois 

Norwegian EPD 
Foundation. 

upholstery textiles, a subcategory of furniture. 

France. Grenelle 
Law. 

Wood furniture 

Table 47. List and characteristics of EPDs 

Product 
group 

Product / Company / Model 

Scheme 

Use 

Observations 

CHAIRS 
(29) 

Chair. Company RH. Model Ambio 
Chair. Company RH. Model active 
Chair. Company RH. Model extend 
Chair. Company RH. Model Logic 
Chair base Aluminium. Company Donati 
Chair base mechanism. Company Donati 
Chair Green’s SITLAND 
Chair. Company ARPER. Model Team 
Chair Company ARPER. Model Babar 
Chair .Company ARPER. Model stool 
Chair. Company ARPER. Model Catife 
Chair. Company BackApp. Model Mobil. 
NEPD 167E 
Chair. Company HÅG H03 320 Office 
Chair, NEPD nr 034N og 034E 
Chair. Company HÅG Capisco 8106 
Office Chair, 
Chair. Company HÅG. Model H09 
Inspiration 9230 Office Chair, 
Chair. Company HÅG. Model H04 
Communication 4470 Conference / 
Visitor Chair, 
Chair. Company HÅG. Model Conventio 
9510 Conference / Visitor Chair, 
Chair. Company HÅG. Model Futu Office 
Chair 
Chair. Company HÅG. Model Sideways 
9732 Conference / Visitor Chair, 
Chair. Company HÅG. Model Conventio 
Wing 9811, Conference / Visitor Chair, 
Chair. Company EFG. Model Splice 10, 
Chair. Company EFG. Model Teamspirit 
2, 
Chair. Company EFG. ModelSavo stool, 
Chair. Company  EFG. Model Savo Studio 
32 
Chair. Company  EFG. Model Savo EOS 
HL 
Chair. Company  EFG. Model Savo Ikon 3 
LN 
Chair. Company  EFG. Model Savo XO ML 
Chair. Company  EFG. Model Savo S3 LN 
Chair. Company  EFG. Model Savo Studio 

THE INTERNATIONAL EPD®SYSTEM. 
THE INTERNATIONAL EPD®SYSTEM. 
THE INTERNATIONAL EPD®SYSTEM. 
THE INTERNATIONAL EPD®SYSTEM. 
THE INTERNATIONAL EPD®SYSTEM. 
THE INTERNATIONAL EPD®SYSTEM. 
THE INTERNATIONAL EPD®SYSTEM. 
THE INTERNATIONAL EPD®SYSTEM. 
Norwegian EPD Foundation. 
Norwegian EPD Foundation. 
Norwegian EPD Foundation. 

Office 
Office 
Office 
Office 
Office 
Office 
Domestic 
Domestic 
Domestic 
Domestic 
Domestic 

6 EPDs models 

4 EPDs models 

Norwegian EPD Foundation. 

Office 

2 EPDs models 

Norwegian EPD Foundation. 

Office 

2 EPDs models 

Norwegian EPD Foundation. 

Office 

Norwegian EPD Foundation. 

Office 

Norwegian EPD Foundation. 

Office 

2 EPDs models 

Norwegian EPD Foundation. 

Office 

Norwegian EPD Foundation. 

Office 

Norwegian EPD Foundation. 

Office 

Norwegian EPD Foundation. 

Norwegian EPD Foundation. 

Norwegian EPD Foundation. 

Norwegian EPD Foundation. 

Norwegian EPD Foundation. 

Office 

Office 

Office 

Office 

Office 

Norwegian EPD Foundation. 

Office 

Norwegian EPD Foundation. 

Norwegian EPD Foundation. 
Norwegian EPD Foundation. 
Norwegian EPD Foundation. 

Office 

Office 
Office 
Office 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

166 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Tables (1) 

22 
Table. Company ARPER. Model GINGER 

Laminates 
and 
boards (5) 

EGGER Laminates Flex, MED, Micro 

EGGER EUROSPAN® Raw Chipboard 
EURODEKOR® Melamine faced 
Chipboard 
EGGER EUROLIGHT® Raw and Laminated 
Lightweight Board 
Glunz AG TOPAN® MDF 
AGEPAN® Wood Fibreboards 
Decorative High-Pressure Laminates 
International Committee of the 
Decorative Laminates Industry (ICDLI) 

THE INTERNATIONAL EPD®SYSTEM. 
Institute Construction and 
Environment (IBU) 

Institute Construction and 
Environment (IBU) 

Institute Construction and 
Environment (IBU) 
Institute Construction and 
Environment (IBU) 

Institute Construction and 
Environment (IBU) 

Table 48. LCA and environmental studies gathered 

Domestic 

16 EPDs models 

Domestic 

Domestic 

Domestic 

Domestic 

Domestic 

Category 

Panels 

Furniture 
made of 
wood 

Wood 
products 

Number/type 
of papers 

1 report laminate 
wood 

1 paper 
hardboard 

1 report MDF 
recycling 

1 paper MDF 

1 report MDF 

1 paper childhood 
set 

1 report desk 
(Italy) 

1 report 
Workplace: (Italy) 

1 report wardrobe 
(Italy) 

1 report wardrobe 
(Italy) 

1 report kitchen 
(Italy) 

1 report door 
(Italy) 

1 report. School 
desk 

Forestry 

4 papers of 
forestry in Ghana 

References 

Cho, S., Huang, J.  An Investigation into Sustainable Building Materials 
– Laminate Wood. 2010 

González-García, S., Feijoo, G., Heathcote, C., Kandelbauer, A., Moreira, 
T.  Environmental  assessment  of  green  hardboard  production  coupled 
with  a  laccase  activated  syste.  Journal  of  Cleaner  Production  19 
(2011) 445e453 

Mitchell,  A.,  Stevens,  G.    Life  Cycle  Assessment  of  Closed  Loop  MDF 
Recycling: Microrelease Trial. 2009 

Rivela B, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2007): Life Cycle Inventory of Medium 
Density Fibreboard. Int J LCA 12 (3) 143–150 

Wilson, J.B., Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF): A Life-Cycle Inventory 
of Manufacturing Panels from Resource through Product, 2008 

González-García, S. ,  Raúl García Lozano, R.,  Moreira T., Gabarrell, X., 
Rieradevall,  J.,  Feijoo,  G.,  Murphy,  R.J.    Eco-innovation  of  a  wooden 
childhood furniture set: An example of environmental solutions in the 
wood sector. Science of the Total Environment 426 (2012) 318–326 

IGEAM  -  Unione  Industriali  Pordenone.  Scrivania  -  MArtex  LCA  – 
VALUTAZIONE DEL CICLO DI VITA, 2010 

IGEAM - Unione Industriali Pordenone. Postazione di Lavoro Alea LCA – 
VALUTAZIONE DEL CICLO DI VITA, 2010 

IGEAM  -  Unione 
Dall’Agnese LCA – VALUTAZIONE DEL CICLO DI VITA, 2010 

Industriali  Pordenone.  Armadio  Mascagni  – 

IGEAM  -  Unione  Industriali  Pordenone.  Armadio  –  Martex  LCA  – 
VALUTAZIONE DEL CICLO DI VITA, 2010 

IGEAM  -  Unione  Industriali  Pordenone.  Cucina  Samoa  –  Copat  LCA  – 
VALUTAZIONE DEL CICLO DI VITA 

IGEAM  -  Unione 
VALUTAZIONE DEL CICLO DI VITA 

Industriali  Pordenone.  Ante  –  Acop  LCA  – 

UNEP  SETAC.    Life  Cycle  Assessment.  A  product-oriented  method  for 
sustainability analysisTraining Manual. 2008 

Eshun, J.F., Potting, J. , Leemans, R. LCA of the timber sector in Ghana: 
preliminary  life  cycle  impact  assessment  (LCIA).    Int  J  Life  Cycle 
Assess (2011) 16:625–638 

Eshun,  J.F.,  Potting,  J.  ,  Leemans,  R.    Inventory analysis  of the  timber 

167 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
industry in Ghana.  Int J Life Cycle Assess DOI 10.1007/s11367-010-
0207-0 

Eshun, J.F., Potting, J. , Leemans, R.   Wood waste minimization in the 
timber sector of Ghana: a systems approach to reduce environmental 
impact.  JCP, 2012 

1 report on 
forestry 

European  forest institute.  Energy,  carbon  and  other  material  flows  in 
the Life Cycle Assessment of Forestry and forest products. 2001 

1 report forestry 

LCA a challenge for forestry and forest products. 1995 

1 report of 
forestry in 
Australia 

Tucker, S.N. ,  Tharumarajah, A.,May,  B. , England, J., , K. Paul, K.,  Hall, 
M.,  Mitchell, P., Rouwette, R., Seo, S.,  Syme, M.  Life Cycle Inventory of 
Australian Forestry and Wood Products. 2009 

Preservatives 

1 report / paper 

Bolin, C.A., Smith, S.T.  Life Cycle Assessment Procedures and Findings 
for ACQ-Treated Lumber 

General 

1 report (Grenelle 
Law, France) 

ADEME  (Agence  de  l’Envrinnement  et  de  la  Maltreise  de  l’Energie). 
Rapport d’étude PROPILAE – V1 – 2010. 

