Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
ECONOMY
OPPORTUNITIES
IN THE FURNITURE
SECTOR
This report was produced for the European Environment Bureau (EEB) by Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd
Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd is an Authored by: Alex Forrest, Mark Hilton, Ann Ballinger and
independent consultancy, dedicated to helping Daniel Whittaker.
our clients to achieve better environmental
and commercial outcomes. With offices in the
UK, Brussels, Auckland and New York, Eunomia
works throughout Europe and beyond.
Website:
www.eeb.org
Publishing date :
September 2017
This communication reflects the authors’ views and does not commit the donors.
Executive Summary
Around a quarter of the world’s furniture is
manufactured within the European Union –
representing a €84 billion market that equates
to an EU28 consumption of ~10.5 million
tonnes of furniture per annum while employing
approximately 1 million European workers and
consisting of, predominantly, SMEs1.
-3-
Barriers to a circular furniture sector are wide furniture, is not significant enough to drive
ranging and have been identified through the more sustainable purchasing behaviour.
course of this research, informed through This is coupled with poor awareness of
stakeholder consultation and literature review, the availability and benefits of sustainable
and include: furniture options, for both domestic and
commercial purposes.
• Lower quality materials and poor
design – the move away from solid wood • Poor demand for recycled materials -
and metal furniture to cheaper materials, end markets for recycled materials, post
which restricts the potential for a successful deconstruction, are underdeveloped, and in
second life. Weak product design and some cases, already saturated, with these
specification drivers – in relation to recycled associated market failures restricting further
content, reuse of components, product investment in recovery.
durability, and design for disassembly/
• Weak over-arching policy drivers
reassembly, repair, reuse, remanufacture
– typically furniture is not managed in
and recycling, the drivers for improvement
accordance with the waste hierarchy, with
are weak or absent.
reuse failing to be prioritised over recycling,
• REACH Regulation (on Registration, incineration and landfill. Underinvestment
Evaluation, Authorisation and in reuse, repair and remanufacturing
Restriction of Chemicals) – legacy infrastructure limits the potential for
hazardous substances pose challenges and furniture being managed in accordance with
additional costs for recyclers, together with the principles of the waste hierarchy or the
a lack of information on chemicals contained circular economy.
in products and on ways how to deal with
them appropriately. This report presents a range of scenarios
including policy measures which offer potential
• Poor consumer information and
options addressing barriers and advancing
availability of spares – consumers are
circularity across the European furniture sector.
rarely given guidance on how to maintain
It describes potential packages - some which
and repair furniture, in order to prolong
have the potential to work more quickly than
and extend the product lifespan. A lack of
others and with varying degrees of certainty.
availability of spare parts encourages the
In consideration of the suggested policy and
purchase of new furniture over circular
intervention measures referenced here, it is
consumer patterns.
acknowledged that the European furniture
• Limited collection and reverse logistics sector is not homogeneous, with differing
infrastructure – currently there are consumer patterns and waste infrastructure
weak drivers and underinvestment in the types and capacities demonstrated across
collection and logistics for furniture take- Member States.
back. Producer responsibility mechanisms
are not widely used in the furniture sector. It is further acknowledged that adoption and
implementation of some of the policy measures
• High cost of repair and refurbishment
presented poses greater challenges for
– in many parts of the EU, transport and
those Member States where waste recovery,
labour costs are high, making any significant
recycling and waste treatment technology is
repair and refurbishment costly, particularly
underdeveloped. In recognition of these facts,
where re-upholstery is required. In
it is our view that this should not limit the level
general, economies of scale and economic
of ambition, in the setting of policy instruments
incentives are needed to make repair and
which offers the potential to deliver significant
refurbishment viable.
economic, environment and social contributions
• Weak demand for second-hand for the EU furniture sector and wider economy.
furniture - the price differential between
new furniture against the cost of second-life A move towards circular economy models
-4-
within the European furniture sector would Green Public Procurement (GPP), eco-design
benefit from a variety of complimentary policy requirements or labelling schemes. Criteria
instruments to deal with market failures would cover a variety of CE criteria across
on the supply side (i.e. ensuring return of durability, the use of recycled material content
items and creating durable, refurbished and and reused components (i.e. remanufacture),
remanufactured items) and the demand side hazardous substance content, and design to
(creating demand for these products). facilitate repair, remanufacture and recycling.
We would note that as a first key option These core criteria could be used to define
(compatible with several policy packages a ‘Green Furniture Mark’ (GFM) - a new A to
described in this report), it would be desirable G rating instrument similar to the EU energy
to develop an agreed common set of core label, with the intention of providing consumers
criteria that could work across different and procurement professionals with clearer
instruments such as Extended Producer information on the environmental and
Responsibility (EPR), circularity features of furniture products. This
rating could be determined by a points style
system (similar to the BREEAM approach4 for
buildings) using a self-assessment approach but
with third party oversight.
Additional
reused/recycled Eco-Design
Extra jobs CO2 eq.
avoided -Low Carbon Materials
-Landfill Restriction created -Durability
-Take Back
3.3—5.7mt -Repair and Reuse
-Preparation for 3.3-5.7mt -Dissassembly
reuse and -Recyclability
recyling 160,000 Potential increase
in EU GVA
MA
€4.9b
NUFA URE
RETURN
CT
els
New
€
od
Bu
sin e s s M
Circular GPP
criteria
€
PU
SE
SME
RC
H ASE & IN-U
funding for
innovation
Mandatory GPP for the public sector, with • Mandatory labelling of warranty period; to
common criteria to the GFM or a set GFM level clearly display the ‘free’ manufacturers/retailer
required (e.g. B rating). warranty in a large format next to the product.
-6-
The deployment of such a GFM scheme Analysis of the economic impacts of increasing
could be either voluntary, with take up by circularity in the furniture sector is similarly
manufacturers but in part driven by GPP (e.g. sparse. Eunomia has previously considered
a minimum requirement of an A or B rating this in the UK context in a report published for
for example) or mandatory, requiring all SUEZ in 2017.9 The analysis undertaken within
furniture to be assessed and labelled under the report considered increases that may
the GFM scheme. This could be an alternative arise in the Gross Value Added (GVA) resulting
to mandatory eco-design requirements or as from increases in the recycling and reuse of
a compliment; the eco-design requirements furniture. The GVA is - in economics - a measure
setting the minimum legal standard (i.e. a G of the value of goods and services produced in
rating) and the GFM rating showing levels of a given area, industry or sector of an economy.
performance above that legal minimum (up to A
which could align with Eco-label requirements). The analysis estimated that the potential
increase in GVA from improved circularity in
Estimates of the potential impact of each of
the furniture sector was in the order of £500
the above policy packages have been modelled
million for the UK under the most ambitious
through the application of available data and
scenario, by 2030. Based on extrapolation of
use of key assumptions referenced within this
EU28 Member State population against UK
report, with a summary of the key headlines
population alone, this provides an estimate in
presented in Table A, with respect to impact
on additional tonnage reuse and recycling, net the order of £3.8 billion10 in increased GVA from
carbon reduction and job creation. improved circularity under the most ambitious
scenario.
With respect to estimated tonnage and climate
change impacts, results for each package are We hope that this report and its findings
presented on an annual basis net of impacts contribute towards closing the knowledge gap
occurring in the baseline. The table shows that and that it will result in deployment of circular
climate change benefits are the most significant activities across the European furniture sector.
for Policy Package 1 – the Full Mandatory
package.
-7-
Contents
Introduction.............................................................................. 9
Appendicies.............................................................................. 45
-8-
Introduction
-9-
STATUS OF THE EU
FURNITURE SECTOR
Status of the EU
Furniture Sector
consumption (by value and
weight) at a European level and
This section provides an overview of the for different furniture types13. Due
European furniture sector, with respect to to some data suppression at this level of
production, consumption, waste generation granularity, the study looked in detail at €72
and treatment, together with discussion around billion of furniture production per annum.
some of the key challenges and opportunities
impacting on the sector. Of this, Italy (€17.5 billion), Germany (€14.5
billion), UK (€8.8 billion) and Poland (€7.1 billion)
15
10
5
Source: Eurostat
-5
Status of the EU Furniture Sector
-10
- 11 -
Figure 2: EU28 Furniture Consumption by Category
Million Tonnes 3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
Source: Eurostat
1.0
0.5
0.0
Kitchen Mattresses Metal Non Upholstered Other Upholstered Wooden
Furniture furniture seats furniture seats/ sofa beds/ furniture
futons
France (€9.0 billion) and Spain (€4.4 billion). between 2% and 5% of MSW in the EU28.
This equates to a EU28 consumption of ~10.5 Assuming waste generation reflects a similar
million tonnes of furniture per annum. Figure 2 pattern to consumption, waste arising from
summarises that in tonnage terms, a significant commercial sources has been assumed to
proportion of consumption includes wooden contribute 18%21 of total furniture waste
furniture, kitchen units and mattresses. generation across the sector. Assuming an
average composition of 3.75% furniture in MSW,
DG Enterprise and Industry16 estimated that
the total annual EU28 furniture waste22 equates
the domestic sector accounts for 82% of
to 10.78 million tonnes23, reflecting a yearly
furniture consumption, with the remaining
substitution of new versus discarded furniture.
18% associated with B2B (business to
business) consumption. Based on a total EU28 There is limited information on end of life
consumption of €68 billion, and consumption treatment of furniture. Evidence suggests that
of ~10.5 million tonnes of furniture per annum on reaching its end of life, most furniture is
this would be equivalent to: destined for landfill. According to European
Federation of Furniture Manufacturers (UEA)
• €55.8 billion and 8.6 million tonnes of statistics, 80% to 90% of the EU furniture waste
domestic furniture consumption p.a. and in MSW is incinerated or sent to landfill, with
~10% recycled24.
• €12.2 billion and 1.9 million tonnes of
business furniture consumption p.a. Reuse activity in the sector is also low.
Where reuse does occur, it is mostly through
European Furniture Waste commercial second-hand shops, social
enterprise companies or charities. Some
Generation and Treatment
furniture items are also exchanged via free and
Furniture waste generation has been analysed paid exchange platforms, such as eBay and
using a variety of sources17. According Freecycle, though the number of items traded
to European Federation of Furniture in this way is difficult to quantify. In the UK,
Manufacturers (UEA) statistics18, furniture data from the Furniture Reuse Network (FRN)
waste in the EU accounts for more than 4% of indicates that its members delivered 120,000
the total municipal solid waste (MSW) stream. tonnes of reuse24, representing approximately
Comparably, other data sources at Member 6% of total furniture arising as waste26. With
State level estimate furniture waste from respect to remanufacturing, the size of the
European sector is estimated to be €300 million
Status of the EU Furniture Sector
- 12 -
Figure 3: Furniture Waste by EU Member State
2.5
2
Million Tonnes
1.5
Source: Eurostat
0.5
- 13 -
BARRIERS AND
POTENTIAL POLICY
APPROACHES
Barriers and How to
Overcome Them
- 15 -
widely used in the furniture sector. Certain These barriers are discussed in more detail
waste streams, including mattresses, pose in the subsequent sections, presenting key
particular issues for municipalities, with no challenges and opportunities for addressing
incentives to collect these items separately, key areas of market failure across the
and high reprocessing costs: neither landfill furniture value chain, through lessons already
operators, nor providers of treatment learned, and the successful adoption of policy
facilities are especially keen to receive whole instruments elsewhere.
mattresses.
