A STUDY INTO THE FEASIBILITY OF
BENCHMARKING CARBON FOOTPRINTS
OF FURNITURE PRODUCTS
www.fira.co.uk
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
This study has been produced by FIRA International Ltd.
on behalf of the Furniture Industry Research Association.
FIRA would like to acknowledge the support of the
participating organisations and individuals that have
provided invaluable information throughout the project and
during the preparation of this report.
© FIRA International Ltd. 2011
Reproduction of this document is encouraged under the condition
that the source is acknowledged.
03
Foreword
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
The furniture industry has long demonstrated its
commitment to environmental and sustainability issues,
primarily through industry developed schemes such as the
Furniture Industry Sustainability Programme (FISP).
Organisations are increasingly expected to assess and
reduce their environmental impact. In this respect; Carbon
Footprinting has a significantly raised profile over the last
decade. Full carbon footprinting of furniture products has
been considerably expensive, putting it outside of the reach
of many businesses. In addition, the lack of any third party
validation of product footprints has made the carbon impact
comparison of products by manufacturers and specifiers
very difficult.
There are a wide range of decisions to be made, and a lot of
knowledge to acquire for a company to ‘go it alone’ in
preparing an organisational or product footprint. In
recognition of this, FIRA has worked with environmental
experts to simplify and standardise the process for the
furniture industry, resulting in a simple, low cost and user
friendly carbon calculator (Furniture Footprinter
TM
). In this
regard FIRA’s study into the feasibility of generating
comparable carbon footprints using the Furniture
Footprinter
TM
tool and a consistent methodology is to
be applauded.
This study shows that the carbon footprinting of products is
a complex subject, with a number of difficulties that need to
be overcome before the benchmarking of products can
be adopted.
However, the furniture industry should embrace this report
and its findings and look to understand the impact of their
products and how to reduce them.
Michael Powell
Chairman of the Furniture Industry Research Association
3.1 Background 8
3.2 What is a carbon footprint? 10
4.0 The FIRA carbon footprint 12
benchmarking project
5.1 Introduction 14
5.2 Project boundaries 14
5.3 Units of analysis 15
5.4 Project assumptions and exemptions 16
5.5 Project tool 17
5.6 Data collection 17
5.6.1 Utilities 17
5.6.2 Transport 17
5.6.3 Materials 18
5.6.4 Packaging 18
5.6.5 Others 18
5.7 Final project methodology 18
1.0 Executive summary 6
5.0 Project methodology
4.0 The FIRA carbon footprint
benchmarking project
3.0 Introduction
2.0 Terms and definitions 7
Contents
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
6.1 Introduction 20
6.2 Product selection 20
6.3 Carbon footprint analysis 21
7.1 Introduction 25
7.2 Product selection 25
7.3 Carbon footprint analysis 25
8.1 Introduction 28
8.2 Product selection 28
8.3 Carbon footprint analysis 28
9.1 Introduction 31
9.2 Product selection 31
9.3 Carbon footprint analysis 31
10.1 Introduction 33
10.2 Product selection 33
10.3 Carbon footprint analysis 33
11.1 Introduction 35
11.2 Product selection 35
11.3 Carbon footprint analysis 35
12.1 Introduction 38
12.2 Product selection 38
12.3 Carbon footprint analysis 38
12.0 Results - Contract furniture
11.0 Results - Office desks
10.0 Results - Office storage
9.0 Results - Office chairs
8.0 Results - Upholstery
7.0 Results - Bedding
6.0 Results - Kitchens
05
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
18.0 References 49
17.0 Conclusions 47
16.0 Advice to specifiers 46
15.0 Advice to manufacturers 45
14.0 Feasibility of benchmarking of
furniture products
41
13.0 Uncertainty 40
Breakdown of kitchen furniture
carbon footprint data 51
Breakdown of bedding furniture
carbon footprint data 53
Breakdown of upholstery furniture
carbon footprint data 54
Breakdown of office furniture - chairs
carbon footprint data 55
Breakdown of office furniture - storage
carbon footprint data 56
Breakdown of office furniture - desks
carbon footprint data 57
Breakdown of contract furniture
carbon footprint data 58
Appendix 6
Appendix 5
Appendix 4
Appendix 3
Appendix 2
Appendix 1
Appendix 7
Executive summary
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
Climate change is one of the most important environmental
challenges facing governments, organisations and
individuals. To address the causes of climate change,
governments around the world have agreed targets for the
reduction of damaging greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
A number of greenhouse gases impact negatively on the
environment, and the most significant of these is carbon
dioxide. Therefore the majority of greenhouse gas emission
reduction commitments are expressed in the form of carbon
reduction. In this context the term carbon is used to mean
carbon dioxide equivalent (CO
2
e) – a measurement that
expresses the environmental effect of a number of GHGs in
terms of the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide (CO
2
) that
would cause the same effect. The effect of a business,
process, product or service can then be evaluated in terms
of the GHG emissions it generates; this is commonly
referred to as a ‘carbon footprint’.