1 report wood 
applications 

Vogtländer,  J:G:,  Life  Cycle  Assessment  of  Accoya®  Wood  and  its 
application, 

Conway, C.C., Steelcase Green Product Development: 

Furniture made of metals 

2 reports / papers 

An Early Stage Life Cycle Analysis Tool and Methodology  . 2008         

8 reports / papers 

Furniture made of mixed 
materials 

 Dietz, B.A., Life cycle assessment of office furniture products, 2005 

Center  for  Sustainable  Systems.  University  of  Michigan.    Life-Cycle 
Assessment of Office Furniture Products. Final report on the study of 
three Steelcase office furniture. 2006 

Forest & Wood Products Research & Development Corporation. Review 
of  the  Environmental  Impact  of  Wood  Compared  with  Alternative 
Products Used in the Production of Furniture. 2003 

Indian  Centre  for  Plastics  in  the  Environment  (ICPE).  Summary  report 
for life cycle assessment of furniture 

Kebbouche,  Z.,  Tairi,  A.,    Cherifi,  A.,    Impact  study  and  valorization  of 
waste of metal furniture by the LCA method. 

Russell,  S.N.,  Allwood,  J.M.    Environmental  evaluation  of  localising 
production as a strategy for sustainable development: a case study of 
two  consumer  goods  in  Jamaica.  Journal  of  Cleaner  Production  16 
(2008) 1327e1338 

Sahni,  S. 
Remanufacturing and Energy Savings. 2010 

,  Boustani,  A.,Gutowski,  T.,,  Graves,  S.  Furniture 

Suttie, E.,  Briefing note for Forestry Commission An update on Wood 
Plastic Composites (WPC). 2007 
Université  M'Hamed  Bougara  Bourmerdès.Impact 
valorisation of waste of metal furniture by LCA method 

study  and 

DONATI environmental awareness 

Gamage,  G.  B.  ,  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 (2008) 13:401–411 

5 reports /papers 
chairs 

Michelsen, O.,  Fet, A.M., Dahlsrud, A.  Eco-efficiency in extended supply 
chains: A case study of furniture production. Journal of Environmental 
Management 79 (2006) 290–297 

Michelsen,  O.    Eco-efficiency  in  redesigned  extended  supply  chains; 
furniture as an example. 2007 

Michelsen, O.  Investigation of relationships in a supply chain in order 
to improve environmental performance. 2007 

End of life (including reuse) 

11 reports / 

Critchlow, J.  End of life furniture sustainability. 2010 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

168 

 
papers 

Temporary carbon storage 

2 reports / papers 

Hot-spots identification 

6 reports / papers 

Health issues/Chemicals 

3 reports / papers 

General guidelines 

1 guide  with LCA 
approach 

Curran,  A.  ,  IWilliams,  I.B.    The  role  of  furniture  and  appliance  re-use 
organisations in England and Wales. 2009 

Hong Ren, H., Thesis, M.  Plastic Waste Recycling and  Greenhouse Gas 
Reduction Greenhouse. 2012 

Hopewell,  J.,    Dvorak,  R.,Kosior,  E.    Plastics  recycling:  challenges  and 
opportunities. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2009 364, 2115-2126 

JUNGMEIERG  ,    MERL  A  ,  McDARBY  F  ,    GALLIS  C,    HOHENTHAL  C, 
PETERSEN AK, SPANOS K.  End of Use and End of Life Aspects in LCA 
of Wood Products – Selection of Waste Management Options and LCA 
Integration 

Rivelaa,  B.,  Moreira,  T.,  Muñoz,  I.,  Joan  Rieradevall,  J.,  Feijoo  G.    Life 
cycle  assessment  of  wood  wastes:  A  case  study  of  ephemeral 
architecture. 2005 

Werner,  F.,  Althaus,  H-J.,  Richter,  K.  ,  Scholz,  R.W.    Post-Consumer 
Waste Wood in Attributive Product LCA. 2007 

WRAP.  Benefits of Reuse Case Study: Domestic Furniture. 2011 

WRAP.  Benefits of Reuse Case Study: Office Furniture. 2011 

WRAP.    A  methodology  for  quantifying  the  environmental  and 
economic impacts of reuse 

Werner, F.  Reecycling of used wood  - inclusion of end-of-life options 
in LCA. 

Brandão,  M.,  Levasseur,  A.    Assessing  Temporary  Carbon  Storage  in 
Life Cycle Assessment and Carbon Footprinting. 2010 

Perez-Garcia, J., Lippke, B., Comnick, J., Manriquez, C.  An assessment 
of carbon pools, storage, and wood products market substitution using 
Life-Cycle analysis results. 

Andriola, L., Buonamici, R.,  Caropreso, G., Luciani, R., Masoni, P., Roman, 
R. Advances in Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Management 
Systems:  An  Integrated-Approach  Case  Study  for  the  Wood-Furniture 
Industry 

Chaves,  L.I.  Design  for  sustainability:  A  methodological  approach  for 
the introduction of environmental requirements in the furniture sector. 
2008 

Liedtke,  C.,  Rohn,  H.,  Kuhndt,  M.,Nickel,  R.    Applying  Material  Flow 
Accounting:  Ecoauditing  and  Resource  Management  at  the  Kambium 
Furniture Workshop 

Pitcher, M.  LCA IN FURNITURE RATING TOOLS - A USER S VIEW 

WRAP. A methodology for quantifying the environmental and economic 
impacts of reuse 

Werner, F. Recycling of used wood - inclusion of end-of-life options in 
LCA. 

Andersson,  P.,  Simonson,  M.  Stripple,  H.    Fire  safety  of  upholstered 
furniture, A Life-Cycle Assessment – Summary Report. 2003 

,Nereng,  G.,    Aaser,  C.P., 
Askham,  C.,Hanssen,  O.J.,  Gade,  A.L. 
Christensen,  P.  Strategy  tool  trial  for  office  furniture.  Int  J  Life  Cycle 
Assess (2012) 17:666–677 DOI 10.1007/s11367-012-0406-y 

Pitcher,  M.    LCA  Treatment  of  Human  Health  exemplified  by 
formaldehyde within the furniture industry. 2005 

IHOBE.  Sectorial  Guide  of  Ecodesign.  Furniture  (Guías  sectoriales  de 
ecodiseño. Mobiliario). 2010. 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

169 

 
Table 49. Cut-off and scoring criteria for LCA studies evaluation 

# 

Item 

Cut-off 
requirements) 

(minimal 

Scoring 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

title 

authors 

reference and year 
type of study (e.g. 
attributional/consequential LCA 
according to ISO 14040, PCRs, 
PAS 2050:2011, PEF) 

scope 

functional unit 
system boundaries (stages and 
process cut-off) 
assumptions (e.g. allocation) 

- 

- 

- 

QUALITY OF SCOPE: 
  Functional  unit  properly  defined 
and relevant for this revision. 
  Scope coherent for the goal of the 

study 

  Assumptions  of  the  study  shall 
respect ISO 14040 standard. 

data sources and quality 
1. Raw materials 
2. Manufacturing 
3. Distribution/transportation 
4. Use phase 
5. Packaging 
6. End of Life 

10 

Impact assessment 
categories/methods 

  Satisfactory  broadness  (at  least 
one  indicator  is  of  interest  with 
respect to the indicators identified 
earlier)  AND  quality  of  all  the 
indicator(s)  of  interest  used  is 
classified at least as "C" according 
to the ILCD handbook. 

- 

- 

- 
SSCOPE 
5  =  coherent  LCA  for  broad  group 
of products of interest. Scope from 
cradle to grave. 
3  =  coherent  LCA  for  some 
products of interest 
1  =  streamlined  LCA  for  some 
products of interest- 

SDATA  

I)  Temporal,  Geographical  and 
Technological 
representativeness, 
evaluated for each stage: 

5 = High quality 
-  Data refers to less than 3 years 

ago. 

-  Data  for  specific  country  of 
interest and relevant for the EU 
Ecolabel. 

-  Data  for  specific  technology 
used  and  of  relevance  for  the 
EU Ecolabel 

3 = Average quality 
-  Data refers to 3–5 years. 
-  Average  data  at  continental 
level  and  relevant  for  the  EU 
Ecolabel. 

-  Data  reflecting  the  average 

technologies used 

1 = Low quality 
-  Data  refers  to  more  than  5 

years ago.  

-  Average data at World level. 
-  Data  related  to  technologies 

not often used. 