- 16 -
Preparation for reuse targets already exist in hazardous chemicals in the production process.
certain countries at a national/regional level,
in Spain (WEEE), Flanders (household), and Proposed amendments to the Waste
France (furniture). The adoption of separate Framework Directive set out include general
preparation for reuse targets in these countries requirements for EPR schemes – in particular,
has signalled intent to increase the volume financial contributions paid by producers to EPR
of products made available for reuse to the schemes to be modulated based on the costs
necessary to treat their products at end-of-life34.
social sector. A key requirement under the
French EPR law includes fostering preparation
Notable EPR schemes exist in France, Flanders
for reuse, with a target for increasing the total
and Sweden, with France being the only
volume of reused goods being placed back Member State to have implemented EPR
on the market by 50% by 2017. This approach to drive the collection, recycling and reuse
sees the efforts of the operator of the B2C EPR of furniture arising from the domestic and
scheme, Eco-Mobilier, working in partnership commercial waste stream. Flanders is currently
with a range of social economy actors, to exploring the implementation of EPR for
increase the transfer of used and discarded mattresses arising from the domestic stream,
furniture deemed to be in satisfactory working with a view to implementation in 2018.
order and sanitary condition to be prepared for
reuse. The French EPR model has also introduced
economic instruments used to drive eco-design
Case Study – Preparation for and other circular economy aspects in the
furniture manufacturing process.
Reuse Targets, Spain
Spain is the first European country to set a Case Study - EPR for Furniture in
mandatory, national reuse target. The Spanish France
Waste Plan 2016-22 sets a 50% target for
waste to be recycled or prepared for re-use. In France, end-of-life furniture is managed in
Within this target, 2% of all furniture, textiles, line with EPR regulation. Separate schemes are
electricals, and other suitable goods, must be in place for domestic and commercial furniture,
redirected from recycling or landfill and sent for managed and operated by Eco-Mobilier and
repair and resale. Valdelia, respectively. The main objectives of the
French EPR include:
Spain has also shown support for the social
sector, with the Spanish Waste Plan also
• Decreasing waste furniture sent to landfill;
specifying that preferential access should be • Achieving a 45% recycling/reuse target; and
granted to the social sector to access municipal
• Driving eco-design principles within the
waste collection points to source these goods.
furniture manufacturing sector.
Producer Responsibility and Take- €80M was collected via levies in 2013 to
finance the domestic scheme, paid by furniture
back producers, retailers and importers, to cover the
cost of collection, logistics, infrastructure and
Europe already has the producer pays principle
R&D into new markets for recovered materials.
enshrined in various pieces of legislation33, and
In 2015, the domestic EPR scheme collected
yet producer responsibility regulation at the 0.85M tonnes of domestic furniture, achieving a
EU level does not yet encompass furniture. 55% recycling and 86% recovery rate.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for
furniture offers the potential for financing the Under the French EPR scheme, 2016 saw
cost of separate collection, sorting, treatment creation of Eco Modulation Criteria for new
Barriers and Policy Approaches
and recycling of furniture, whilst also offering furniture placed on the market. A lower levy
the possibility of driving waste prevention is charged to manufacturers, where they
and reuse, and driving producers towards met environmental product criteria. This
sustainable sourcing of materials and removing is essentially a simple criteria, in order for
- 17 -
the process to be ‘controllable’/not over At a Member State level, voluntary agreements,
burdensome to administer. This covers such as those led by the Waste and Resources
products which are: Action Programme (WRAP), have demonstrated
• Manufactured 95% of metal, no padding, the potential to deliver change through industry
(easy to recycle) led programmes, although with very variable
levels of uptake (in terms of substantive action),
• Manufactured from 95% made of wood, generally well below 80% of the market level
sourced from sustainable forests (easy to noted above. In these cases, there has been no
recycle)
credible regulatory alternative in play, making
• Products designed for babies / children it an entirely voluntary commitment. Some
which can be adapted to the growth of their similar UK agreements have been shown to be
user – e.g. furniture for children (cots which demonstrably weak in the level of commitment
convert to beds/chairs, designed for growth) on the part of signatories, not least the Dairy
Roadmap, where a commitment from the dairy
Eco-modulation criteria had to be designed industry to use 30% recycled HDPE in plastic
so that minimum 3% furniture could be eco- milk bottles was effectively cast aside when
modulated by 2017. If companies comply with primary material prices feel in 2015.
criteria, they pay a lower levy – a fee reduction
of about 20% in order to incentivise design for
recycling. Case Study – Voluntary
Agreements to deliver Producer
Conversely, and in the absence of mandatory
Responsibility, WRAP (UK)
producer responsibility, self-regulation (or
voluntary industry agreements) offers an
WRAP delivers change through voluntary
alternative approach to financing infrastructure
agreements with industry, and which seek to
for increased take-back, reuse and recycling.
increase collection and manage of waste in
The Commission considers well-designed non-
accordance with the waste hierarchy. Examples
regulatory approaches as alternative policy
of current/recent voluntary agreements include:
solutions, where they are likely to deliver policy
objectives more rapidly, or in a more cost- • Courtauld Commitment – aimed at
effective manner. This, however, is most likely improving resource efficiency and reducing
to be achieved where the voluntary approach waste in the UK grocery sector. Supporting
is backed by there being a credible alternative signatories represent 95% of the 2016 UK
regulatory mechanism being actively discussed. food retail market.
• Sustainable Clothing Action Plan (SCAP)
Clearly, the success factors of such voluntary led 2020 – aimed at improving the collection,
initiatives are largely dependent on the uptake, re-use and recycling of clothing and textiles,
and market share, of participating signatories SCAP currently has over 80 signatories and
and supporters, as well as the nature of supporters representing more than 65% of
the commitments under the agreement. UK retail sales by volume.
Furthermore, voluntary commitments can be
• Hospitality and Food Services Agreement
challenging to implement across sectors such
(HAFSA) – aimed at reducing food and
as the furniture sector which are large in scale,
associated packaging waste across the
fragmented and heavily represented by SMEs.
hospitality and food services sector, over
At EU level, self-regulation measures under the 230 leading signatories and supporters
EU Ecodesign Directive require for instance a signed up to support these aims, covering
market coverage of its signatories which covers approximately 25% of the UK sector.
at least 80% of units placed on the Union
market, and/or put into service, of the type of
Barriers and Policy Approaches
- 18 -
Mechanisms to Support within its national waste strategy, ‘Making
Things Last’ (with similar commitments
Infrastructure Development
enshrined within Scotland’s national economic
strategy). Scotland’s Zero Waste Plan has been
Countries typically lack the infrastructure
developed, and is delivered in partnership
capacity needed to take account of the
through Zero Waste Scotland, enterprise
burden of additional collection and treatment
agencies and the environmental regulator,
of products following the introduction of
SEPA, as well as other actors such as local
producer responsibility, as seen in the wake
authorities. Delivery is supported by over £70M
of the challenges experienced by Member
of investment, including a Circular Economy
States, following introduction of EPR for WEEE.
Capital Investment Fund to drive capacity within
Instruments which seek to deliver producer
the reuse, repair and remanufacturing sector
responsibility (whether mandatory or voluntary)
across Scotland.
cannot be implemented in the absence
of parallel economic activities to expand
Equally, the ability of the social sector to
investment in infrastructure for reuse, recycling,
professionalise and respond to the challenge of
and recovery of post-consumer/business
scaling up activity represents both a significant
furniture.
challenge and opportunity for the sector. The
experience of the Flemish region of Belgium
The experience following introduction of EPR
has demonstrated success in the use of
for furniture in France provides recognition
financial instruments to address shortfalls in
of the operational and capacity challenges in
both physical and professional capacity for
identifying recycling markets for the volumes
reuse, following the introduction of regulation
of materials recovered and processed. An
requiring increased collection of bulky waste.
expansion of furniture collection from domestic
and commercial sources in France has
resulted in a saturation of recycling markets for Case Study – Financial
materials such as particleboard, textiles and
Infrastructure Expansion in the
foam. As part of efforts to counter these market
constraints, a proportion of the levies collected
Social Economy, Flanders
from EPR (approximately 1% of the levy budget)
Over the past 20 years, The Flemish Region of
is reinvested into R&D and capital investment,
Belgium has introduced a series of financial
with a current focus on R&D to develop markets
instruments to support the expansion of
for recovered wood fibres, production of bio-
furniture reuse infrastructure in the social
ethanol from furniture waste, and recycling of
sector. The introduction of the Solid Waste
PU foam.
Management Plan 1991-1995 saw mandatory
In the absence of financial support reinvested door-to-door collection for bulky waste.
through mandatory producer responsibility The Household Waste Implementation Plan
schemes, examples of funding mechanisms to 1997-2001 saw the introduction of re-use
drive increased capacity in the reuse, repair centres in Flanders for the first time, with the
and remanufacturing sectors include capital second instalment of the Plan requiring reuse
funded programmes, such as those which exist centres to increase performance to a reuse
in Scotland. performance of 5kg per inhabitant by 2007.
The Scottish Government has ambitions to and professionalization of operations. This has
deliver a circular economy for Scotland. The included financial support for start-ups and
Government has set out its commitment investment match/bonuses, with grants of up
to move towards a more circular economy to €25,000 to subsidise the activities of reuse
centres.
- 19 -
Eco-design Other examples include Gispen, one of the
largest office furnishers in the Netherlands.
Eco-design initiatives, mandatory and voluntary, Through participation under the Dutch Green
can help significantly in terms of life extension, Deal pilots, the organisation has diversified
both directly, and by enabling repair and its business model to expand its eco-design
remanufacture. Proposals contained within the product range, with circular economy principles
EU CE Package address mainly energy-related now at the heart of the business strategy.
products within the scope of the existing legal
framework directive. But the Circular Economy Case Study – Eco-design, leasing
Action Plan also includes a commitment to and take-back business models –
examine options and actions for a more Gispen36, The Netherlands
coherent policy framework of the different
strands of work of EU product policy in their As a designer and producer of office furniture,
contribution to the circular economy, though Gispen’s business model is built upon circular
this is not eco-design per se and this does not economy principles, with an ethos around
necessarily address furniture. well-designed durable products, long service
life and optimum use. Post installation, Gispen
As noted earlier, life extension might not always
also offers reverse logistics for furniture, and
be in the interests of OEMs and retailers as the
furniture updating and reconfiguring services,
opportunities arising from longer life products
as office furniture requirements for office
generally benefit other sectors, for example, in
spaces evolve.
repair and remanufacturing. In consideration
of this fact, it is perhaps not unsurprising that
Whilst principally focused around design and
for furniture retailers and OEMs, eco-design
manufacturer, Gispen’s business model has
appears to be far from central to their thinking.
shifted towards delivering facility management
services to its customer base. The approach
In the absence of mandatory eco-design
to design and supply of circular furniture
requirements, examples of pioneering
products follows guiding principles, including
companies are present in the marketplace,
sustainable material selection, disassembly
including IKEA, which, under commitments to
potential, maintenance and upgradability, and
expand its range of sustainable products, is due
recyclability.
to launch a range of modular furniture.