The UK furniture manufacturing industry is of a substantial
size and, similar to many other manufacturing industries,
generates carbon emissions. Therefore there is great scope
for the industry to assess and reduce its carbon impact.
Whilst the importance of carbon emissions is recognised
across the industry, there is considerable potential for
confusion in the regarding its practical use. As a result,
companies engaging in carbon footprinting often do so
unilaterally, utilising different boundaries and methodologies
in assessing their businesses and products.
The lack of credible and consistent assessment means that
any data produced is not comparable. Hence, the aim of
this project was to assess the feasibility of producing
product footprint benchmarks for the furniture industry. In
doing so companies wishing to make green claims would
have a standard method and benchmarkable data set. It
would also allow purchasers to make informed decision
about carbon related environmental benefits. The benefits
of such an exercise are clear however successful product
benchmarking should ensure that the data is truly
comparable and consistent.
The project was designed to undertake this work using a
consistent methodology assessing the impact of materials
and processes from the extraction of raw materials to the
manufacturer’s factory gate (a ‘cradle to gate’ assessment).
The project was designed to be cost effective, using
existing company data and a low cost, online carbon
calculator – the Furniture Footpriner™ tool.
A major challenge was to establish a footprinting
methodology that would be applicable to all companies
(across a diverse industry sector) that was cost effective yet
accurate enough to generate comparable data. Whilst
some companies have been collating data for some time,
this data often relates to differing accounting boundaries
and is subject to gaps, or missing data. These
inconsistencies only served to demonstrate the
complexities of data collection for accurate carbon
footprinting and the potential pitfalls when trying to
benchmark products or organisations.
The project identified a number of concerns relating to the
methodology used, the number of products assessed, and
the difficulty in getting accurate data from the global
furniture supply chain. Key to this was that the ‘cradle to
gate’ assessment makes no allowance for life span, or
the ability to re-use or recycle at the end of a product’s
life cycle.
The report therefore concluded that at this point in time the
production of product carbon footprint benchmarks utilising
the selected methodology is not currently desirable.
It is, therefore, important to note that the results presented
in this study are not appropriate for a furniture manufacturer,
specifier or consumer to make an informed decision on the
selection of a product based on its carbon footprint. In
addition, the results presented in this study do not allow
anyone to accurately establish that a product is better or
worse than an industry average.
This study into the feasibility of setting product benchmarks
for the furniture industry does, however, make an important
contribution to the understanding of furniture product
carbon footprints. It is expected that as greater volumes of
products are footprinted and the project methodology is
revised and improved, the accuracy of carbon footprint data
for furniture products will improve.
One of the major stimuli for commissioning this research
project was the lack of understanding and fragmented
approach to carbon footprinting in the industry. This lack of
consistency can create uncertainty around green claims
whether they are aimed at specifiers or consumers. In this
respect, the results of the project allowed to provide advice
to the UK furniture industry and furniture specifiers as well
as manufacturers.
Back to contents page
Terms and
definitions
For the purposes of this report, the following terms and
definitions apply:
Boundaries
The limit of emissions associated with the manufacture of a
product, or delivery of a service, that are included within a
carbon footprint.