II) The overall score for data is the 
average  of  the  points  assigned  to 
each single stage. 
SIMPACTS 
5  =  satisfactory  broadness  (with 
respect  to  the  impact  categories 
identified 
all 
earlier) 
indicators of interest are evaluated 
as  A  or  B  (best in  class) according 
to ILCD  
3  =  at  least  one  indicator  is  of 

AND 

170 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

 
 
 
 
 
 
  The  outcomes  of  the  study  must 
be  relevant  and  applicable  to  the 
revision process. 

11 

Conclusions (e.g. most important 
life lifecycle phases; most 
important drivers to impacts - 
process/material; improvement 
options) 

12 

Strength and weakness of the 
whole study, general comments 

13 

Subject to independent review? 

to 

to 

(with 

(with 

respect 

respect 

indicators  of 

the 
interest 
indicators  identified  earlier)  AND 
all 
interest  are 
evaluated as A or B (best in class) 
according to ILCD 
1  =  at  least  one  indicator  is  of 
interest 
the 
indicators  identified  earlier)  AND 
all  the  indicators  used  evaluated 
as  C  (average  class)  according  to 
ILCD. 
SOUTCOMES 
5 = The outcomes of the study are 
of  high  relevance  for  the  criteria 
revision  and  they  can  be  directly 
used to address some key-issues. 
3 = The outcomes are somehow of 
relevance  for  the  criteria  revision 
and  they  can  be  directly  used  to 
address  some key-issues.  
1 = The outcomes are somehow of 
relevance  for  the  criteria  revision 
and  they  can  be  partially  used  to 
address some key-issues. 
SROBUSTNESS 
5 = The overall quality of the study 
is  considered  good  and  sensitivity 
analysis  is  performed  to  analyse 
important 
and  manage  most 
sources 
and 
of 
variability. 
3 = The overall quality of the study 
is  considered  good  (in  terms  of 
data 
modelling, 
gaining, 
assessment, 
presentation  and  discussion  of 
results, findings). 
1  =  Minimal 
quality are satisfied. 
SREVIEW 
5  =  independent  3rd-party  review 
(e.g. certification) 
3 = independent review (e.g. paper) 
1 = no review 

requirements  of 

assumptions, 

uncertainty 

impacts 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

171 

 
 
 
 
Table 50. Classification of midpoint (M) and endpoint(E) Impact category methods 

Impact 
category 

Default LCIA method according 
to ILCD 

Classification of default method 
according to ILCD (I, II, III) 

Methods evaluation (Overall evaluationof science based criteria). 
(M) = midpoint; (E)= endpoint 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

Climate 
change 

Baseline model of 100 years of the 
IPCC (2007) 

recommended and satisfactory (I) 

IPCC94 (M) 

Recipe95 (E) 

EPS200096 (E) 
Ecoind9997 (E) 
LIME98 (E) 

- 

- 

Ozone 
depletion 

Steady-state ODPs 1999 as in 
WMO99 assessment 

recommended and satisfactory (I) 

WMO (M) 

Recipe(E) 
LIME (E) 

Ecoind99 (E)   

EPS 2000 (E) 

- 

Acidification 

Accumulated Exceedance (Seppälä et 
al. 2006,100 Posch et al, 2008)101 

recommended but in need of some 
improvements (II) 

Accumulated 
Exceedance  

CML (M) 
Recipe (M) 

Recipe (E) 
Ecoind99 (E) 
LIME (E) 

TRACI (M);  
EDIP 2003;  
MEEUP102;  
LIME (M) 

Photochemica
l ozone 
formation 

Eutrophicati
on, 
terrestrial 

LOTOS-EUROS (Van Zelm et al, 
2008)103 as applied in ReCiPe 

recommended but in need of some 
improvements (II) 

- 

Accumulated Exceedance (Seppälä et 
al. 2006, Posch et al, 2008) 

recommended but in need of some 
improvements (II) 

Accumulated 
Exceedance 

Eutrophicati
on, aquatic 

EUTREND model (Struijs et al, 
2009b)109 as implemented in ReCiPe 

recommended but in need of some 
improvements (II) 

- 

Recipe (M) 
EDIP2003104 
LIME (M) 
CML105 (M)  
TRACI106 (M) 
EcoSense107 
(E) 
LIME (E) 
Recipe (E) 
CML 2002 (M) 
EDIP2003  
EPS2000 (E) 
Ecoind99 (E) 
EDIP2003aqu 
LIME (M/E) 
ReCiPe (M/E) 
TRACI (M) 
CML (M) 
EPS2000 (E) 
IMPACT 
2002+ (E) 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. Preliminary Report  

172 

 
 
 
Appendix  III:  Candidate  list  of  substances  of  very  high 
concern  

According to the table below, currently there are 144 substances on the ECHA Candidate list of substances of 
very high concern. The last updated was in 20th June 2013: 

Table 51. Candidate list Substances of Very High Concern 

Substance Name 

EC 
Number 

CAS 
Number 

Date of 
inclusion 

Reason for inclusion 

Cadmium 

231-152-8 

7440-43-9 

20/06/2013 

Ammonium 
pentadecafluorooctanoa
te (APFO) 

Pentadecafluorooctanoic 
acid (PFOA) 

223-320-4 

3825-26-1 

20/06/2013 

206-397-9 

335-67-1 

20/06/2013 

Carcinogenic (Article 57a); 
Equivalent level of concern having 
probable serious effects to human 
health (Article 57 f) 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c); 
<br/>PBT (Article 57 d) 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c); 
<br/>PBT (Article 57 d) 

Dipentyl phthalate (DPP) 

205-017-9 

131-18-0 

20/06/2013 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c); 

4-Nonylphenol, 
branched and linear, 
ethoxylated  

20/06/2013 

Cadmium oxide 

215-146-2 

1306-19-0 

20/06/2013 

Equivalent level of concern having 
probable serious effects to the 
environment (Article 57 f) 

Carcinogenic (Article 57a); 
Equivalent level of concern having 
probable serious effects to human 
health (Article 57 f) 

Hexahydromethylphthali
c anhydride [1],  
Hexahydro-4-
methylphthalic 
anhydride [2],  
Hexahydro-1-
methylphthalic 
anhydride [3], 
Hexahydro-3-
methylphthalic 
anhydride  [4]  

6-methoxy-m-toluidine 
(p-cresidine) 

Cyclohexane-1,2-
dicarboxylic anhydride 
[1],  cis-cyclohexane-
1,2-dicarboxylic 
anhydride [2],  trans-
cyclohexane-1,2-
dicarboxylic anhydride 
[3] covered by this entry] 

Pyrochlore, antimony 
lead yellow 

Henicosafluoroundecano
ic acid 

247-094-
1, 243-
072-0, 
256-356-
4, 260-
566-1 

25550-51-
0, 19438-
60-9, 
48122-14-
1, 57110-
29-9 

19/12/2012 

Equivalent level of concern having 
probable serious effects to human 
health (Article 57 f) 

204-419-1 

120-71-8 

19/12/2012 

Carcinogenic (Article 57a) 

201-604-
9, 236-
086-3, 
238-009-9 

85-42-7, 
13149-00-
3, 14166-
21-3 

19/12/2012 

Equivalent level of concern having 
probable serious effects to human 
health (Article 57 f) 

232-382-1 

8012-00-8 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

218-165-4 

2058-94-8 

19/12/2012 

vPvB (Article 57 e) 

4-Aminoazobenzene 

200-453-6 

60-09-3 

19/12/2012 

Carcinogenic (Article 57a) 

Silicic acid, lead salt 

234-363-3 

Lead titanium zirconium 
oxide 

235-727-4 

11120-22-
2 

12626-81-
2 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

173 

 
 
 
Substance Name 

Lead monoxide (lead 
oxide) 

EC 
Number 

CAS 
Number 

Date of 
inclusion 

Reason for inclusion 

215-267-0 

1317-36-8 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

o-Toluidine 

202-429-0 

95-53-4 

19/12/2012 

Carcinogenic (Article 57a) 

421-150-7 

143860-
04-2 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

211-670-0 

683-18-1 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

3-ethyl-2-methyl-2-(3-
methylbutyl)-1,3-
oxazolidine 

Dibutyltin dichloride 
(DBTC) 

Lead 
bis(tetrafluoroborate) 

237-486-0 

Lead dinitrate 

233-245-9 

Silicic acid  

272-271-5 

13814-96-
5 

10099-74-
8 

68784-75-
8 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

Trilead 
bis(carbonate)dihydroxid
e 

4,4'-methylenedi-o-
toluidine 

215-290-6 

1319-46-6 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

212-658-8 

838-88-0 

19/12/2012 

Carcinogenic (Article 57a) 

Diethyl sulphate 

200-589-6 

64-67-5 

19/12/2012 

Carcinogenic (Article 57a); 
Mutagenic (Article 57b) 