Gispen provides a variety of financing models
to its customers which includes pay-per-use.
Case Study – Modular Furniture,
Under this business model, Gispen retains
IKEA ownership of the product, with contracts
structured depending on the deployment, and
IKEA has recently announced proposals to
use, of the furniture. The amount customers
launch a modular furniture range in 2018, as
pay is reflected in the number of workstations
part of its continued commitment to product
required, functional and aesthetic need, and the
life extension. This will see the introduction
period of use / intensity of usage.
of furniture products with the intention of
enabling customers to customise and build
up/add to or extend the function of individual
products. This encompasses standardised Harmonisation of Chemical and
design to enable customers to upgrade or
Waste Policy and Standards
convert furniture items into alternative uses
– including conversion of sofas to a bed,
Traceability and restrictions on the use of
Barriers and Policy Approaches
- 20 -
been banned or it is restricted under REACH, example the Substitute It Now List37.
this means that any relevant new product
containing this substance can no longer be There may be a need for (time-bound)
placed on the market - though this may not exemptions on the recycling of certain
be true for all imported products, which often materials that contain restricted substances
creates an un-level playing field for European in some cases where there is a genuine lack
actors. of alternatives and a clear technical need. In
addition it is important for products to come
The problem here is that since most furniture with a full disclosure on what hazardous
items have a significant life span, what may be substances are contained in specific materials
an acceptable chemical when the product is or products, through the introduction of an
made may not be when the item is in need of EU harmonised information system and/ or
remanufacture or recycling, for example ten other type of declaration, so as to allow proper
years’ hence. It should be noted that REACH management of these products and materials
does not prevent direct reuse per se as it does in terms of reuse or as waste. This is important,
not apply to second hand products, but of for example, since brominated flame retardants
course reuse organisations may be hesitant to that go into incineration (e.g. resulting from
resell goods containing hazardous substances. the inclusion of energy from waste in recovery
It can also present a cost increase for preparing targets) can result in brominated dioxins which
for reuse organisations and recyclers, are not currently restricted under the Industrial
particularly as a result of the lack of information Emissions Directive.
(e.g. via a detailed product Bill of Materials) on
which part/material contains which hazardous
Sector Innovation Support
substances or not and how this can be dealt
with without unduly restricting circularity.
The role of R&D and innovation funding
represents an important catalyst to stimulate
Consequently the continued presence of
furniture manufacturers to transition from
non-disclosed legacy chemicals will continue
linear production towards closed loop models
to inhibit the preparing for reuse and
– including dematerialisation/sustainable
recycling of end-of-life furniture for many
material selection, design durability, modularity,
years to come unless action is taken. The
reuse/ repair, reassembly and recycling. Yet the
Commission is already seeking to focus efforts
capacity of furniture manufacturers to deliver a
around examining the relationship between
step change and adapt their business models
chemical, product and waste policy, due to
through innovation continues to be limited by
acknowledgment that the current situation
access to financial and technical resources.
challenges delivery of targets set within the EC
With a predominance of SMEs in the furniture
Circular Economy Package.
sector, a lack of access to finance, expertise
A ‘clean furniture economy’ will require and infrastructure will continue to constrain the
significant efforts which focus on ensuring the furniture industry from moving towards take-
continued removal of hazardous substances back, repair, leasing and other service-based
from products and materials, and not only models.
those that are currently restricted. Ideally
The EC launched the Green Action Plan for
there needs to be a ‘forward look’ going
SMEs, together with the European Resource
beyond compliance with current REACH
Efficiency Excellence Centre (EASME), to
restrictions. Ideally this would involve the use
address at least some of the shortfall in
of only genuinely ‘green chemistry’ principles
access to expertise and funding more broadly
in new products although in practice this may
Barriers and Policy Approaches
- 21 -
transition towards resource efficiency within although the second-hand, refurbished or
the sector. Other examples include the Scottish remanufactured furniture products are not
Government/ERDF-funded Circular Economy included within the new scope39,
Programmes and Investment Fund operated by
Zero Waste Scotland, which provides expertise Importantly, the uptake of ecolabels is
and capital support to SMEs across key sectors, intrinsically linked to the awareness and
to advance new business model development. demand from the public and purchasing
organisations, most notably the public sector,
which is, at best, patchy across Europe. The
Case Study – Innovation Support
EU Ecolabel for wooden furniture still only has
for the Furniture Manufacturing three companies as license holders, although
Sector – Sustech, Belgium with 232 products in total (193 with one
Spanish company). Blue Angel in Germany is
The Sustech project was realised through the one of the most well-used labels for furniture
ambition of partners Fedustria, Centexbel and but still only has 24 companies and 72 products
WOOD.BE to support the acceleration from represented. Nobilia has a 29% market share
linear to closed loop models within the textiles, for kitchens in Germany but only has 10
wood and furniture manufacturing sectors in certified products.
Belgium.
Whilst the expansion of Ecolabel criteria for
The focus included supporting participating furniture is warranted, uptake will continue
businesses move forward with a variety of to be hampered in the absence of further
challenges, with a focus on the product design recognition of the ecolabels on the part of
and end-of-life phases. Businesses support buyers, and in particular, through an expanded
challenges launched by the project and application of Green Public Procurement (GPP)
included: criteria (discussed below). Further uptake of
• Development – including dematerialisation, the Ecolabel scheme is also impeded by the
sustainable material selection, design for perception of bureaucracy in the application
recycling, re-assembly, modularity; and procedure, and the perception of high costs of
implementation40.
• End-of-life – including recycling and product
life extension.
Green Public Procurement
Ecolabels Criteria
The EU Furniture Ecolabel scheme also GPP offers significant potential to drive demand
encourages the production of durable products for products with better environmental
that are fit for purpose, easy to repair and easy performance and CE potential. EU studies
to dismantle into separate material streams at indicate that the public sector spend on office
the end-of-life to maximise recycling potential. furniture represents 15% of the market.41
Government procurement (excluding
A new set of EU Ecolabel criteria has been wider public sector) in the UK represents
published by the European Commission under approximately 10% of the office furniture
Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1332. The market.42 The updated EU GPP criteria for
previous scope of the product group (which furniture has recently been published43, a
only permitted wooden furniture ≥90% by process carried out in alignment with the
weight wood or wood-based materials) has revision of the EU Ecolabel criteria for the same
been amended to reflect inclusion of other product group.
Barriers and Policy Approaches
- 22 -
level of EU GPP uptake in the EU28 appears far Whilst green product marks can be mandatory
lower than the 50% target set by the European or voluntary in their deployment, business-led
Commission in 2008, with research indicating a standards remain less trusted by consumers
level of EU GPP uptake for furniture below 20%; even when they are recognized as high-quality
significantly behind other GPP product criteria standards by stakeholders, with the more
use across Member States.44 effective schemes benefiting from independent
oversight, to improve consumer confidence
Whilst improved criteria focusing higher up and assurances around environmental product
the waste hierarchy are clearly needed, the assertions.
voluntary uptake of GPP criteria ensures a
This is intended to complement rather than
continued lack of demand from the public
replace the pass-fail EU Eco-label. The intention
sector for furniture which meet these criteria,
here is that the GFM would have an A to G
thereby continuing to limit its effectiveness
rating to provide consumers and procurement
in incentivising the furniture market. Some
professionals with clearer information on the
Member States have been more proactive than
environmental and circularity performance and
others in pushing the agenda forward in this
features of furniture products. This would be
regard, such as Italy.
determined by a points style system (similar
to the BREEAM approach for buildings) using
Case Study – Mandatory a self-assessment approach but with third
party oversight. It should be noted that the
Requirements for GPP, Italy
GFM could also be used to complement both
minimum eco-design standards and EPR, just as
In December 2015, the Italian Government
the EU Energy Label complements Eco-design
introduced provisions which require mandatory
and EPR for the EEE sector.
GPP requirements for all Italian public entities
to include within public procurement actions.
It would be desirable for the GFM to use an
This requirement is mandated for tenders,
agreed common set of core criteria that work
including procurement which is both above
across other existing EU instruments (GPP and
and below financial thresholds. Minimum
Eco-label). Criteria would cover a variety of CE
environmental criteria are contained within the
criteria across durability, the use of recycled
Italian GPP National Action Plan (2008), which
material content, and reused components (i.e.
cover 16 product and service areas of most
remanufacture), hazardous substance removal,
relevance to Italian public procurement.
and to facilitate repair, remanufacture and
recycling.
Green Product Marks
The deployment of such a GFM could be either
voluntary, with take up by manufacturers being
There is a strong rationale for exploring the
driven by GPP (e.g. a minimum requirement of
possible merits of developing a European-wide
a B rating for example) or mandatory, requiring
‘Green Furniture Mark’, to support both the
all furniture to be assessed and labelled
supply and demand of furniture with circularity
under the GFM scheme as an alternative or
performance characteristics in the European
in complementarity to mandatory eco-design
market. Green product mark schemes, such as
requirements. In any case some consistency
the EU Energy Consumption Labelling Scheme
should be promoted, e.g. by which the
and Energy Star in the US for electrical and
lowest rating (G) of the GFM would reflect the
electronic equipment, BREEAM and LEED for
mandatory minimum for example and highest
buildings, have demonstrated value in enabling
rating (A) of the GFM corresponds to what is
consumers to select products based on
Barriers and Policy Approaches
- 23 -
Financial Instruments to Support repair, and in doing so, to drive consumers to
consider the repair of household items before
Supply and Demand
instantly replacing items with new.
development of a new home repair industry. maximise the likelihood that products are
The Government recently submitted proposals repaired and reused, which are currently
to parliament to cut the VAT rate on repairs being developed in other sectors (e.g.
to household products from 25% to 12%. electrical appliances) - such as provision and
Proposals are intended to lower the cost of dissemination of service manuals, as well as
- 24 -
support for service and repair through helplines In the absence of regulatory instruments, the
and internet platforms - is significantly under furniture retailer IKEA has launched a variety of
developed in the furniture sector. pilots in stores across Europe, to evaluate the
benefits of running repair workshops to enable
A lack of information from manufacturers its customers to extend the lifespan of furniture
on the durability, disassembly, reassembly, items.
reconfiguration, reparability and reuse of
furniture products, coupled with the availability
Case Study – Product Life
and affordability of spare parts and short
product warranties, inhibits repair and reuse
Extension, IKEA
activity, both for consumers while they own
IKEA’s 2016 Sustainability Strategy 2016
the product and for organisations that are
sets out a range of sustainability priorities,
preparing for reuse.
which includes a commitment to achieve
What is often missing for the consumer/ a fourfold increase in sustainable sales by
procurer is anything that indicates the life 2020, compared with 2013. This includes a
expectancy and reparability of the product at commitment to transition towards products as
the point of purchase, brand reputation and services – whereby products are designed to be
length of warranty often being the only guide. easy to care for, repair, adapt, disassemble, and
Minimum product lifetime guarantees, longer recycle.
warranty periods and minimum availability time
Initiatives include a variety of pilots currently
for spare parts could all help.
being trialled across ‘circular stores’ including:
It is possible to point to regulatory instruments • Repair workshops in-store – to enable
deployed in other sectors, which have sought customers to learn how to repair or recycle
to address such issues, including the Right furniture products; and
to Repair Law in the USA, which includes a
• Rental and share schemes – recently
requirement for automobile manufacturers to
launching a furniture leasing scheme for
make parts available on fair and reasonable
Finnish companies, based on a monthly
terms. This is also a key aspect of Eco-label
subscription.
requirements for electrical and electronic
products, while the WEEE Directive mandates Other initiatives being explored by IKEA include
the provision of information to assist recycling the use of 3-D printing of spare parts, to allow
at end of life. quick and efficient dispatch of furniture spares
to its customers.