Carbon
Throughout the report the term carbon shall mean Carbon
Dioxide Equivalent (CO
2
e).
Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO
2
e)
A unit which expresses the emissions of carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases in terms of their global warming
potential relative to carbon dioxide.
Carbon footprint
An estimate the total emission of greenhouse gases (GHG)
from the operation of an organisation or the manufacture of
a product, expressed in carbon dioxide equivalents.
Greenhouse gases (GHG)
A collection of gases that have been attributed with
increasing climate change set out by the IPCC and including
carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons
and perfluorocarbons.
07
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
A key finding from the report is that in the majority of
furniture ranges examined, the embedded carbon
contained within the materials and processes used for
the manufacture of the product were the highest
contributors to the product’s carbon footprint, rather than
company factors such as utilities or transportation. Thus
reducing the materials used in a product, or opting for
lower impact materials can considerably reduce a
product’s carbon footprint.
The report’s key conclusion is that carbon footprinting is
a very useful tool for the furniture industry. The more the
furniture industry understands the make up of its
products footprints the more it can look to reduce it in
targeted, intelligent and innovative ways.
One of the major
stimuli for
commissioning this
research project was
the lack of
understanding and
fragmented approach
to carbon footprinting
in the industry.
2.01.0
Back to contents page
The UK government’s response has been the adoption of the
Climate Change Act (2008), which has set a target of reducing
the UK’s carbon emissions in 2050 to a level 80% below the
1990 levels. To help meet these targets, several policies have
been introduced.
• The CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme, formerly the
Carbon Reduction Commitment. This is a mandatory
carbon emissions reporting and pricing scheme to cover
all organisations using more than 6,000MWh per year of
electricity.
• The EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). This is
designed to put a cap on the carbon emitted by certain
businesses (i.e. energy activities, production and
processing of ferrous metals, mineral industries and
some other industries such as production of pulp, paper
and board) and create a market and price for carbon
allowances.
• Climate Change Levy & Agreements. Climate Change
Levy (CCL) is a charge on energy usage for business and
the public sector with the aim of encouraging energy
efficiency. Related to this, Climate Change Agreements
(CCAs) allow energy intensive organisations (e.g. paper,
steel, glass and chemicals industries) a discount on the
levy provided that energy efficiency targets are met.
3.1 Background
Climate change is recognised as one of the greatest
challenges facing governments and nations across the
world. An increasing body of evidence
1
suggests that it
is human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels or
emissions from manufacturing processes, that is the
biggest cause of climate change. It has been stated that
the current level of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG)
could result in an increase of 6˚C in average global
temperatures by the end of the century
2
. The
consequences of this might include effects such as
extreme weather changes resulting in floods or droughts
and possibly leading to regional, social and political
instabilities.
In order to tackle the problem of climate change,
governments around the world have agreed targets for
the reduction of damaging GHG emissions. Many of
these commitments are expressed in the form of carbon
reduction. In this context the term carbon is used to
mean carbon dioxide equivalent (CO
2
e) – a
measurement that expresses the environmental effect of
a number of green house gases in terms of the
equivalent amount of carbon dioxide (CO
2
) that would
cause the same effect.
Introduction
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
Back to contents page
09
3.0
In addition to such government related drivers, there are
other incentives for businesses to consider when
managing their carbon impact:
• By taking action to reduce carbon emissions,
businesses can make substantial savings in their
material and energy use, often resulting in
considerable financial savings. Indeed, the rising
price of energy is becoming an increasingly
important driver for businesses to review their
energy consumption
3
.
• The demand for low carbon products and services,
particularly in the business to business market is
increasing. Many businesses are endeavouring to
enhance their green credentials and reduce their
own carbon emissions by procuring low carbon
products/services.
To service this increasing demand, and to gain a market
advantage, businesses are using environmental
performance as a key marketing message.
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
By taking action to
reduce carbon
emissions, businesses
can make substantial
savings in their material
and energy use, often
resulting in
considerable financial
savings.