Dimethyl sulphate 

201-058-1 

77-78-1 

19/12/2012 

Carcinogenic (Article 57a) 

N,N-dimethylformamide 

200-679-5 

68-12-2 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

4-(1,1,3,3-
tetramethylbutyl)phenol, 
ethoxylated  

4-Nonylphenol, 
branched and linear  

- 

- 

- 

- 

19/12/2012 

19/12/2012 

Equivalent level of concern having 
probable serious effects to the 
environment (Article 57 f) 

Equivalent level of concern having 
probable serious effects to the 
environment (Article 57 f) 

Furan 

203-727-3 

110-00-9 

19/12/2012 

Carcinogenic (Article 57a) 

Lead oxide sulfate 

234-853-7 

Lead titanium trioxide 

235-038-9 

12036-76-
9 

12060-00-
3 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

Bis(pentabromophenyl) 
ether 
(decabromodiphenyl 
ether; DecaBDE) 

Dinoseb (6-sec-butyl-
2,4-dinitrophenol) 

214-604-9 

1163-19-5 

19/12/2012 

PBT (Article 57 d); vPvB (Article 57 
e) 

201-861-7 

88-85-7 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

1,2-Diethoxyethane 

211-076-1 

629-14-1 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

N-methylacetamide 

201-182-6 

79-16-3 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

Tetralead trioxide 
sulphate 

Acetic acid, lead salt, 
basic 

[Phthalato(2-
)]dioxotrilead 

Tetraethyllead 

235-380-9 

257-175-3 

273-688-5 

12202-17-
4 

51404-69-
4 

69011-06-
9 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

201-075-4 

78-00-2 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

N-pentyl-
isopentylphthalate 

- 

776297-
69-9 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

Pentalead tetraoxide 

235-067-7 

12065-90-

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

174 

 
Substance Name 

sulphate 

Heptacosafluorotetradec
anoic acid 

Tricosafluorododecanoic 
acid 

1-bromopropane (n-
propyl bromide) 

EC 
Number 

CAS 
Number 

Date of 
inclusion 

Reason for inclusion 

6 

206-803-4 

376-06-7 

19/12/2012 

vPvB (Article 57 e) 

206-203-2 

307-55-1 

19/12/2012 

vPvB (Article 57 e) 

203-445-0 

106-94-5 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

Dioxobis(stearato)trilead 

235-702-8 

Pentacosafluorotridecan
oic acid 

276-745-2 

12578-12-
0 

72629-94-
8 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

19/12/2012 

vPvB (Article 57 e) 

Methoxyacetic acid 

210-894-6 

625-45-6 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

Methyloxirane 
(Propylene oxide) 

Trilead dioxide 
phosphonate 

200-879-2 

75-56-9 

19/12/2012 

Carcinogenic (Article 57a); 
Mutagenic (Article 57b) 

235-252-2 

12141-20-
7 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

o-aminoazotoluene 

202-591-2 

97-56-3 

19/12/2012 

Carcinogenic (Article 57a) 

4-methyl-m-
phenylenediamine 
(toluene-2,4-diamine) 

202-453-1 

95-80-7 

19/12/2012 

Carcinogenic (Article 57a) 

Diisopentylphthalate 

210-088-4 

605-50-5 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic 
acid, dipentylester, 
branched and linear 

284-032-2 

84777-06-
0 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

Biphenyl-4-ylamine 

202-177-1 

92-67-1 

19/12/2012 

Carcinogenic (Article 57a) 

Fatty acids, C16-18, 
lead salts 

Orange lead (lead 
tetroxide) 

4,4'-oxydianiline and its 
salts 

Diazene-1,2-
dicarboxamide (C,C'-
azodi(formamide)) 

292-966-7 

91031-62-
8 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

215-235-6 

1314-41-6 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

202-977-0 

101-80-4 

19/12/2012 

204-650-8 

123-77-3 

19/12/2012 

Carcinogenic (Article 57a); 
Mutagenic (Article 57b) 

Equivalent level of concern having 
probable serious effects to human 
health (Article 57 f) 

Sulfurous acid, lead salt, 
dibasic 

263-467-1 

Lead cyanamidate 

244-073-9 

62229-08-
7 

20837-86-
9 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

19/12/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

Î±,Î±-Bis[4-
(dimethylamino)phenyl]-
4 
(phenylamino)naphthale
ne-1-methanol  (C.I. 
Solvent Blue 4)  

1,3,5-tris[(2S and 2R)-
2,3-epoxypropyl]-1,3,5-
triazine-2,4,6-
(1H,3H,5H)-trione (Î²-
TGIC) 

N,N,N',N'-tetramethyl-
4,4'-methylenedianiline  

229-851-8 

6786-83-0 

18/06/2012 

Carcinogenic (Article 57a) 

423-400-0 

59653-74-
6 

18/06/2012 

Mutagenic (Article 57b) 

202-959-2 

101-61-1 

18/06/2012 

Carcinogenic (Article 57a) 

Diboron trioxide 

215-125-8 

1303-86-2 

18/06/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

1,2-bis(2-

203-977-3 

112-49-2 

18/06/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

175 

 
Substance Name 

methoxyethoxy)ethane 
(TEGDME; triglyme) 

EC 
Number 

CAS 
Number 

Date of 
inclusion 

Reason for inclusion 

Formamide 

200-842-0 

75-12-7 

18/06/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

4,4'-bis(dimethylamino)-
4''-(methylamino)trityl 
alcohol <em> 

Lead(II) 
bis(methanesulfonate) 

[4-[4,4'-
bis(dimethylamino) 
benzhydrylidene]cyclohe
xa-2,5-dien-1-
ylidene]dimethylammoni
um chloride  (C.I. Basic 
Violet 3)  

1,2-dimethoxyethane; 
ethylene glycol dimethyl 
ether (EGDME) 

[4-[[4-anilino-1-
naphthyl][4-
(dimethylamino)phenyl]
methylene]cyclohexa-
2,5-dien-1-ylidene] 
dimethylammonium 
chloride (C.I. Basic Blue 
26)  

1,3,5-Tris(oxiran-2-
ylmethyl)-1,3,5-
triazinane-2,4,6-trione 
(TGIC) 

4,4'-
bis(dimethylamino)benz
ophenone  

209-218-2 

561-41-1 

18/06/2012 

Carcinogenic (Article 57a) 

401-750-5 

17570-76-
2 

18/06/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

208-953-6 

548-62-9 

18/06/2012 

Carcinogenic (Article 57a) 

203-794-9 

110-71-4 

18/06/2012 

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 c) 

219-943-6 

2580-56-5 

18/06/2012 

Carcinogenic (Article 57a) 

219-514-3 

2451-62-9 

18/06/2012 

Mutagenic (Article 57b) 

202-027-5 

90-94-8 

18/06/2012 

Carcinogenic (Article 57a) 

Phenolphthalein 

201-004-7 

77-09-8 

19/12/2011 

Carcinogenic (article 57 a) 

N,N-dimethylacetamide 

204-826-4 

127-19-5 

19/12/2011 

Toxic for reproduction (article 57 c) 

4-(1,1,3,3-
tetramethylbutyl)phenol 

205-426-2 

140-66-9 

19/12/2011 

Equivalent level of concern having 
probable serious effects to the 
environment (article 57 f) 

Lead diazide, Lead azide 

236-542-1 

13424-46-
9 

19/12/2011 

Toxic for reproduction (article 57 c), 

Lead dipicrate 

229-335-2 

6477-64-1 

19/12/2011 

Toxic for reproduction (article 57 c) 

1,2-dichloroethane 

203-458-1 

107-06-2 

19/12/2011 

Carcinogenic (article 57 a) 

Calcium arsenate 

231-904-5 

7778-44-1 

19/12/2011 

Carcinogenic (article 57 a) 

Dichromium 
tris(chromate) 

2-Methoxyaniline; o-
Anisidine 

Pentazinc chromate 
octahydroxide 

Zirconia Aluminosilicate 
Refractory Ceramic 
Fibres  

246-356-2 

24613-89-
6 

19/12/2011 

Carcinogenic (article 57 a) 

201-963-1 

90-04-0 

19/12/2011 

Carcinogenic (article 57 a) 

256-418-0 

49663-84-
5 

19/12/2011 

Carcinogenic (article 57 a) 

- 

- 

19/12/2011 

Carcinogenic (article 57 a) 

Arsenic acid 

Potassium 

231-901-9 

7778-39-4 

19/12/2011 

Carcinogenic (article 57 a) 

234-329-8 

11103-86-

19/12/2011 

Carcinogenic (article 57 a) 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

176 

 
Substance Name 

hydroxyoctaoxodizincate
dichromate 

Formaldehyde, 
oligomeric reaction 
products with aniline 

EC 
Number 

CAS 
Number 

Date of 
inclusion 

Reason for inclusion 

500-036-1 

9 

25214-70-
4 

15245-44-
0 

19/12/2011 

Carcinogenic (article 57 a) 