Case Study – Right to Repair Research has identified the potential role of
Law the Automotive Sector, the Consumer Sales Directive47 (CSD) as a
Massachusetts mechanism to require businesses to consider
longer product lifespans48.
Fair Repair legislation is based on the
Massachusetts Automotive Right to Repair In the UK, the Consumer Rights Act has
Law passed in August of 2012 and the been introduced as a mechanism to enable
subsequent national agreements reached customers to both return products which are
between Automotive (2014) and Truck unfit for purpose, but also, to drive retailers to
(2015) manufacturers and their aftermarket make a repair, or replace a faulty product.
counterparts. Under this regulation and related
voluntary agreements, manufacturers are
Barriers and Policy Approaches
- 25 -
Case Study – Guarantees and
returns, The Netherlands49
Pros and Cons of
Potential Policy
In the Netherlands, every consumer purchase
is covered by a mandatory legal guarantee. Instruments
The duration of this guarantee is based on the This section presents a range of scenarios
expected lifespan of the product. If the product including policy measures which present
is defective, it is the responsibility of the seller potential options for advancing circularity
to replace, repair or provide a refund for the across the European furniture sector. In
defective product. consideration of the suggested policy and
intervention measures referenced here, it is
Under the guarantee, a hierarchy of remedies
acknowledged that the European furniture
firstly includes a requirement to repair or
sector is not homogeneous, with differing
replacement, according to the consumer’s
consumer patterns and waste infrastructure
wishes, within a reasonable time frame and free
types and capacities demonstrated across
of charge. Secondly, a refund or reduction of
Member States.
the purchase price if repair or replacement is
impossible, but only under certain conditions.
It is further acknowledged that adoption and
There is no deadline for implementing a
implementation of some of the policy measures
solution. If the fault occurs within the first six
presented represents greater challenges for
months, the seller must prove that the item was
those Member States where waste recovery,
not defective (“reversal of burden of proof”).
recycling and waste treatment technology is
However, a remaining weakness in the system,
under developed. In recognition of these facts,
is that this too brief a period, before the buyer
it is our view that this should not limit the level
becomes the actor responsible for proving the
of ambition, in the setting of policy instruments
problem was due to a default in the product.
which offers the potential to deliver significant
economic, environment and social contributions
Whilst in relative infancy, the application of for the EU furniture sector and wider related
product passports (or product information economies.
systems) offers the potential for increasing
reparability and reuse of a range of products, Extended Producer Responsibility
by providing better information on how
components and materials that a product Table 1 below discusses the pros and cons
contains, can be disassembled, repaired and of different policy approaches to producer
recycled at the end of life. While furniture is responsibility, including:
not especially complex, as noted earlier, it
is important to understand the hazardous • Mandatory EPR regulation for furniture –
substances present in products as a minimum. along the model formally adopted under
French EPR law. This would ensure that
The application of material passports have been used furniture (including mattresses) is
adopted in other sectors, including the shipping dealt with responsibly, with targets for
and aerospace industry, as a tool for assessing preparing for reuse and recycling by
reusability and/or recyclability of a product. category and by weight.
The potential benefits of material passport
application in the furniture sector was recently • Voluntary agreement – essentially a self-
highlighted in research findings50 from one of regulatory initiative on take-back and
the Resource Efficient Business Model (REBus) preparing for reuse as an alternative to
Barriers and Policy Approaches
pilot projects, which identified their relevance mandatory EPR, with additional eco-design
in supporting value retention of raw materials drivers.
across the value chain.
- 26 -
Table 1: Producer Responsibility Eco-design Requirements
Pros Cons
Mandatory EPR regulation Table 2 includes an assessment of the various
policy instruments considered available to
If well-designed, an Such schemes are drive eco-design across the EU furniture sector.
EPR scheme can en- generally collective and
These include:
sure that high levels the costs spread across
of circularity occur. all producers accor-
As in France, a re- ding to market share. • Mandatory eco-design – including
duced/ modulated Unless the producer horizontal requirements around materials
fee can be charged fees are modulated use (sustainability, chemicals), durability,
for furniture that is according to environ- reparability (including availability of spares)
designed for repair mental criteria (for and recyclability.
and recycling and example, the product
meets certain crite- longevity), then positive
ria. Where charges actions on eco-design
• The ‘Green Furniture Mark’ (GFM)
are significant by some will not be labelling approach - to meet a variety of
this could also be recognised in the fees CE criteria, potentially modelled on an A
used to help drive they pay, so there will to G scale similar to that used by the EU
improved design for be limited / no incen- Energy Consumption Labelling Scheme,
CE. Mandatory EPR tive to improve design but with a points-based system similar to
can therefore stand until such time as the
BREEAM. Such a scheme would be self-
alone to a degree, overall targets (for pre-
although mandatory paration for reuse, and declared, but with third party oversight,
eco-design require- for recycling) demand and could be mandatory or voluntary,
ments would stren- it. Where EPR is intro- the latter allowing OEMs to sign-up some
gthen the overall duced at national level products and gradually drive the market
package. A harmo- and in the absence of (with additional demand drivers via GPP).
nised EPR scheme a harmonised scheme
at EU level would at EU level, this risks
provide consisten- the development of a
• Mandatory EU-wide requirement on
cy and reduce the patchwork of incons- flame retardant label location and
burden on brands istent schemes, intro- form of attachment – to ensure labels
operating across ducing challenges for are not visible (e.g. hanging down) whilst
multiple Member brands to comply with the furniture is in use and to avoid removal
States. the different require- by consumers.
ments across the EU.
Voluntary agreement • Restrictions on the use of all
An industry-led vo- This is likely to be wea- Candidate List SVHCs (or, to go further,
luntary agreement ker than mandatory Sin List chemicals51 within new products,
across EU industry EPR, and is unlikely to with consideration of transitional
could potentially cover the whole mar- exemptions for specific applications
be reached more ket. It would not be rea- which are time bound, and clear marking
quickly than man- listic to get all furniture
of materials (using a harmonised
datory regulation. OEMs to sign up to the
This would involve agreement, although product information system approach or
take-back and retailer sign-up and otherwise). This will avoid endless legacy
preparing for reuse supply chain pressure issues and provide improved clarity to re-
targets. In addition would help. Effective- use and recycling organisations.
there could be ness is more likely to
minimum eco-de- be assured through the • Mandatory warranty periods – included
sign standards or credible prospect of a
a suggested minimum 5 year warranty
a Green Furniture mandatory instrument.
(including spares and repairs).
Barriers and Policy Approaches
- 27 -
Table 2: Eco-design requirements
Green Furniture Mark
Pros Cons
An A to G style label, The GFM would need
Mandatory eco-design that denotes the level third party assess-
Would provide a clear May not guarantee of environmental/CE ment to be a reliable
minimum requirement any particular level performance, without and credible guide. A
and could help to of CE activity (as EPR setting any minimum voluntary version may
drive all CE aspects, would). Would require pass- fail standard only affect a relatively
e.g. to facilitate quick consistent implementa- should have higher small percentage of a
repair and refurbish- tion which is likely to be uptake and comple- cost-conscious market.
ment (quicker gene- challenging for a sector ment the best in class If consumer or GPP de-
rally translates into highly represented by Type 1 Ecolabels in Eu- mand is not there, other
lower cost). Spares SMEs. Durability requi- rope (EU Flower, Blue OEMs and retailers will
availability and cost rements will require Angel, Nordic Swan), not sign up. It would
requirements could additional standards having core criteria also require a promo-
also be included. Du- and add cost in terms streamlined through tional campaign to help
rability requirements of testing (which would GPP, and a self-assess- drive demand.
are also desirable to need to be done at the ment approach for
avoid the need for component level to producers. It would
repair and allow many become less onerous). be simple for consu-
lives for a product. Some manufacturers mers to understand
The avoidance of already do extensive (given similarity with
hazardous materials testing, however. the Energy Label) and
could also be included. could be mandatory or
Would also ensure voluntary; potentially
a level playing field part of a wider volun-
with regards to global tary agreement as a
competition, by setting means for the better
the rules to access the OEMs to set the pace
EU market. for others.
Mandatory EU-wide requirement on flame retar- Avoidance of SVHCs in new products and tran-
dant label location sitional exemptions for certain legacy materials
containing chemicals restricted under REACH
Simple to enact and Small change to pro-
would solve a major duction techniques By phasing out the There may be a need
issue in relation to required at OEMs. use of Candidate List for new product exemp-
reuse of upholstered SVHCs under REACH tions in some instances
furniture. Could be (or indeed Sin List where there is a ge-
part of any mandatory chemicals52 in new fur- nuine lack of alterna-
eco-design initiative. niture, as well as those tives and a clear techni-
substances currently cal need.
restricted, this would Transitional exemptions
Setting new standards/rules for fire safety that allow quicker elimina- for recycled materials
would allow the use of alternative to flame retar- tion of future remanu- allow harmful chemicals
dants facturing and recycling to remain in circulation
Would not necessitate New rules and stan- constraints. If neces- longer and require spe-
an immediate and dards would result in sary it could be helpful cial handling by those
strict phase out of ma- changes to production to allow transitional preparing for reuse and
terials, and hence, may methods. time-bound exemp- in recycling. Incinerating
be more acceptable tions on the recycling brominated flame re-
to industry. Combined of certain materials tardants also generates
with the obligation of (such as foams and brominated dioxins.
labelling flame retar- textiles) that contain
dants (see above), restricted substances,
may act as a market depending on the
Barriers and Policy Approaches
- 28 -
Setting new standards/rules for fire safety that Table 3: Procurement-related
would allow the use of alternative to flame retar- initiatives
dants Pros Cons
Would not necessitate New rules and stan-
an immediate and dards would result in Extended GPP requirements
strict phase out of ma- those OEMs seeking
GPP requirements are This will mainly drive
terials, and hence, may use alternative flame
already in existence public sector procure-
be more acceptable retardants, needing to
and their use reaso- ment and will not gua-
to industry. Combined make small changes to
nably widespread. rantee a given level of
with the obligation of production methods.