Back to contents page
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
3.2 What is a carbon footprint?
For a business to reduce its carbon emissions, it first needs to
be able to measure how much carbon it is using and where it
is using it. In this respect, it is the ‘carbon footprint’ of a
business that would give an indication of its carbon impact.
Whilst the term ‘carbon footprint’ has varying definitions
4
, for
the purposes of assessing products it is widely accepted that
‘carbon footprinting is the methodology to estimate the total
emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) in carbon equivalents
from a product across its life cycle from the production of raw
material used in its manufacture to the disposal of the finished
product’
5
. These emissions may be caused directly or
indirectly by a person, organisation, event or product.
…for the purposes of
assessing products it is
widely accepted that
‘carbon footprinting is the
methodology to estimate
the total emissions of
greenhouse gases (GHG)
in carbon equivalents
from a product across its
life cycle from the
production of raw
material used in its
manufacture to the
disposal of the finished
product.
Two key forms of carbon footprint for businesses are:
• An organisational footprint. This may consist of
emissions from all the activities across an
organisation, including buildings, energy use,
industrial processes and company vehicles,
depending on the organisational boundaries selected.
• A footprint of a product or process. This consists
of emissions over the life of a product or service, and
may include all emissions from the extraction of raw
materials and manufacturing of the product, potentially
extending right through to its use and final reuse,
recycling or disposal.
Key to the carbon footprinting process is the determination of
what boundaries are used to assess an organisation, or
product; in other words what factors that affect a footprint are
included in the calculation of the footprint. For example, some
organisational footprints may include the carbon emissions
associated with the employees’ commute to work, whilst
others may exclude this. Some product footprints may
include the transportation impact of delivering a product from
the manufacturer to the customer, whilst others may choose
to stop their analysis at the factory gates. These differences in
boundaries between studies mean that not all company and
product footprints are directly comparable.
There are several publications that provide advice on
measuring the carbon impact of an organisation. In the UK,
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(DEFRA)
6
and the Carbon Trust
7
have published guidelines
for assessing an organisational footprint, and these have
been widely accepted, with a number of simple online tools
available using this as a basis for carbon footprint calculation.
Product footprinting is a more complex process. The British
Standards Institute (BSI), along with the Carbon Trust and
DEFRA, has published the Publicly Available Specification
(PAS) 2050
8
which gives guidelines on how to carry out a
product footprint. However as a PAS it does not have the
same weight as a British Standard, and carrying out a full
product carbon footprint in accordance with PAS 2050,
through the whole product supply chain, can be a very
expensive and time consuming process.
Back to contents page
11
3.0
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
It should be noted that PAS 2050 only addresses the
impact of global warming and does not consider other
economic and environmental impacts associated with a
product (e.g. non-greenhouse gas emissions, toxicity,
biodiversity, and acidification). Therefore carbon footprints
of products that are calculated using PAS 2050 do not
provide an indication of the total overall environmental
impact of a product. PAS 2050 studies provide valuable
tool for assessing the carbon footprint of goods and
services.
Globally there continues to be developments aiming to
standardize the methodologies used for the carbon
footprinting of products. The International Standards
Organisation (ISO) is currently working on a new standard
for “Carbon Footprints of Products” for the quantification
and communication of carbon emissions associated with
goods and services. This standard will build on the existing
ISO standards for life cycle assessments (ISO 14040/44)
9,10
and environmental labels and declarations (ISO 14025)
11
.
Publication of this ISO standard is expected in 2012.
Also worthy of note is the new GHG Protocol Product Life
Cycle Standard
12
published by the World Resources
Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for
Sustainable Development (WBCSD) in October 2011. This
standard can be used to understand the full life cycle
emissions of a product and focus efforts on the greatest
GHG reduction opportunities, whilst another publication by
the same organisation, the new GHG Protocol Corporate
Value Chain (Scope 3) Standard
13
allows companies to
assess their entire value chain emissions impact and
identify the most effective ways to reduce emissions.