19/12/2011 

Toxic for reproduction (article 57 c) 

Lead styphnate 

239-290-0 

Bis(2-methoxyethyl) 
phthalate 

204-212-6 

117-82-8 

19/12/2011 

Toxic for reproduction (article 57 c) 

Trilead diarsenate 

222-979-5 

3687-31-8 

19/12/2011 

Carcinogenic and toxic for 
reproduction (articles 57 a and 57 
c) 

Aluminosilicate 
Refractory Ceramic 
Fibres 

Bis(2-methoxyethyl) 
ether 

2,2'-dichloro-4,4'-
methylenedianiline 

- 

- 

19/12/2011 

Carcinogenic (article 57 a) 

203-924-4 

111-96-6 

19/12/2011 

Toxic for reproduction (article 57 c) 

202-918-9 

101-14-4 

19/12/2011 

Carcinogenic (article 57 a) 

Cobalt dichloride 

231-589-4 

7646-79-9 

1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic 
acid, di-C6-8-branched 
alkyl esters, C7-rich 

276-158-1 

Strontium chromate 

232-142-6 

1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic 
acid, di-C7-11-branched 
and linear alkyl esters 

271-084-6 

71888-89-
6 

02/06/778
9 

68515-42-
4 

2011/06/20 
- 
2008/10/28 

Carcinogenic and toxic for 
reproduction (articles 57 a and 57 
c) 

20/06/2011 

Toxic for reproduction (article 57c) 

20/06/2011 

Carcinogenic (article 57a) 

20/06/2011 

Toxic for reproduction (article 57c) 

1-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone 

212-828-1 

872-50-4 

20/06/2011 

Toxic for reproduction (article 57c) 

1,2,3-Trichloropropane 

202-486-1 

96-18-4 

20/06/2011 

Carcinogenic and toxic for 
reproduction (articles 57 a and 57 
c) 

2-Ethoxyethyl acetate 

203-839-2 

111-15-9 

20/06/2011 

Toxic for reproduction (article 57c) 

Hydrazine 

206-114-9 

302-01-2, 
7803-57-8 

20/06/2011 

Carcinogenic (article 57a) 

Cobalt(II) diacetate 

200-755-8 

71-48-7 

15/12/2010 

Carcinogenic and toxic for 
reproduction (articles 57 a and 57 
c) 

2-Ethoxyethanol 

203-804-1 

110-80-5 

15/12/2010 

Toxic for reproduction (article 57c) 

Cobalt(II) sulphate 

233-334-2 

Acids generated from 
chromium trioxide and 
their oligomers.  

231-801-
5, 236-
881-5 

10124-43-
3 

7738-94-
5, 13530-
68-2 

15/12/2010 

Carcinogenic and toxic for 
reproduction (articles 57 a and 57 
c) 

15/12/2010 

Carcinogenic (article 57a) 

2-Methoxyethanol 

203-713-7 

109-86-4 

15/12/2010 

Toxic for reproduction (article 57c) 

Chromium trioxide 

215-607-8 

1333-82-0 

15/12/2010 

Cobalt(II) carbonate 

208-169-4 

513-79-1 

15/12/2010 

Carcinogenic and mutagenic 
(articles 57 a and 57 b) 

Carcinogenic and toxic for 
reproduction (articles 57 a and 57 
c) 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

177 

 
Substance Name 

EC 
Number 

CAS 
Number 

Date of 
inclusion 

Reason for inclusion 

Cobalt(II) dinitrate 

233-402-1 

10141-05-
6 

15/12/2010 

Carcinogenic and toxic for 
reproduction (articles 57 a and 57 
c) 

Trichloroethylene 

201-167-4 

79-01-6 

18/06/2010 

Carcinogenic (article 57 a) 

Potassium dichromate 

231-906-6 

7778-50-9 

18/06/2010 

Carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic 
for reproduction (articles 57 a, 57 b 
and 57 c) 

Tetraboron disodium 
heptaoxide, hydrate 

Boric acid 

235-541-3 

233-139-
2, 234-
343-4 

Ammonium dichromate 

232-143-1 

Sodium chromate 

231-889-5 

Disodium tetraborate, 
anhydrous 

215-540-4 

12267-73-
1 

10043-35-
3, 11113-
50-1 

05/09/778
9 

03/11/777
5 

1303-96-
4, 1330-
43-4, 
12179-04-
3 

18/06/2010 

Toxic for reproduction (article 57 c) 

18/06/2010 

Toxic for reproduction (article 57 c) 

18/06/2010 

18/06/2010 

Carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic 
for reproduction (articles 57 a, 57 b 
and 57 c) 

Carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic 
for reproduction (articles 57 a, 57 b 
and 57 c) 

18/06/2010 

Toxic for reproduction (article 57 c) 

Potassium chromate 

232-140-5 

7789-00-6 

18/06/2010 

Acrylamide 

201-173-7 

79-06-1 

30/03/2010 

Lead sulfochromate 
yellow (C.I. Pigment 
Yellow 34) 

Lead chromate 
molybdate sulphate red 
(C.I. Pigment Red 104) 

215-693-7 

1344-37-2 

13/01/2010 

235-759-9 

12656-85-
8 

13/01/2010 

Carcinogenic and mutagenic 
(articles 57 a and 57 b). 

Carcinogenic and mutagenic 
(articles 57 a and 57 b) 

Carcinogenic and toxic for 
reproduction (articles 57 a and 57 
c)) 

Carcinogenic and toxic for 
reproduction (articles 57 a and 57 
c) 

2,4-Dinitrotoluene 

204-450-0 

121-14-2 

13/01/2010 

Carcinogenic (article 57a) 

Anthracene oil 

292-602-7 

90640-80-
5 

13/01/2010 

Anthracene oil, 
anthracene paste, 
anthracene fraction 

295-275-9 

91995-15-
2 

13/01/2010 

Anthracene oil, 
anthracene-low 

292-604-8 

90640-82-
7 

13/01/2010 

Carcinogenic<sup>1</sup>, PBT 
and vPvB (articles 57a, 57d and 
57e) 

Carcinogenic<sup>2</sup>, 
mutagenic<sup>3</sup>, PBT and 
vPvB (articles 57a, 57b, 57d and 
57e) 

Carcinogenic<sup>2</sup>, 
mutagenic<sup>3</sup>, PBT and 
vPvB (articles 57a, 57b, 57d and 
57e) 

Diisobutyl phthalate 

201-553-2 

84-69-5 

13/01/2010 

Toxic for reproduction (article 57c) 

Tris(2-
chloroethyl)phosphate 

204-118-5 

115-96-8 

13/01/2010 

Toxic for reproduction (article 57c) 

Lead chromate 

231-846-0 

7758-97-6 

13/01/2010 

Anthracene oil, 
anthracene paste 

292-603-2 

90640-81-
6 

13/01/2010 

Carcinogenic and toxic for 
reproduction (articles 57 a and 57 
c) 

Carcinogenic<sup>2</sup>, 
mutagenic<sup>3</sup>, PBT and 
vPvB (articles 57a, 57b, 57d and 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

178 

 
Substance Name 

EC 
Number 

CAS 
Number 

Date of 
inclusion 

Reason for inclusion 

Pitch, coal tar, high 
temp. 

266-028-2 

Anthracene oil, 
anthracene paste,distn. 
lights 

295-278-5 

65996-93-
2 

91995-17-
4 

13/01/2010 

Lead hydrogen arsenate 

232-064-2 

7784-40-9 

28/10/2008 

57e) 

13/01/2010 

Carcinogenic, PBT and vPvB (articles 
57a, 57d and 57e) 

Carcinogenic<sup>2</sup>, 
mutagenic<sup>3</sup>, PBT and 
vPvB (articles 57a, 57b, 57d and 
57e) 

Carcinogenic and toxic for 
reproduction (articles 57 a and 57 
c) 

Benzyl butyl phthalate 
(BBP) 

Bis (2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate 
(DEHP) 

Bis(tributyltin)oxide 
(TBTO) 

5-tert-butyl-2,4,6-
trinitro-m-xylene (musk 
xylene) 

201-622-7 

85-68-7 

28/10/2008 

Toxic for reproduction (article 57c) 

204-211-0 

117-81-7 

28/10/2008 

Toxic for reproduction (article 57c) 

200-268-0 

56-35-9 

28/10/2008 

PBT (article 57d) 

201-329-4 

81-15-2 

28/10/2008 

vPvB (article 57e) 

Diarsenic trioxide 

215-481-4 

1327-53-3 

28/10/2008 

Carcinogenic (article 57a) 

Triethyl arsenate 

427-700-2 

15606-95-
8 

28/10/2008 

Carcinogenic (article 57a) 