Making the core CE activity (as manda-
labelling flame retar-
criteria more strongly tory EPR would). That
dants (see above),
focused on CE (as Zero said in some ways GPP
may act as a market
Waste Scotland has may be able to go fur-
driver towards cleaner
done through new gui- ther than EPR, for exa-
furniture.
dance), and mandatory mple including such
Extending the mandatory warranty period across the EU public aspects as leasing and
sector (as in Italy), buying refurbished /
Requiring a longer Would increase the would offer a strong remanufactured items
mandatory manufac- purchase price of driver. To make it sim- in criteria for example;
turer’s or retailer’s furniture at the bottom pler for procurers, and and ensuring through
warranty period for end of the market (even link to consumer infor- waste contracts that
furniture, as against though life-cycle costs mation, the GFM ap- social enterprises
the two year mini- may decline). proach could be used; get to cherry pick for
mum implied under e.g. a requirement for reuse at household
EU consumer law, a B level product or waste recycling
would effectively elimi- higher. Supply chain centres (HWRCSs).
nate very poor quality requirements could Such measures would
furniture (otherwise, it also be part of this, help to drive significant
would create too many for example requiring activity.
returns for retailers) plastic furniture manu-
and be to the general facturers to take part
advantage of manufac- in the Clean Sweep ini-
turers of more durable tiative to prevent pellet
furniture, hence redu- losses and marine
cing waste. May also micro-plastics.
support the market
for second hand and
refurbished items (hi-
gher costs for bottom Information for Procurers,
of the market items). Repairers and Recyclers
Table 4 provides some discussion around a
Procurement-Related Initiatives range of potential instruments which offer the
potential to increase demand for sustainable
The role of procurement undoubtedly furniture, through enhanced provision of
represents a significant opportunity to create information to both consumers and procurers
‘demand pull’ across the sector. Table 3 of furniture, including:
assesses the potential implication of a review • Further promotion of existing
of instruments, including, extended GPP instruments – namely the EU Eco-label,
requirements - with a stronger emphasis on the GPP and ‘Green Awards’ for furniture.
CE, supported by a GFM performance scale and
CE criteria, with requirements to purchase GFM • Mandatory labelling / Consumer
Barriers and Policy Approaches
- 29 -
However, the mere replication/extension Mandatory labelling and consumer information
of Product Environmental Footprint (PEF)
related information or EPD system to the A PEF/EPD like ana- A PEF/ LCA study is a
furniture sector would not provide an lysis would provide complex and expensive
life cycle impact undertaking for a single
effective communication instrument. The
information com- product, let alone many
Green Furniture Mark (GFM) approach bined potentially thousands of products
could provide a good basis to start with CE information on the EU market, es-
communicating about key performance (including material pecially where models
characteristics for CE of furniture on an A composition as change regularly. It is
to G basis adopting a similar approach like already found in also likely to be a weak
EPDs). Gives consu- demand driver of CE for
under the EU Energy Labels scheme or
mers and procurers furniture as a) PEF/ LCA
such as the BREEAM certification scheme. better information information can be com-
(about environmen- plex for consumers and
• Mandatory labelling of warranty period tal impacts and CE procurers to understand,
- to clearly display the ‘free’ manufacturers/ aspects) without dic- b) they may not be so
retailer warranty in a large format next to tating the quality of diligent, or environmen-
the product. products able to be tally driven, price being
sold (as mandatory the predominant factor
eco-design would). c) unlike the labelling
• Mandatory EU harmonised information
Could drive all key of electrical appliances,
system - Rather than providing life cycle CE features. the labelling would not
impact information (as with a PEF), a digital necessarily relate to a
type of product information system could feature that reduces
provide information on the products bill costs to the consumer
of materials (BOM), including chemicals, (so the consumer is less
likely to be influenced by
and can cover other aspects such as
this).
information on how to repair. This could
be related to the EPD, which also generally Mandatory labelling of warranty period
includes a material breakdown. This would be a
softer touch than
a mandatory war-
Mainly drives durability
Table 4: Information for Procurers, ranty period, giving
and to a lesser extent
Repairers and Recyclers a market advantage
reparability.
to the suppliers that
can offer a longer
Pros Cons
warranty period.
Mandatory EU wide harmonised Product Infor-
mation System Further promotion of existing instruments
BOM information, Whilst useful in allowing There are existing The existing EU Ecolabel
which travels with the recycling sector labelling initiatives criteria for Furniture
the product through to identify and handle which could be more might be ambitious and
its life, is of practical hazardous materials heavily promoted to comprehensive but
use in preparing for appropriately, less useful both consumers and market uptake is limited.
reuse and recycling. for the re-use sector, public sector buyers. CE criteria need to be
This is particularly as they will have a good Already well-known simple for procurers,
helpful in regard to understanding of most in some countries especially the core GPP
the chemicals and materials and compo- but poorly used in criteria as opposed to
polymers used. A di- nents used already and others. An EU-wide the comprehensive
gital type of product the repair techniques. Green Furniture criteria. Uptake of GPP
information system Risks associated with the Awards scheme is relatively poor outside
can also describe process becoming too could be used to of organisations where
practical CE charac- burdensome for OEMs, provide further mo- there is a mandate.
Barriers and Policy Approaches
teristics, e.g. to assist with information relating mentum. Flanders Further promotion is not
repair. to chemical exposure has a ‘Factory of the guaranteed to change
potentially being difficult future award’ to pro- the situation significantly.
to obtain. mote CE manufactu-
ring for example.
- 30 -
Incentives for Consumers, Refundable levy
Repairers and Recyclers If a substantial amount Likely to be unpopu-
and the scheme is lar with retailers and
Instruments offering the potential to encourage clear to consumers, it OEMs as the initial
consumers to return for reuse and recycling could provide a good outlay for furniture will
and to support repairers and recyclers are incentive for them to increase. Introduces an
return furniture to additional administra-
presented and discussed in Table 5, and
authorised reuse and tive burden for retai-
include: recycling organisations. lers. Given the delay
• Incentives for consumers to return From the retailer pers- between purchase and
pective, there could be disposal, the value of
furniture for reuse and recycling, e.g. a
a surplus generated the refund could be
deposit-refund scheme or a modulated if all furniture is not eroded by inflation,
‘bulky waste’ collection charge. returned. reducing the incentive
• Tax incentives, grants and low interest for returns.
loans for CE furniture companies e.g. lower Modulated bulky waste charges
business rates and corporation tax.
• Lower rates of VAT applied to furniture Similar to the above,
this would incentivise
repair.
consumers to return
• An EU/national furniture CE innovation furniture to authorised
support programme for SMEs. Business reuse and recycling
awareness raising and innovation support, organisations, but
including R&D; e.g. on End-of-Life (EoL) avoids the involvement
of the retailer and Potentially a weaker
options for PUR foam.
therefore would be incentive unless the
simpler to administer. ‘regular’ bulky waste
Table 5: Incentives for consumers, In regions which ope- charges are significant.
repairers and recyclers rate pay-as-you-throw
systems, this modula-
Pros Cons tion already exists for
Lower rates of VAT for activities associated with bulky waste where it is
refurbishment and remanufacture not charged for when
This increase the There are currently res- taken to a collection
competitiveness of trictions on what can centre for reuse.
stakeholders in the be done in this regard, Tax incentives, grants and low interest loans for
repair, refurbishment although the potential business
and remanufacturing for lower VAT rates on This will help start-ups Potentially a state aid /
sector, without re- sustainable products to become establi- competitiveness issue.
quiring any complex is currently being shed, and to grow, by Can artificially keep
analysis or labelling considered under VAT lowering their opera- companies afloat in
issues. reforms. Subsidies and ting cost base and/ the short term without
tax incentives for ‘cir- or allowing capital correcting the funda-
cular’ or environmental investments. This is mental market failures.
beneficial activities (e.g. the approach that Supply side interven-
repair) will only work Zero Waste Scotland is tions of this kind are
where they are suffi- taking through their CE also likely to require
cient to close the price programme and Inno- demand side initiatives
gap with equivalent vation Fund (CEIF). in combination.
new ‘budget’ products.
Barriers and Policy Approaches
- 31 -
EU/national furniture innovation support pro- Table 6: Waste management measures
gramme for SMEs
Pros Cons
Innovation support can Requires funding,
help to raise aware- partners and larger Clearer regulation/ guidance on EoW and quality
ness of, and develop, scale demonstration standards for recycled materials
new technologies and pilots to test proof of Giving greater clarity Many MS may already
techniques, to open up concept. Needs to be over when a material have consistent inter-
new market opportu- able to overcome mar- ceases to be waste pretation and appli-
nities. ket barriers. would open up end cation in this regard.
CE grants can help of life options for Much depends on how
organisations to invest furniture materials. rigidly Member States
more into new CE Consistent interpreta- interpret some aspects
related operations or tion and application of of waste law. The effec-
scale up existing ope- EU End of Waste crite- tiveness of the mea-
rations. ria is required across sure is only as signifi-
the EU. cant as the underlying
May be important problem.
Waste Management Measures where materials are A lack of consistent
Measures which are considered necessary to returned as ‘waste’ to development and
civic amenity sites and interpretation of quality
increase end of life options for furniture are
container parks, and standards for recy-
discussed in Table 6 and include: where the waste status cled materials across
• Clearer regulation/guidance around end of affects what can be Member States results
done at the site. in variability in material
waste and use of recycled materials; and
Uniform and grades offered by re-
consistent adoption processors/recyclers.
• A landfill ban on furniture disposal. of quality standards
for recycled materials
and enhanced speci-
fications that would
increase their uptake
in new products.
- 32 -
POLICY PACKAGES
AND IMPACT
ANALYSIS
Policy Packages
and Impact Analysis
• Restrictions on all
Combining Policy Candidate List SVHCs
•
Policy Packages
- 34 -
Table 7: Policy Package Scenarios Package 4 - Incentives Only
Package 1 - Fully Mandatory
Supply Side
Supply Side
• EU-wide SME support initiative for CE innova-
• Mandatory Extended Producer Responsibility tion in the sector, combined with tax incentives,
(EPR) for take back, with preparing for reuse and grants and/or low interest loans for CE furniture
recycling targets, and with a modulated fee (that companies.
takes account of the different treatment costs • Deposit-refund incentive for consumers to
and environmental impacts of different products return furniture for reuse and recycling, i.e. a re-
and materials) or an Individual Producer Res- fundable levy on new furniture, or a modulated
ponsibility (IPR) approach, to encourage better ‘bulky waste’ collection charge – free where the
design for repair and recycling54. item is reusable.
• Mandatory eco-design measures on durabi- Demand Side
lity, repair and recyclability or a mandatory war-
ranty period of five years to drive durability and • Mandatory labelling of warranty period; to
reparability. This could be associated with a GFM clearly display the ‘free’ manufacturers/retailer
approach to reinforce and extend impact. warranty in a large format next to the product.