Back to contents page
The UK furniture manufacturing industry is of considerable
importance to the UK economy. It generates in excess of
£8.3 billion of factory gate sales, and employs nearly one
hundred thousand people
14
. Furniture manufacturing, similar
to many other manufacturing industries, generates carbon
emissions, and as such, there is a great scope for industry
to assess and reduce its carbon impact. Currently, those
companies within the industry engaging in carbon
footprinting do so independently, utilising differing
boundaries and methodologies to assess their businesses
and products. The lack of consistent assessment
boundaries means that the data produced cannot always be
considered comparable.
With the increasing profile of carbon footprinting, and
anecdotal evidence that specifiers are starting to request
both company and product carbon footprints in tender
documents, The Furniture Industry Research Association
(FIRA), as the UK’s leading Association for the furniture
industry, initiated a project in 2010 to investigate the
feasibility of developing a carbon footprinting benchmarking
scheme for the UK furniture industry.
The project required the establishment of a consistent
methodology using defined boundary conditions that
could be adopted by the UK furniture manufacturing.
The FIRA carbon footprint
benchmarking project
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
When using this methodology, in conjunction with a simple,
low cost, footprinting tool (FIRA’s Furniture Footprinter
TM
),
comparable carbon footprints could be produced, that
would address the relative feasibilities of:
• Manufacturers calculating meaningful
carbon footprints to inform and measure
their own carbon usage and reductions.
• Manufacturers comparing the carbon
impact of their products with those of
their competitors.
• Specifiers procuring low carbon
furniture products based on a
benchmarking scheme.
Back to contents page
13
4.0
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
In investigating the feasibility of developing carbon
footprinting benchmarks for the UK furniture industry
a number of project objectives were set including:
To develop and critique a cost effective
methodology, from which UK furniture producers
could calculate the carbon footprint of their products.
To examine the viability of comparing the carbon
footprint of similar furniture products on a like for
like basis.
To identify furniture sectors and product categories
suitable for carbon footprint comparisons.
To provide industry carbon footprint benchmarks
for appropriate products.
To provide advice to the UK furniture industry and
furniture specifiers on the interpretation of product
carbon footprint claims.
To fulfil the aim and objectives of this project, and to give a
snapshot of product footprints in several of the UK furniture
industries, a range of items across the furniture sector were
selected. Key furniture items from Upholstery, Kitchens,
Bedding, Office Furniture and Contract Furniture sectors
were examined in terms of their carbon footprint. For
example, in the office sector, desks, chairs and pedestals
were investigated.
Objective
4
Objective
5
Objective
3
Objective
2
Objective
1
Participating
companies included…
Back to contents page
5.1 Introduction
The furniture industry is a diverse industry sector, with large
variations in business size and products produced.
Preliminary visits to project participants showed that the
existing methods of carbon footprinting and data collection
varied quite dramatically. These approaches were taken into
consideration when defining the final project methodology.
Overall, the biggest challenge of the project was to establish
a footprinting method that would be applicable to all
companies within a diverse industry sector, which was cost
effective, yet accurate enough to generate comparable data.
5.2 Project boundaries
There are several approaches to assessing the carbon
footprint of a product. These can include as little or as much
of a product’s lifecycle as desired, and thus it is important to
pick an approach which is fit for the intended purpose. A
product carbon footprint boundary can include the whole life
cycle, often called Cradle to Grave or Cradle to Cradle
assessment, or as a partial assessment, either a Cradle to
(Factory) Gate assessment or a Gate to Gate assessment
(i.e. in and out of a factory).
For the purposes of this project it was decided to use a
Cradle to Gate assessment. Cradle to Gate assessment
includes all carbon impacts from resource extraction of raw
materials ('cradle') to the factory gate (i.e. before a product is
transported to the next customer). The use and disposal
phases of the product’s lifecycle are omitted in this case. The
prime reason for selecting the Cradle to Gate assessment
was due to the fact that it is within this stage of a product’s
life cycle that is under the manufacturer’s direct control,
giving greater confidence in data accuracy and therefore a
better possibility of benchmarkable data.
Within the discipline of carbon footprinting there are other
boundaries that need to be defined. First, there are 2 basic
types of emissions that a company should consider when
calculating their carbon footprints; direct and indirect green
house gas (GHG) emissions.