Diarsenic pentaoxide 

215-116-9 

1303-28-2 

28/10/2008 

Carcinogenic (article 57a) 

Sodium dichromate 

234-190-3 

7789-12-
0, 10588-
01-9 

28/10/2008 

Carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic 
for reproduction (articles 57a, 57b 
and 57c) 

Dibutyl phthalate (DBP) 

201-557-4 

84-74-2 

28/10/2008 

Toxic for reproduction (article 57c) 

4,4'- 
Diaminodiphenylmethan
e (MDA) 

Alkanes, C10-13, chloro 
(Short Chain Chlorinated 
Paraffins) 

202-974-4 

101-77-9 

28/10/2008 

Carcinogenic (article 57a) 

287-476-5 

85535-84-
8 

28/10/2008 

PBT and vPvB (articles 57 d and 57 
e) 

Anthracene 

204-371-1 

120-12-7 

28/10/2008 

PBT (article 57d) 

Hexabromocyclododecan
e (HBCDD) and all major 
diastereoisomers 
identified 

247-148-4 
and 221-
695-9 

25637-99-
4, 3194-
55-6 
(134237-
50-6) 
(134237-
51-7) 
(134237-
52-8) 

28/10/2008 

PBT (article 57d) 

Source: European Chemicals Agency website 

Appendix  IV:  Hazard  statements  according  to  article  6(6)  of 
EU Ecolabel legislation EC/66/2010 

According  to  the  Article  6(6)  of  the  EU  Ecolabel  Regulation  (EC)  No  66/2010,  the  product  or  any  part  of  it 
thereof shall not contain substances or mixtures meeting the criteria for classification as toxic, hazardous to 
the environment, carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction (CMR), in accordance with CLP Regulation 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

179 

 
 
(EC) No 1272/2008, nor to goods containing substances referred to in Article 57 of REACH Regulation. The list 
of hazard statements according to CLP for hazardous substances which are excluded from the EU ecolabelled 
products is provided below: 

Table 52. Hazard statements according to article 6(6) of EU Ecolabel legislation EC/66/2010 

Hazard statement according to CLP 1272/2008/EEC 

Associated risk phrases 
according to Directive 
67/548/EEC 

H300 Fatal if swallowed 

H301 Toxic if swallowed 

H304 May be fatal if swallowed and enters airways 

H310 Fatal in contact with skin 

H311 Toxic in contact with skin 

H330 Fatal if inhaled 

H331 Toxic if inhaled 

H340 May cause genetic defects 

H341 Suspected of causing genetic defects 

H350 May cause cancer 

H350i May cause cancer by inhalation 

H351 Suspected of causing cancer 

H360F May damage fertility 

H360D May damage the unborn child 

H360FD May damage fertility. May damage the unborn child 

H360Fd May damage fertility. Suspected of damaging the unborn child 

H360Df May damage the unborn child. Suspected of damaging fertility 

H361f Suspected of damaging fertility 

H361d Suspected of damaging the unborn child 

H361fd Suspected of damaging fertility. Suspected of damaging the unborn child 

H362 May cause harm to breast-fed children 

H370 Causes damage to organs 

H371 May cause damage to organs 

H372 Causes damage to organs through prolonged or repeated exposure 

H373 May cause damage to organs through prolonged or repeated exposure 

H400 Very toxic to aquatic life 

H410 Very toxic to aquatic life with long-lasting effects 

H411 Toxic to aquatic life with long-lasting effects 

H412 Harmful to aquatic life with long-lasting effects 

H413 May cause long-lasting harmful effects to aquatic life 

EUH059 Hazardous to the ozone layer 

EUH029 Contact with water liberates toxic gas 

EUH031 Contact with acids liberates toxic gas 

EUH032 Contact with acids liberates very toxic gas 

EUH070 Toxic by eye contact 

H334 May cause allergy or asthma symptons or breathing difficulties if inhaled 

H317 May cause allergic skin reaction 

Source: European Chemicals Agency website 

R28 

R25 

R65 

R65 

R65 

R23; R26 

R23 

R23 

R68 

R45 

R49 

R40 

R60 

R61 

R60-61 

R60-63 

R61-62 

R62 

R63 

R62-63 

R64 

R39/23; R39/24; R39/25; 
R39/26; R39/27; R39/28 

R68/20; R68/21; R68/22 

R48/25; R48/24; R48/23 

R48/20; R48/21; R48/22 

R50 

R50-53 

R51-53 

R52-53 

     R53 

R59 

R29 

R31 

R32 

R39-41 

R42 

R43 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

180 

Appendix  V:  Overview  of 
processes in the wood furniture sector 

transformation  production 

The main substances applied in the different transformation production processes (sawmill, panel production 
lines,  plywood  production  lines  and  furniture  assembly  lines)  in  the  wooden  furniture  sector  have  been 
identified below: Fungicides, insecticides additivated or not with flame retardants and waterproof protectives 
are used for wood preservatives. 

Figure 39. Sawmill: 1st transformation production processes in wood furniture sector 

Source: Guidance on REACH regulation in wood furniture industry 

Source: Guidance on REACH regulation in wood furniture industry 

Figure 40. Wood panels: Particleboard and fibreboard: 1st transformation production process in 

wood furniture sector 

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

181 

STACKING YARDDEBARKINGBUCKINGPROTECTIVE TREATMENTSAWINGDRYINGSTORAGELOGSTIMBERFUNGICIDES, INSECTICIDESFLAME RETARDANT PROTECTIVESWATERPROOF PROTECTIVESSHREDDING/PREPARATIONFIBER / PARTICLES CLASSIFICATIONBONDINGCURED  / GRINDING / CUTTING DRYING / PRESSINGPACKAGINGLOGSWOODEN PANELS: PARTICLEBOARD AND FIBERBOARDADDITIVES: HARDENERSWAXES / PARAFFINFLAME RETARDANTSINSECTICIDES/FUNGICIDESADHESIVES/RESINSCHIPS / SAWDUST 
 
               
 
Plywood is wooden panels produced under heat and pressure with the addition of an adhesive to sheets of 
wood. As stated above in particleboard and fiberboard, additives used in plywood are also flame retardants, 
adhesives-resins and biocides such as wood preservatives or insecticides. 

Figure 41. Wood panels: Plywood: 1st transformation production process in wood furniture sector 

Source: Guidance on REACH regulation in wood furniture industry 

Figure 42. 2nd transformation production process in wood furniture sector 

Source: Guidance on REACH regulation in wood furniture industry

Revision of EU Ecolabel and EU Green Public Procurement criteria for furniture. 
Preliminary Report  

182 

ROTARY CUT VENEER / SHEARING / DRYINGCLASSIFIED / HEALTHY / COUPLED / SEWINGINSPECTIONARM / PRESS / SQUAREDBONDINGSANDING OR CALIBRATIONLOGSWOODENPANELS: PLYWOODADDITIVESADHESIVES / RESINSVENEER, CHIPBOARDGLUESVENEER, CHIPBOARD11MACHININGBONDINGASSEMBLYASSEMBLYFINISHEDPACKAGING / STORAGEFURNITURE PRODUCTSGLUESWOODEN PANELSTIMBERINKSPAINTS AND VARNISHESFOAMS / TEXTILESPLASTIC, CARDBOARD7. References

1 - Regulation 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the EU Ecolabel, available online here 

2 - Regulation (EU) 995/2010 of the European parliament and of the Council laying down the obligations of operators 
who place timber and timber products on the market, available online here  

3 - Council Regulation (EC) N° 2173/2005 of 20 December 2005 on the establishment of a FLEGT licensing scheme for 
imports of timber into the European Community, available online here 

4 - Council Resolution of 15 December 1998 on a Forestry Strategy for the European Union (1999/C 56/01), available 
online here 

5 - Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a Forestry Strategy for the 
European Union, available online here  

6 - Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament reporting on the implementation of 
the EU Forestry Strategy, available online here  

7 - Commission Staff Working document, Annex to the: Communication on the implementation of the EU Forestry 
Strategy, available online here 

8 - Communication Brochure "Sustainable Forestry and the European Union: Initiatives of the European Commission" 
available online here  

9 - Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the council of 21 October 2009 concerning the 
placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC, more 
information available online here   

10 - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the 
Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, 
amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 
1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 
2000/21/EC; Official Journal of the European Union L 396 of 30 December 2006; available online here  

11 - Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use 
of organic solvents in certain activities and installations, available online here  

12 -  Directive 2004/42/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21April 2004 on the limitation of emissions 
of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain paints and varnishes and vehicle refinishing 
products and amending Directive 1999/13/EC, available online here .  