• Tax incentives for refurbished/remanufac-
tured items; e.g. lower rates of VAT.
Demand Side
Mandatory Green Public Procurement (GPP) to Package 5 - Information Only
drive demand for reuse and remanufactured Supply Side
items (other aspects taken care of by mandatory
eco-design). • Mandatory Product Information Systems
from the OEMs to drive repair and remanufac-
Package 2 - Part Mandatory ture.
• Voluntary use of the GFM, but driven by GPP.
Supply Side
• Mandatory EPR for take back, with prepa- Demand Side
ring for reuse and recycling targets, and with a
modulated fee based upon the ‘Green Furniture • Mandatory labelling of warranty period; to
Mark’ (GFM) criteria, or an IPR approach, to en- clearly display the ‘free’ manufacturers/retailer
courage better design for repair and recycling55. warranty in a large format next to the product.
• EU-wide GFM approach, with an A to G rating • Voluntary GPP as now, but with reference to
for furniture, with mandatory labelling but no a minimum standard under GFM (e.g. B rated).
mandatory eco-design standard. • Promotion of the GFM label for which the
highest rating class A corresponds to what is
Demand Side also required by the more comprehensive EU
Ecolabel scheme.
Mandatory GPP for the public sector, with
common criteria to the GFM or a set GFM level Package 6 - Waste Management Only
required (e.g. B rating).
• EU wide landfill ban on furniture disposal.
Package 3 - Full Voluntary • Clearer regulation/guidance from the EU
around end of waste and use of recycled mate-
Supply Side rials.
• EU-wide voluntary agreement (Self-Regulatory
Initiative) on take back, preparing for reuse and
recycling as an alternative to mandatory EPR.
• Voluntary use of the GFM (industry led volun-
tary initiative), but driven by GPP.
Demand Side
• Voluntary GPP as now, but with reference to
a minimum standard under GFM (e.g. B rated).
• Promotion of the GFM label for which the
highest rating class A corresponds to what is
also required by the more comprehensive EU
Policy Packages
Ecolabel scheme.
- 35 -
hence, the data presented here will inevitably
Policy Package Impact underestimate the benefits of recycling wood.
- 36 -
Climate Change Benefits from finishing of fabrics.59 Impacts are also relatively
high for aluminium, but somewhat lower for
Reusing Furniture plastics and steel.
The environmental benefits associated with WRAP considered the carbon benefits of reuse
the reuse are not necessarily higher than for commonly reused articles in the UK. For
the recycling benefits, even where the latter wood, this does not consider the potential
can be properly calculated. Much depends benefits of sequestering the carbon contained
on whether the reused article results in the within the wood, which have been considered
avoided purchase of a new manufactured by other researchers in this area. According
article. Where this is the case, the benefits to the methodology developed by the
of reusing that article are likely to be more International Reference Life Cycle Data System
substantial than those of recycling. This is (ILCD)60 on behalf of the European Commission,
because the impacts associated with producing the carbon sequestered in wood for 10 years
the constituent materials contained in furniture would give an additional carbon benefit of
are typically higher than the impacts associated 132 kg CO2 eq. per tonne, whilst carbon
with recycling the constituent components. sequestered in wood for 100 years would give
However, where reused articles are purchased a carbon benefit of 1,320 kg CO2 eq. per tonne
by lower income households who would of wood.61
otherwise not have purchased anything, the
benefit associated with avoided production To take this into account, we have adapted
does not occur. Transport impacts may also the dataset originally developed by WRAP, but
be higher for the reuse scenario, and there assuming a sequestration factor for 10 years.62
may also be additional energy associated with Data on the climate change benefits of reusing
the preparation for reuse, although the latter key furniture items is presented in Table 11. It
typically results in only a relatively small impact. is important to note that some furniture items
are less likely to be reused due to concerns
Data on the climate change impacts of regarding hygiene – this is the case for
manufacturing the key constituents of furniture mattresses, for example; such items have been
is shown in Table 10. The table indicates that excluded from the table (and were not included
the climate change impact of manufacturing in the original datasets developed by WRAP).
textiles is far higher than that of the other
materials. Significant impacts include the use of It should be noted that there is much less
large amounts of pesticides and fertilisers in the certainty in respect of data on the climate
production of cotton, and energy use in acrylic change benefits of reusing furniture than
and polyester production as well as in the is the case for the recycling data. The data
Table 10: Carbon Impacts of Producing Materials contained in Furniture
- 37 -
provided in the table above considers the
anticipated benefits in respect of third sector Climate Change
organisations undertaking reuse. This type
of reuse operation may result in lower levels
Benefits from the Policy
of furniture production being displaced than
other routes, as such items are more likely to
Packages
be sold to low income households who might
otherwise not be able to afford to purchase Approach to the Modelling
such items. In contrast, the benefits arising
from other reuse routes – such as B2B reuse of This section provides high level estimates of the
refurbished furniture items for example – may potential climate change benefits to Europe as
be higher than those seen here. Furthermore, a whole arising from the policy packages set out
the environmental benefits from reusing or previously. Estimates are calculated against the
recycling furniture are not mutually exclusive. baseline of furniture consumption previously
Furniture reuse would only delay the time when described66. Results are also considered for
the recycling benefits would eventually realise five European countries: France, UK, Germany,
but they may offer additional environmental Spain and Italy.
benefits when offsetting the need to produce
Assumptions relating to the end-of-life stage
new furniture.
for each package are set out in the Appendix.
Impacts of Material Substitution A certain amount of reuse and recycling is
assumed to occur in the baseline, and net
As was confirmed in Table 10, the climate impacts are therefore calculated based on the
change impacts of manufacturing the various additional recycling and reuse that is expected
constituent components of furniture vary to occur in each scenario. Assumptions relating
considerably. As such, it should be expected to the baseline scenario are also indicated in
that impacts of producing some items can the same table.
be reduced in some cases through material
As it was indicated previously, some items are
substitution. It is necessary to consider these
less likely to be reused, and might therefore
items on a case by case basis, as materials are
be more likely to be recycled when the policy
typically not substituted on a like-for-like basis
packages take effect. Different assumptions
as far as tonnage is concerned. This is shown in
were therefore used to model the effect of the
Table 12 through consideration of the climate
scenarios on the different furniture categories.
change impacts of outdoor furniture64 items
Assumptions applied to the different furniture
manufactured using different materials.
categories are set out in the Appendix.
Climate change impacts are highest where the
For items which were not included within
furniture is manufactured using aluminium, and
the WRAP dataset on the benefits of reuse
lowest where wood is used – despite the latter
(previously presented in Table 11), the following
using considerably more material on a weight-
approach was taken:
basis.
Table 12: Climate Change Impacts for • Impacts for reusing kitchen furniture were
Outdoor Furniture Items65 estimated based on the recycling impacts;
Material Weight of Climate change
material impacts, kg CO2 • Impacts for reusing metal furniture were
used, kg eq. per furniture estimated based on the impacts of reusing
set
non upholstered seats;
Plastic 30 102
Aluminium 10 307 • Impacts for reusing mattresses were
Policy Packages
- 38 -
that reusing mattresses is not an option used in waste furniture across all of Europe.
considered broadly, due to hygiene Whilst data on what proportions of wood is
concerns as explained. We only consider classified/considered “unsustainable” is lacking,
a 5% reuse of mattresses in the most unsustainable wood destined for EfW results in
ambitious scenario. a negative CO2 impact, rather than providing a
benefit.
The impacts of sending furniture items to
landfill or energy from waste (EfW) were
modelled using data obtained from the
Results
background environmental impact models
Table 13 presents estimated climate change
incorporated into Eunomia’s European Waste
impacts across the whole of Europe for the
Model. For landfill impacts, this includes
policy packages previously defined. Results for
consideration of the impact of the non-emitted
each package are presented on an annual basis
biogenic carbon being effectively sequestered
net of impacts occurring in the baseline. The
in the landfill.67
table shows that climate change benefits are
the most significant for Policy Package 1 – the
In practice, the benefits from incinerating wood
Full Mandatory package.
is likely overstated here – namely, it would
reach this level only if all the biogenic CO2 As was indicated previously, the benefits
emissions can be ignored, since all wood comes for reuse are highly uncertain. The benefits
from sustainably managed sources. In practice, considered in the model may be considered to
this is highly unlikely to be the case for all wood relatively conservative estimates of potential
Table 13: Net Climate Change Impacts of Policy Packages and Additional Furniture
Reused and Recycled – All Europe
Estimated net carbon Additional tonnes
Policy Package impacts for scenario,
tonnes CO2 eq. Reused Recycled
1 Full Mandatory -5,713,542 2,097,962 3,670,289
Table 14: Net Climate Change Impacts of Policy Packages – Specific Countries
Estimated net carbon impacts for scenario, tonnes CO2 eq.
Policy Package
France UK Germany Spain Italy
1 Full Mandatory -738,547 -863,101 -723,314 -492,333 -470,043
- 39 -
benefit of reuse, given that the referenced data result in additional job creation of 2 jobs per
source is based on third sector reuse. Since 1,000 tonnes (using data for textiles and wood
arguably, third sector reuse is likely to result processing). This would equate to around
in lower levels of furniture production being 7,300 additional jobs created under the Full
displaced (for example, when compared with Mandatory package across the whole of Europe.
B2B services), benefits of reuse are likely to be
higher than estimates presented, with further Analysis of the economic impacts of increasing
research needed to provide more certainty70. circularity in the furniture sector is similarly
sparse. Eunomia has previously considered
Table 13 also presents estimated additional this in the UK context in a report published
furniture tonnage reused and recycled across for SUEZ in 2017.76 The analysis undertaken
the whole of Europe for the policy packages within the report considered increases that may
previously defined. Results for each package arise in the Gross Value Added (GVA) resulting
are presented with respect to impact occurring from increases in the recycling and reuse of
against the baseline. The table shows that furniture. The GVA is - in economics - a measure
benefits are the most significant for Policy of the value of goods and services produced in
Package 1 – the Full Mandatory package. a given area, industry or sector of an economy.
The GVA associated with preparing furniture,
The climate change impacts of the policy WEEE, mattresses and textiles for reuse was
packages for some key European countries calculated based on the average time taken to
are presented in Table 14. The results are repair products. These times were multiplied by
influenced both by the total amount of tonnage Defra estimates of the GVA per hour worked in
and by differences in the proportions of different repair sectors.
furniture in the various categories; thus total
benefits are lower for Germany than in the UK The GVA associated with recycling different
despite Germany having a larger tonnage of materials was calculated based on the
furniture waste because much of the additional employment intensities of different recycling
tonnage is in lower impact materials such as processes. These figures were multiplied by
wooden furniture. the UK average salary for ‘recovery of sorted
materials’ to estimate unit GVA impact figures.
of recycling in the furniture sector per se. other European furniture sector studies which
However, data from the Ellen MacArthur focused on business as usual rather than the
Foundation indicated that recycling might outcomes of policy options to drive improved
circularity.