• Direct GHG emissions are from sources that are
owned or controlled by the company.
• Indirect GHG emissions on the other hand are the
consequences of the activities of the company but
occur at sources owned or controlled by another
company.
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
Project methodology
Scope 1 emissions
These are direct GHG emissions from
sources owned or controlled by the
company (e.g. emissions from combustion
in boilers, furnaces, vehicles; emissions from
chemical production in owned or controlled
process equipment).
For the purpose of the project, scope 1 gross figures for fuels
combustion (boilers, furnaces of turbines) and owned transport
(cars, vans, lorries, ships, airplanes) were collected and
attributed to the production based on the unit output of the
manufacturing factory.
These direct and indirect emissions are further categorised
under 3 “scopes” (scope 1, scope 2 and scope 3). This
categorisation is designed to improve transparency and
consistency within GHG accounting and reporting
6
can be
summarised as above.
The study included full scope 1 and 2 emissions as well as
scope 3 emissions that are attributable to a product’s cradle
to gate impact.
The physical boundary for the companies assessed within the
project was defined as the site where the item was
manufactured. Therefore some aspects that are traditionally
included in a Cradle to Gate assessment such as emissions
from the transport of products to the first customer’ site, all
activities once the product has arrived at the first customer
(i.e. additional manufacturing steps, final product distribution)
were omitted.
Summary of project scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions
Back to contents page
15
5.0
Scope 2 emissions
These are GHG emissions from the
generation of purchased electricity, heat,
steam and cooling consumed by the
company. Scope 2 emissions physically
occur at the facility where electricity
is generated.
For the purpose of the project, scope 2 gross figures for the
consumption of purchased electricity were collected and
attributed to the product based on the unit output of the factory.
Scope 1 and 2 assessment denotes the basic organisational
footprint of a business as well as being used in the final
product carbon footprint.
Scope 3 emissions
These are a consequence of the activities
of the company, but occur from sources
not owned or controlled by the company
(e.g. extraction and production of purchased
materials; transportaion of purchased fuels;
and use of sold products and service.
For the purpose of the project, scope 3 gross figures for
purchased materials i.e. materials used directly in the product
including extraction/processing and production), transport-related
activities (i.e. distribution including bringing in materials and
components) and outsourcing were collected.
To summarise, the full list of emissions included in the
carbon footprinting benchmark assessments were:
● Raw materials and components
entering the premises
● Delivery of raw materials from the
first supplier
● Energy usage (e.g. fuel, electricity)
● Manufacturing processes onsite
● Manufacturing service consumables
● Outsourced activities
● Business and administration support
activities such as sales, operation of
the premises, cars and travel
● Packaging materials, both temporary
and permanent
● Storage of a product on site / or an
associated facility including
transport on site
5.3 Units of analysis
GHG emissions tell only part of the story with regard to
environmental impact and risk. However, they have been
given a strong policy focus by governments nationally and
internationally, are now within the focus of corporate
boardrooms, and therefore resonate well with industry and
wider stakeholders. For the purposes of this report, the
term carbon is taken to mean carbon dioxide equivalent, or
CO
2
e. The outputs from this project are thus reported in
kgCO
2
e, or the amount of carbon dioxide equivalent in
kilograms attributable to a final product.
Carbon dioxide equivalent as a unit includes the emissions
of carbon dioxide gas and other greenhouse gases
described in terms of their global warming potential relative
to carbon dioxide. The best way to explain this is through
an example. Like carbon dioxide, methane is a
greenhouse gas but methane has a ‘potency’ that is 25
times greater than that of carbon dioxide when it
comes to its global warming potential. For this
reason 1kg of methane released would
be represented in carbon footprint
calculations as 25 kgCO
2
e
15
.
For the purposes of this project the
mass of carbon to be reported is per
functional unit (i.e. per item of furniture).
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
Back to contents page
5.4 Project assumptions and exemptions
As previously mentioned, establishing a footprinting
method that would be applicable to all companies (within
a diverse industry sector) but was cost effective yet
accurate enough to generate comparable data was the
biggest challenge of this project. It was understood quite
early on in the project that there was a huge variation in
the way companies recorded and kept data as well as in
their willingness in supplying the project with the required
information.