13  -  Directive  2010/75/EU  of  24  November  2010  on  industrial  emissions  (integrated  pollution  prevention  and  control) 
available online here 

14 - Directive 1999/44/EC of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees, 
available online here  

15 - Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing 
certain Directives, available online here  

16  - Directive  94/62/EC  of  20  December  1994  on  packaging  and  packaging  waste.  OJL  365,  31.12.1994,  p.  10-23, 
available online here 

17  -  Regulation  (EC)  No  1272/2008  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16  December  2008  on 
classification,  labelling  and  packaging  of substances  and  mixtures,  amending  and  repealing  Directives  67/548/EEC  and 
1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, Official Journal of the European Union L353 of 31 December 
2008, pp. 1–1355, available online here 

18 - Regulation 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the making available on the market 
and use of biocidal products, available online here 

19 – World Furniture by CSIL Milano 

20 – World furniture International Market Reviews – Magazine December 2012 (available online at: 
worldfurnitureonline.com) 

21 – United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database 

22 – CSIL (Centre for Industrial Studies) is an independent research institute, specializing in applied economics, particularly 
industry competitiveness, small business, market analysis, evaluation and regional development studies. 

23 – The European market for office furniture. June 2012. CSIL 

24 – The European market for kitchen furniture, part I. July 2012. CSIL 

25 – Furniture – The external dimension of the EU furniture sector, information available at the DG Enterprise website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/furniture/external-dimension/index_en.htm; accessed January 2013. 

26 – HS commodity codes, import duty & tax rates and import restrictions for Wooden furniture, available at the Duty 
Calculator website: http://www.dutycalculator.com/hs-code-duty-rate-import-restrictions/940360/wooden-
furniture/9403.60.8081/9403.60.1000/947/; accessed January 2013. 

27 – Office furniture: demand increases steadily. August 2011. bso association of office, seating and office facility 
furniture.  Press realease (available online at: http://www.buero-forum.de/en/navigation-left/press-releases/) 

28 – ICT and e-business impact in the furniture industry. A Sectoral e-Business Watch study by Databank. 2008. 

29 – Koncept Analytics, 2008. Luxury Furniture Industry Looks at Emerging Markets for Growth. 

30 – The uptake of Green Public Procurement in the EU-27. Centre for European Policy Studies in collaboration with 
College of Europe. February 2012. (available online here) 

31 – The consumers’ furniture preferences in different markets. 2011. Daria Troian. University of Trento 

32 – The IKEA experience: a case study on how different factors in the retail environment affect customer experience 
(2006) Rebecka Isaaksson,  Mirela Suljanovic. Lulea University of Technology. (available online at: http://epubl.ltu.se/1402-
1773/2006/162/LTU-CUPP-06162-SE.pdf) 

33 – Survey conducted in August 2012 in China by Environics Research, in collaboration with N-Dynamic Market Research. 
(available online here).   

34 - Global Green Brands, Global Insights Survey. Price, packaging and perception. One of the largest global consumer 
surveys of green brands and corporate environmental responsibility (In the 2011 edition surveyed over 9,000 people in 
eight countries and ranked more than 370 brands). 2011. Cohn&Wolfe, Esty Environmental Partners, Landor, Penn 
Schoen Berland (available online here) 

35 – Consultancy and Research for Environmental Management (CREM). Eco-label Furniture; Extension of the Scope. Final 
report. Amsterdam, 2004. 

36 – ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability and Ecoinstitut Barcelona, European Commission Green Public 
Procurement (GPP) Training Toolkit. Furniture. 2008 
37 - European Commission. Joint Research Centre. Institute for Environment and Sustainability. Product Environmental 
Footprint (PEF) Guide. Consolidated version. 2012 

38 – ADEME (Agence de l’Envrinnement et de la Maltreise de l’Energie) Rapport d’étude PROPILAE (PROjet PILote pour 
l’Affichage Environnemental des produits d’ameublement). Reading guides for the repositories on: wood furniture (BP 
X30-323-4); upholstered seats (BP X30-323-6) and bedding (BP X30-323-10). Available online here. 

39 - Mitchell, A., Stevens, G. (2009). Life Cycle Assessment of Closed Loop MDF Recycling: Microrelease Trial. Available 
online here.  

40 - González-García, S., Raúl García Lozano, R., Moreira T., Gabarrell, X., Rieradevall, J., Feijoo, G., Murphy, R.J. (2012). 
Eco-innovation of a wooden childhood furniture set: An example of environmental solutions in the wood sector.  Science 
of the Total Environment 426, 318–326. 

41-  IGEAM Unione Industriali Pordenone (2010a). Scrivania - Martex, LCA – VALUTAZIONE DEL CICLO DI VITA 

42 - Gamage, G. B., Boyle, C., McLaren S.J., McLaren, J. (2008). Life cycle assessment of commercial furniture: a case 
study of Formway LIFE chair. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:401–411  

43 - Center for Sustainable Systems. University of Michigan, 2006. Life-Cycle Assessment of Office Furniture Products. 
Final report on the study of three Steelcase office furniture. Available online here. 

44 - IHOBE (2010). Sectorial Guide of Ecodesign. Furniture, (Guías sectoriales de ecodiseño. Mobiliario) Available online 
here. (formerly 112) 

45 - IGEAM Unione Industriali Pordenone (2010d). Armadio – Martex, LCA – VALUTAZIONE DEL CICLO DI VITA 

46 - IGEAM Unione Industriali Pordenone (2010c). Armadio Mascagni – Dall’Agnese, LCA  – VALUTAZIONE DEL CICLO DI 
VITA 

47 - IGEAM Unione Industriali Pordenone (2010e). Cucina Samoa – Copat, LCA – VALUTAZIONE DEL CICLO DI VITA 

48 - IGEAM Unione Industriali Pordenone (2010b). Postazione di Lavoro Alea, LCA – VALUTAZIONE DEL CICLO DI VITA 

49 - UNEP SETAC (2008). Life Cycle Assessment. A product-oriented method for sustainability analysis Training Manual. 
Available online here. 

50 - Indian Centre for Plastics in the Environment (ICPE). SUMMARY REPORT FOR LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF FURNITURE 

184 

51 - Askham, C.,Hanssen, O.J., Gade, A.L. ,Nereng, G., Aaser, C.P., Christensen, P. Strategy tool trial for office furniture. Int J 
Life Cycle Assess (2012) 17:666–677 DOI 10.1007/s11367-012-0406-y 

52 - Forest & Wood Products Research & Development Corporation. Review of the Environmental Impact of Wood 
Compared with Alternative Products Used in the Production of Furniture. 2003 

53 – IFEU (2004). LCA of one way PET bottles and recycled products. Heidelberg. 

54 – ETTF (European Timber Trade Federation) (2012). 2011 Statistics – UK. Timber trade monitoring in support of 
effective, efficient and equitable operation of the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR). Available online here.  

55 – UNEP / INTREPOL (2012). Green Carbon, Black Trade: Illegal Logging, Tax Fraud and Laundering in the Worlds 
Tropical Forests. A Rapid Response Assessment. ISBN: 978-82-7701-102-8. Available online here.  

56 - Global FSC certificates: type and distribution July 2013. See: https://ic.fsc.org/en/facts-figures   

57 – EPF (European Panel Federation) (2002). EPF Standard for delivery conditions of recycled wood. Available online 
here.  

58 - Rivela, B., Moreira, T., Feijoo, G. Life Cycle Inventory of Medium Density Fibreboard. J LCA 12 (3) 143–150, 2007 

59 – FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2004). The state of food and agriculture 2003-
2004. Rome. ISBN 92-5-105079-1. Available online here. 

60 - FSC Policy FSC Interpretation on GMOs (Genetically modified organisms) FSC-POL-30-602 (2000) EN 

61 – FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2003). Proceedings: Expert Consultation on 
developing an action programme towards improved bamboo and rattan trade statistics. Available online here.  

62 – FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2000). Rattan Development: FAO expert consultation 
organized in collaboration with INBAR. Available online here. 

63 – INBAR (2009). Technical Report No. 30. Bamboo, a sustainable solution for western Europe. Design cases, LCAs and 
Land-Use (draft version). Available online here.  

64 - European Aluminium Association. http://www.alueurope.eu/aluminium-sector-in-europe-2010/  

65 - Yellishetty Mm, Mudd Gavin M., Ranjith P.G. , Tharumarajah A. (2011). Environmental life-cycle comparisons of steel 
production and recycling: sustainability issues, problems and prospects Monash University, Australia. Environmental 
science & policy14, 650 – 663 

66 - Hopewell, J., Dvorak, R.,Kosior, E. Plastics recycling: challenges and opportunities. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2009 364, 
2115-2126 

67 – European Commission (DG ENV) 2014. Polyvinyl Chloride page: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pvc/index.htm 

68 - Life Cycle Assessment of PVC and of principal competing materials. PE Europe GmbH, Institut für Kunststoffkunde 
und Kunststoffprüfung (IKP), Instituttet for Produktudvikling (IPU), DTU, RANDA GROUP. Commissioned by the European 
Commission, July 2004. 