- 40 -
SUMMARY AND
CONCLUSIONS
Summary and
Conclusions
Estimates of the potential impact of each of the While the EU
proposed policy packages have been modelled furniture industry has
through the application of available data and so far managed to remain
use of key assumptions referenced within this reasonably competitive worldwide, it
report and compiled in the Appendix, with has increasingly faced problems in signalling
a summary of the key headlines presented the quality and sustainability of its products in
in Table 15 below, with respect to impact on its own domestic market. Whilst EU furniture
additional tonnage for recycling and reuse, net products still represent a considerable share of
carbon reduction and job creation. the high-end furniture market globally, growing
pressure on the lower-end segments of the
While there is no robust data to help predict
market from cheaper products from other
the precise outcomes, we have used various
areas of the world has the potential to erode
data reference points (examples that provide
market share significantly. In some regards
an indication of likely impact for example) and
there is no longer a level-playing field, with
relevant carbon factors (by material), labour
competitors from low-cost countries having
and cost saving indicators to provide a very
certain key advantages, for example in regard
approximate indication of the scale of the
to labour laws and environmental standards1.
benefits.
To a large extent the outcomes for each policy Circular economy interventions have the
package reflect the assumptions made, and potential to help counter these trends, with
while we think these are reasonable, the impact repair, refurbishment and remanufacture
figures must be seen as tentative. More detailed allowing value recovery, economic growth and
research, than what was possible in this study, job creation within the European furniture
is recommended to gain a more accurate and industry.
detailed indication of the benefits.
- 42 -
Whilst recycling rates in the EU have of Candidate List SVHC chemicals (or, to go
improved through the introduction of further, the Sin List chemicals37; going forward
policy mechanisms such as the Landfill would help to future proof ‘preparing for
Directive, there is minimal activity in reuse’ and recycling, while time bounded and
higher-value circular resource flows, with clearly targeted temporary exemptions could
remanufacturing accounting for less than be considered on a case-by- case basis for
2% of the EU manufacturing turnover79. In recycling with associated marking, to ensure the
terms of furniture in particular, whilst reuse of traceability on contaminated recycled materials
furniture is common, this tends to be on a small can be ensured.
scale and with local social goals in mind rather
than larger scale environmental and economic While less certain in outcome than a
ones. mandatory EPR system, an industry-led, EU-
wide voluntary agreement (VA) on take-back,
Realising these economic, environmental preparing for reuse and recycling, again
and social benefits will therefore require the with very clear and progressively tightening
adoption of appropriate demand and supply targets, could also provide a potential solution.
chain levers, to support a significant step Collective schemes at the EU-wide level would
change across the industry. It is clear from be preferable so as to prevent complications
the consultations undertaken that there around national variations. This would need to
are a wide range of barriers to greater be closely monitored by the Commission and
circularity in the EU furniture sector, mandatory EPR introduced should progress be
from technical issues around design and too slow.
chemicals policy to market issues relating
to the low relative cost of new furniture. Another potential instrument that could
Various policy instruments have the potential to be an element of several policy packages
help overcoming the main barriers, with a need is a Green Furniture Mark (GFM), with
to address both supply side and demand side mandatory or voluntary labelling of
issues to provide both the market push and pull products around a core set of criteria
required. (common with possible eco-design
requirements, GPP and EU Ecolabel), with
The logic suggests that a mandatory a points-based performance scale (e.g. A
but simple EPR system, with gradually to G as per the Energy Label approach),
increasing targets for ‘preparing for reuse’ adopted at an EU-level to help drive
and separate recycling targets, would uptake of greener products.
provide the most certainty in terms of
positive outcomes. For a maximum ambition, A significant discount on EPR fees could be
this would be combined with eco-design given to furniture that meet a certain level of
regulations including horizontal requirements GFM requirements (e.g. a C rating) so as to drive
around materials use (sustainability, chemicals), uptake. The GFM criteria would be reviewed
durability, reparability (including availability and revised regularly (led by the industry), and
of spares) and recyclability. As part of this it with the potential for mandatory eco-design
would be mandatory for manufacturers, as a regulation if progress is too slow or lacking in
minimum, to make public the materials and ambition.
chemicals used (in a Product Information
Proving durability can be onerous in testing
System or otherwise), to assist ‘preparing for
terms and hence an alternative here may be
reuse’ and recycling activities. Those could also
the mandating of longer free warranty periods
act as standards to ensure a level playing field
Summary and Conclusions
- 43 -
format next to the product, potentially as part In terms of incentives and support for the
of the GFM labelling. furniture sector, we would suggest an EU-wide
SME support initiative for CE innovation in the
In addition, it is worth noting that at present sector, including grant aid where appropriate.
there is a patchwork of Circular Economy A transitional tax stimulus (reduced rates of
related criteria across various policy business tax) for those in the sector involved
instruments (particularly when all national in CE approaches (repair, refurbishment and
schemes as well as EU-wide schemes are taken remanufacture), could be used as an additional
into account) which can make participation or alternative measure.
complex and difficult for producers. Even with
regard to GPP, a 2011 DG Environment study In terms of the consumer, we believe that
identified that the target for 50% of all public awareness raising initiatives alone (the GFM
tendering procedures endorsing common GPP approach aside) are likely to be a weak driver
criteria by 2010 was not reached80. and that financial instruments may be helpful to
stimulate demand in a cost-conscious market.
Therefore, it would be desirable to have Reduced VAT on repair activities and GFM
an agreed common set of core criteria, A-rated furniture for example could be helpful
and a related ‘Green Furniture Mark’ in this regard.
(GFM), with the intention of providing
consumers and procurers with a simple Consumers could also be incentivised to
means of assessing product circularity, return furniture for reuse, for example
using the well-established A to G rating by having a refundable levy (paid on
approach; from entry level basic eco- purchase on a new item), or free bulky
design requirements (G) through to a waste collections, where the item is
circular ‘excellence’ benchmark (A), which going to a reuse/preparing for reuse or
could align with the Eco-label standard. remanufacturing organisation. Finally, a
The GMF would be deployed alongside (rather simpler measure would be a landfill ban on
than substituting) existing EU instruments, such whole (i.e. largely intact) furniture, although this
as the EU Ecolabel and GPP Criteria. in isolation would not be guaranteed to drive
reuse and recycling over energy from waste
To drive demand, core CE GPP criteria (EfW) treatment.
for furniture would be put in place
and made mandatory across all public These various measures in combination would
sector institutions, including the need to have variable affect in terms of the volumes and
purchase GFM furniture above a certain types of furniture diverted for reuse, recycling
class (e.g. B) and consideration of lease and EfW.
options (in the context of whole life
costing).
Summary and Conclusions
- 44 -
APPENDIX
back on the market by 50% from a baseline
Policy Package situation by 2017.
The French EPR law sets targets for 201781: • Assumes that weaker eco-design drivers
make it harder to meet higher levels of reuse
• A re-use and recycling target of 45%, and and recycling, but that demand is still strong.
80% for recycling plus recovery for waste
household furniture; Reference:
• A 75% reuse and recycling rate for workplace • Government procurement (excluding
furniture, and a 80% recovery rate; wider public sector) in the UK represents
approximately 10% of the office furniture
•
Appendix
- 46 -
• Other EU studies indicate that the public product category in scope.
sector spend on office furniture represents
15% of the market DG Enterprise and
• UK Uptake of voluntary agreements co-
Industry (2014) EU Furniture Market
ordinated by WRAP:
Situation Report85.
• Courtauld Commitment - includes food &
Package 3: Full Voluntary (with drink businesses representing 95% of the
extra promotion) 2016 UK food retail market86;
- 47 -
• Tax incentives for refurbished/ highest rating class A corresponds to what
remanufactured items; e.g. lower rates of is also required by the more comprehensive
VAT. EU Ecolabel scheme.
• 50% of market - Overall split (including • 40% of market - Overall split (including
baseline): baseline):
• 10% Reuse, 20% recycling, 35% EfW, 35% • 8% Reuse, 16% recycling, 38% EfW, 38%
landfill landfill
References References
• For a 30p deposit, A.G. Barr is currently • Studies show that the most trusted labels
recording return rates of 54% for its are those based on government standards,
returnable glass bottle scheme. Germany like organic, LEED and Energy Star in the
and Sweden have increased recovery rates United States, or those backed by NGOs.
to 85%. Business-led standards remain less
trusted by consumers even when they are
• Furniture price elasticity values 1.26 recognized as high-quality standards by
for furniture in general; http://www2. stakeholders.
econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ101/
vandewetering/chapter5notes.htm • EU eco-label for wooden furniture only
has three companies as license holders,
• So for a 10% price decrease, there would be although with 232 products in total (193
an increase in sales of 12.5% (Sofa = 1.73, with one Spanish company). Blue Angel in
Cabinet = 0.97, Table = 0.34)89 Germany is one of the most well-used labels
for furniture but still only has 24 companies,
Package 5: Information Only 72 products; Nobilia has a 29% market share
for kitchens in Germany but only has 10
certified products.
Supply Side
Package 6: Waste Management
• Mandatory Product Information Systems
from the OEMs to drive repair and Only
remanufacture.
• EU wide landfill ban on furniture disposal.
• Voluntary use of the GFM, but driven by GPP.
• Clearer regulation/guidance from the EU
Demand Side around end of waste and use of recycled
materials.