69 - Mechanical recycling of PVC wastes. Study for DG XI of the European Commission (B4-3040/98/000821/MAR/E3) in 
co-operation with: Plastic Consult (Italy), COWI (Denmark).Eckhard Plinke (Prognos), Niklaus Wenk (Prognos), Gunther 
Wolff (Prognos), Diana Castiglione (Plastic Consult), Mogens Palmark (COWI), Basel/Milan/Lyngby, January 2000. 

70 - Nordic Ecolabelling – Background Document to criteria for Outdoor furniture and playground equipment - version 3 
March 2011 

71 - German Green Public Procurement. Available online here.  http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/produkte-
e/beschaffung/gebaeudeinnenausstattung/moebel.html 

72 – JRC-IPTS (2013) Background Report  Revision of the EU Ecolabel for the product group “Footwear”. Available online 
here.  

73 – WRAP (2011). Benefits of Reuse Case Study: Office Furniture. Available online here. 

74 – WRAP (2011). Benefits of Reuse Case Study: Domestic Furniture. Available online here. 

75 - Sahni, S. Boustani, A.,Gutowski, T., Graves, S. Furniture Remanufacturing and Energy Savings. 2010 

76 – ECHA (European Chemicals Association) (2009). Bis(tributylin) oxide. Prioritisation and Annex XIV background 
information. Available online here. 

77 – ECHA (European Chemicals Association) (2012). Formaldehyde. Opinion proposing harmonised classification and 
labelling at EU level of formaldehyde. Available online here.  

78 - Imam, S.H., Mao, L., Chen, L., Greene, R.V., 1999. Wood adhesive from crosslinked poly (vinyl alcohol) and partially 
gelatinized starch: preparation and properties. Starch-Stärke 51 (6), 225-229. 

185 

79 - González-García, S., Feijoo, G., Heathcote, C., Kandelbauer, A., Moreira, T. Environmental assessment of green 
hardboard production coupled with a laccase activated syste. Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 445-453 

80 - Pitcher, M. (2005). LCA Treatment of Human Health exemplified by formaldehyde within the furniture industry. 

81 - Smith, D.C., 2004. The generation and utilization of residuals from composite panel products. Forest. Prod. J. 54, 8-
17. 

82 - ECHA (European Chemicals Association) (2009). Background document for sodium dichromate. Available online here. 

83 - Directive 2002/61/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 19 July 2002 amending for the nineteenth 
time Council Directive 76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and 
preparations (azocolourants). Available online here. 

84 – European Commission (2007).Nanomaterials in consumer products, Availability on the European market and 
adequacy of the regulatory framework RIVM/SIR Advisory 11014 (IP/A/ENVI/IC/2006-193), available online here..  

85 - Loevestam, G. et al., (2010) Considerations on a Definition of Nanomaterial for Regulatory Purposes, European 
Commission, JointResearch Centre, EUR 24403 EN.  

86 – SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly-Identified Health Risks), The appropriateness of the risk 
assessment methodology in accordance with the Technical Guidance Documents for new and existing substances for 
assessing the risks of nanomaterials, 21-22 June 2007 

87 – Wijnhoven, S.W.P. et al, Development of an inventory for consumer products containing nanomaterials, final report 
070307/2010/580587/SER/D3. 

88 - Poland, C.A. et al., Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity 
in a pilot study, Nature Nanotechnology 3, 423 (2008). 

89 – SCCP (Scientific Committee on Consumer Products) (2007). Safety of nanomaterials in cosmetic products. 

90 – Specific Advice on Fulfilling Information Requirements for Nanomaterials under REACH (RIP-On 2) – Final Project 
Report, Hankin S.M., Peters S.A.K., Poland C.A., Foss Hansen S., Holmqvist J., Ross B.L., Varet J. and Aitken R.J, 01 July 
2011.  Available online here. 

91 – Specific Advice on Exposure Assessment and Hazard/Risk Characterisation for Nanomaterials under REACH (RIP-On 
3) – Final Project Report. Aitken, R.A, Bassan, A., Friedrichs, S., Hankin, S.M., Hansen, S.F., Holmqvist, J., Peters, S.A.K., 
Poland, C.A., Tran, C.L. 7 July 2011. Available online here.   

92 – Milieu – Amec (2011). Review of Environmental Legislation for the Regulatory Control of Nanomaterials. Available 
online here. 

93 – BIO Intelligence Service (2011), Study on coherence of waste legislation, Final report for the EU (DG ENV). Available 
online here. 

94 – IPCC (2007). IPCC Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. Available online here. 

95 – De Schryver and Goedkoop (2009). ReCiPe 2008 A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises 
harmonized category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level.  

96 – Steen, B (1999a). A Systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development (EPS). Version 
2000-general system characteristics; CPM report 1999:4, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden 

97 – Goedkoop, M. and Spriensma, R. (2000). The Eco-indicator 99: A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact 
Assessment Methodology. Ministry of VROM, The Hague, The Netherlands. (updated version: www.pre.nl/eco-indicator99 ). 

98 – Itsubo, N. and Inaba, A. (2003): A New LCA Method: LIME has been completed. Int J LCA 8 (5) 305 

99 – WMO (1999). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998. Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project - 
Report No. 44, ISBN 92-807-1722-7, Geneva. 

100 – Seppälä, J., Posch, M., Johansson, M., Hettelingh, J.P. (2006). Country-dependent Characterisation Factors for 
Acidification and Terrestrial Eutrophication Based on Accumulated Exceedance as an Impact Category Indicator. 
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 11(6): 403-416. 

101 – Posch, M., Seppälä, J., Hettelingh, J.P., Johansson, M., Margni M., Jolliet, O. (2008). The role of atmospheric 
dispersion models and ecosystem sensitivity in the determination of characterisation factors for acidifying and 
eutrophying emissions in LCIA. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (13) pp.477–486 

102 – Kemna, R., Van Elburg, M., Li W., Van Holsteijn, R. (2005). MEEUP – Methodology Report. EC, Brussels. (Final version, 
28-11-2005). 

103 – Van Zelm, R., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Den Hollander, H.A., Van Jaarsveld, H.A., Sauter, F.J., Struijs, J., Van Wijnen, H.J., Van 
de Meent, D. (2008). European characterization factors for human health damage of PM10 and ozone in life cycle impact 
assessment. Atmospheric Environment 42, 441-453. 

186 

104 - Hauschild, M. and Potting, J. (2005). Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment – the EDIP2003 
methodology. Environmental News no. 80. The Danish Ministry of the Environment, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Copenhagen. 

105 – Guinée et al. CML 2002 Institute of Environmental Sciences, University of Leiden, The Netherlands 

106 – Bare J.C. (2002). Developing a Consistent Decision-Making Framework by Using the U.S. EPA's TRACI Systems 
Analysis Branch, Sustainable Technology Division, National Risk Management; Research Laboratory, US Environmental 
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH; http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/std/sab/traci/aiche2002paper.pdf  

107 - IER, (2008). EcoSense. Institut für Energiewirtschaft und Rationelle Energieanwendung (IER), Universität Stuttgart, 
70550 Stuttgart, Germany. http://ecosenseweb.ier.uni-stuttgart.de/   

108 – Struijs, J., Beusen, A., van Jaarsveld, H. and Huijbregts, M.A.J. (2009b). Aquatic Eutrophication. Chapter 6 in: 
Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M.A.J., De Schryver, A., Struijs, J., Van Zelm, R. (2009). ReCiPe 2008 A life cycle 
impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. 
Report I: Characterisation factors, first edition. 

109 – Donati Environmental Awareness. EPD Numbers: S-P-00154; S-P-0155; S-P-00241 and S-P-00242. See: 
http://www.donati.eu/eng/ambiente.php  

187 

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union 
Free phone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 
(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed. 

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. 
It can be accessed through the Europa server http://europa.eu 

How to obtain EU publications 

Our publications are available from EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu), 
where you can place an order with the sales agent of your choice. 

The Publications Office has a worldwide network of sales agents. 
You can obtain their contact details by sending a fax to (352) 29 29-42758. 

L
F
-
0
7
-
1
6
-
0
0
9
-
E
N
-
N

JRC Mission 

As the Commission’s  
in-house science service,  
the Joint Research Centre’s 
mission is to provide EU  
policies with independent,  
evidence-based scientific  
and technical support  
throughout the whole  
policy cycle. 

Working in close  
cooperation with policy  
Directorates-General,  
the JRC addresses key  
societal challenges while  
stimulating innovation  
through developing  
new methods, tools  
and standards, and sharing 
its know-how with  
the Member States,  
the scientific community  
and international partners. 

Serving society  
Stimulating innovation 
Supporting legislation 

doi:10.2791/075599 

ISBN 978-92-79-63494-9 

2