• Mandatory labelling of warranty period;
to clearly display the ‘free’ manufacturers/ Assumptions for modelling:
retailer warranty in a large format next to
the product. • 80% of market (assuming some countries
get a derogation) - Overall split (including
• Voluntary GPP as now, but with reference baseline):
to a minimum standard under GFM (e.g. B
•
Appendix
- 48 -
Assumptions Used for Scenarios by Furniture
Categories
Reuse Recycling EfW Landfill
BASELINE
Kitchen Furniture 8% 46% 46%
Mattresses 14% 43% 43%
Metal furniture 8% 8% 42% 42%
Non Upholstered seats 8% 8% 42% 42%
Other furniture 50% 50%
Upholstered seats/ sofa beds/ futon 10% 8% 41% 41%
Wooden furniture 10% 10% 40% 40%
Overall 5% 10% 42% 42%
SCENARIO 1
Kitchen Furniture 5% 40% 28% 28%
Mattresses 5% 60% 18% 18%
Metal furniture 40% 40% 10% 10%
Non Upholstered seats 40% 40% 10% 10%
Other furniture 50% 50%
Upholstered seats/ sofa beds/ futon 40% 40% 10% 10%
Wooden furniture 40% 45% 8% 8%
Overall 25% 45% 15% 15%
SCENARIO 2
Kitchen Furniture 35% 33% 33%
Mattresses 55% 23% 23%
Metal furniture 35% 35% 15% 15%
Non Upholstered seats 38% 35% 14% 14%
Other furniture 50% 50%
Upholstered seats/ sofa beds/ futon 38% 35% 14% 14%
Wooden furniture 32% 40% 14% 14%
Overall 20% 40% 20% 20%
SCENARIO 3a
Kitchen Furniture 30% 35% 35%
Mattresses 45% 28% 28%
Metal furniture 27% 30% 22% 22%
Non Upholstered seats 27% 30% 22% 22%
Other furniture 50% 50%
Upholstered seats/ sofa beds/ futon 25% 30% 23% 23%
Wooden furniture 27% 30% 22% 22%
Overall 16% 32% 26% 26%
SCENARIO 3b
Kitchen Furniture 22% 39% 39%
Mattresses 32% 34% 34%
Metal furniture 20% 22% 29% 29%
Non Upholstered seats 20% 22% 29% 29%
Other furniture 50% 50%
Upholstered seats/ sofa beds/ futon 20% 22% 29% 29%
Wooden furniture 22% 22% 28% 28%
Overall 12% 24% 32% 32%
SCENARIO 4
Kitchen Furniture 18% 41% 41%
Mattresses 28% 36% 36%
Metal furniture 15% 18% 34% 34%
Non Upholstered seats 15% 18% 34% 34%
Other furniture 50% 50%
Upholstered seats/ sofa beds/ futon 15% 18% 34% 34%
Wooden furniture 18% 18% 32% 32%
Overall 10% 20% 35% 35%
SCENARIO 5
Kitchen Furniture 15% 43% 43%
Mattresses 22% 39% 39%
Metal furniture 12% 15% 37% 37%
Non Upholstered seats 12% 15% 37% 37%
Other furniture 50% 50%
Upholstered seats/ sofa beds/ futon 12% 15% 37% 37%
Wooden furniture 14% 15% 36% 36%
Overall 8% 16% 38% 38%
SCENARIO 6
Kitchen Furniture 35% 53% 12%
Mattresses 55% 37% 8%
Metal furniture 12% 38% 41% 9%
Appendix
- 49 -
Supplementary Tables
Source:
[1] WRAP ‘Reducing the impacts of home products
[2] Europur (2016) Flexible polyurethane foam in mattresses – overview of possible end of life solutions. Volume and mix of
end of life material from mattresses
[3] Industry expert
Scenario Scenario name and description Net % Overall For Each Waste Option
Number
Reuse Recycling EfW Landfill
0 Baseline 5% 10% 43% 43%
- 50 -
(2014)
References
12 PRODCOM - Production, Import and
1 CSIL processing of data from Export data (€) by NACE code; Eurostat -
Eurostat, National Statistical Offices, National Purchasing power parities (PPPs), price level
Furniture manufacturers associations, cited indices for furniture and furnishing, carpets
in the EU Furniture Market Situation Report and other floor coverings by Member State;
(2014) and Furniture Reuse Network (FRN) – average
furniture weight by type for 2009.
2 European Remanufacturing Network
(2015) European Remanufacturing Network 13 Appendix A1.0 provides a summary
Market Study of the calculation method used.
5 It should be noted that there are 17 Source data used the purpose of
some clear differences between furniture analysing furniture waste generation and
categories; for example EPR for mattresses treatment are there that act as a guide. E.g.,
would be aimed solely at increased they either only reflect activity within a single
recyclability (given hygiene concerns over Member State (or may not be a representative
reuse of mattresses), while EPR for other sample), or there are no details on how the
furniture would also have a preparing for use estimates were arrived at.
aspect.
18 UEA, Eco-label Furniture. Extension
6 It should be noted that there are of the Scope. Final report. August 2004. Note:
some clear differences between furniture no details identified on how this estimate was
categories; for example EPR for mattresses arrived at.
would be aimed solely at increased
recyclability (given hygiene concerns over 19 WRAP (2012) Estimated that 670,000
reuse of mattresses), while EPR for other tonnes of furniture waste was generated as
furniture would also have a preparing for use part of this bulky waste. Eurostat estimated
aspect. that in 2012 the UK generated 30,143,000
tonnes of MSW, furniture therefore
7 For the purpose of analysis, representing 2% of the MSW stream.
assumptions here include a formal Self-
Regulatory Initiative, which covers 80% of the 20 In 2013 Eco Mobilier estimated that
EU market share. 1.7M tonnes of household furniture waste
was produced in France, compared with a
8 For the purpose of analysis, total MSW of 33.9 tonnes. Furniture therefore
assumptions here include a voluntary representing 5% of the total.
industry-led initiative, which covers 60% of the
EU market share. 21 DG Enterprise and Industry (2014)
EU furniture market situation and a possible
9 Eunomia (2016) A Resourceful Future furniture products initiative - estimated that
– Expanding the UK Economy, report for SUEZ the domestic sector accounts for 82% of
Recycling and Recovery UK furniture consumption, with the remaining
18% associated with B2B consumption
10 Based on UK population being 13% of
EU28 22 Example calculation - EU28 –
243,515,000 MSW tonnage*3.75%*118% =
11 CSIL processing of data from 10,775,538 tonnes)
Appendix
- 51 -
confidence in this data and this is reflected product rules http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/
by the large tonnage range when considering documents/4942/
household furniture waste at 2% and 5% of
36
MSW - 5.75 million tonnes p.a. (at 2% MSW) to
http://www.gispen.nl
14.4 million tonnes p.a. (at 5% MSW).
37 (http://chemsec.org/business-tool/
24 European Manufacturing Network
sin-list/
(2015) Remanufacturing Market Study
38 https://www.wood.be/projecten/
25 Both furniture and electricals –
sustech
assume furniture accounts for approximately
90,000 tonnes collected
39 JRC (2015) Revision of GPP and
Ecolabel for Furniture – Technical Report 3.0
26 Based on 1.4m tonnes of furniture
Working Document for Written Consultation
waste arising in the UK (domestic and
http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/furniture/
commercial)
docs/GPP_Furniture_TR_for_consultation_
Oct_2015.pdf
27 European Remanufacturing Network
(2015) European Remanufacturing Network
40 Drivers, Barriers and Benefits of
Market Study
the EU Ecolabel in European Companies’
Perception
28 European Remanufacturing Network
(2015) European Remanufacturing Network
41 DG Enterprise and Industry (2014)
Market Study
The EU Furniture Market Situation and
a Possible Furniture Products Initiative,
29 The EU Furniture Market Situation
November 2014, https://www.ceps.eu/
and a possible Furniture Products Initiative
system/files/Final%20report_en.pdf
(2014) European Commission DG Enterprise
and Industry
42 https://www.gov.uk/government/
uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
30 European Remanufacturing Council,
file/341462/Furniture_GBS_impact_
Supporting Remanufacturing – the Backbone
assessment_1407.pdf
of the Circular Economy http://www.
remancouncil.eu/work-programme.php
43 http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/
document/ST-11688-2017-INIT/en/pdf
31 DG for Internal Policies (2016) A
Longer Lifetime for Products: Benefits for 44 DG ENV (2012) Uptake of Green
Consumers and Companies Public Procurement in the EU27. CEPS and
College of Europe http://ec.europa.eu/
32 EC General Product Safety Directive environment/gpp/pdf/CEPS-CoE-GPP%20
places a general duty on suppliers of MAIN%20REPORT.pdf
consumer products to supply only products
which are safe. Transposal of the Directive at
45 DG ENV (2008) The use of
a Member State level has seen requirements
differential VAT rates to promote changes in
introduced for retailers to ensure that the
consumption and innovation http://ec.europa.
permanent label is on the goods when they
eu/environment/enveco/taxation/pdf/vat_
supply them to the consumers.
final.pdf
33 Including the existing Waste
46 https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_
Framework Directive 2008/98/EC Article 8,
customs/consultations-get-involved/tax-
Extended Producer Responsibility
consultations/public-consultation-reform-
rates-vat-towards-modernised-vat-rates-
34 European Parliament (Feb 2017)
policy_en
Briefing on legislation in progress – Circular
Economy Package: Four legislative proposals
47 (1999/44/EC)
on waste
35 European Commission (2014) The 48 DG for Internal Policies (2016) A
Appendix
‘Blue Guide’ on the implementation of EU Longer Lifetime for Products: Benefits for
- 52 -
Consumers and Companies Accurate forecasting of the benefit of wood
recycling is limited further by the absence of
49 https://www.europe-consommateurs. an agreed methodology for accounting for
eu/fileadmin/user_upload/eu- the recycling benefit of wood recycling, and
consommateurs/PDFs/PDF_EN/REPORT-_ agreement with respect to how long carbon
GUARANTEE/country_fact_sheets/Country_ would be sequestered for within recycled
fiche_NL.pdf wood.
50 T. Padding & G.H. Versteeg (2015)
59 JRC / Bio Intelligence Service (u.d.)
Lessons from ProRail Facilities Services
Environmental Improvement Potential of
Circular Procurement Pilots https://www.
Textiles (IMPRO-Textiles), Publication Draft for
pianoo.nl/sites/default/files/documents/
European Commission
documents/pilot-circular-procurement-
furniture-prorail-facilities-services-june2015.
60 JRC (2012) The International
pdf
Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD)
51 http://chemsec.org/business-tool/sin- Handbook
list/)
61 These benefits would apply where
52 http://chemsec.org/business-tool/sin-
wood was reused or recycled, but not where
list/)
wood was sent for combustion. Some of this
53 EC DG ENV (2012) Uptake of Green
benefit would also be applicable for landfilled
Public Procurement in the EU27. Centre
wood (to the proportion that did not degrade,
for European Policy Studies, and College of
which is typically considered to be around
Europe http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/
50% of the total in most landfill decay models
pdf/CEPS-CoE-GPP%20MAIN%20REPORT.pdf
that follow the IPCC methodology.
54 It should be noted that there are
some clear differences between furniture 62 Further sequestration benefits may
categories; for example EPR for mattresses be applicable if the wood was subsequently
would be aimed solely at increased recycled or reused beyond this point. These
recyclability (given hygiene concerns over benefits would not be applicable, however, if
reuse of mattresses), while EPR for other the wood was sent for combustion.
furniture would also have a preparing for use
aspect. 63 Adapted from the WRAP benefits
of reuse methodology. Impacts have been
55 It should be noted that there are updated to include an estimation of the
some clear differences between furniture benefits of carbon sequestration.
categories; for example EPR for mattresses
would be aimed solely at increased 64 Whilst only outdoor furniture is
recyclability (given hygiene concerns over referenced here, the benefit of material
reuse of mattresses), while EPR for other substitution is considered to represent value
furniture would also have a preparing for use in wider categories of furniture, with respect
aspect. to mitigating climate change impacts during
manufacturing.
56 Note that these benefits do not
include the potential benefits associated with 65 Project Learning Tree (u.d.)
sequestering the wood. Southeastern Forests and Climate Change
- 53 -
European Commission DG Environment assessment_1407.pdf
82 https://www.gov.uk/government/
uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/341462/Furniture_GBS_impact_
assessment_1407.pdf
83 https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/
Final%20report_en.pdf
84 https://www.gov.uk/government/
Appendix
uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/341462/Furniture_GBS_impact_
- 54 -
European Environmental Bureau
Boulevard de Waterloo 34
B-1000 Brussels, BELGIUM
Tel +32 2 289 1090
eeb@eeb.org | www.eeb.org