The variation unavailability of data and the ease of
extracting relavent data in a cost effective way influenced
the final project methodology. To overcome these issues
number of project assumptions had to be made which in
some cases deviated from the guidance given in
documents such as PAS 2050
8
.
• Assumption 1: Average per product utility
consumption is representative of the utilities used in
the manufacturing of individual products, i.e. the
organisation’s total utilily footprint is divided by the
total number of products produced, regardless of
product type, to obtain an allocation of utilies per
product. Whilst this a deviation from PAS 2050, it
allowed the company and utility usage to be allocated
to a product by a simple calculation, rather than
expensive research and monitoring.
• Assumption 2: Transport emissions regarding the
transport of raw materials only include distances from
the first link in the supply chain, i.e. the transport
contribution is only from the organisation’s supplier,
such as a local distributer, rather than from source,
which may be overseas. In many cases
manufacturers may not be aware of the origin of a
component, and research down the supply chain can
be expensive, in addition it is generally accepted that
the transport of raw materials forms only a small
percentage of the total carbon impact of a product.
• Assumption 3: Data included in the methodology
represents an estimate of a cradle to gate carbon
footprint.
• Assumption 4: The average emissions factor data
used by the Furniture Footprinter
TM
tool are
representative of the embedded carbon seen in
materials used within the UK furniture industry.
• Assumption 5: Waste was accounted for in terms of
starting materials using a wastage factor. However the
processes used in the disposal of waste generated
during the production of a product including transport
of the waste from its point of post-sale use to the point
of disposal or recycling were not accounted for. The
weights of material used in the calculations are those
in the final product and no excess is accounted for.
This is another deviation from guidance given in
documents such as PAS 2050, however for ease of
data collection product information was taken from
Bills of Materials and Parts Lists, which do not
highlight wastage.
In addition to these, the following emissions were
excluded from project assessments:
• Manufacture and ongoing maintenance of capital
goods, such as plant machinery, transport
equipment, electricity generating plant, office furniture
for internal use.
• All office materials (stationery) and equipment
(computers, printers).
• The building and maintenance of premises.
• Staff commute to and from their place of work.
• Immaterial emissions (individual elements contributing
less than 1% of a footprint provided that these
elements, when combined, do not contribute 5% or
more towards the total footprint).
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
Image courtesy of Best Foot Forward
Back to contents page
17
5.5 Project tool
All carbon footprints calculated for this project were
produced using the FIRA Furniture Footprinter
TM
tool. This
tool was developed by FIRA in partnership with
environmental experts Best Foot Forward. The Furniture
Footprinter
TM
is an online carbon footprint calculator designed
specifically for the furniture industry.
It allows the furniture supply chain to quickly and easily
generate and compare carbon footprints for their businesses
and products. The tool was originally specified for use by
manufacturers, to provide a simple means of evaluating GHG
emissions and track reductions achieved over time.
Throughout this project, FIRA sought to determine whether
further extending the application of this tool for industry
benchmarking was feasible.
5.6 Data collection
To ensure that all carbon footprints were comparable every
attempt was made to ensure that data collection was
consistent. However, manufacturers collate manufacturing
information in different ways and it was, therefore, inevitable
that there were variations in the data used for the project.
Whilst this detracted from the overall carbon assessments, it
also identified potential problems in the feasibility of
producing furniture product benchmarks.
5.6.1 Utilities
Under Defra's greenhouse gas scopes utilities fall under
scope 1 and 2, either direct combustion on site or bought in
electricity, heat, steam and cooling. Therefore the Utilities
data for the project was primarily data directly collected from
utilities bills and readings from the site. This data was
collected as a year total then attributed to the product
footprint as a proportion of the total production output of
the factory.
This data included bought in electricity, natural gas supplied
to the premises and any gas/fuel oil or LPG bought in and
stored on site. Utilities omitted from the project were onsite
wood burning boilers and mains water supply.
5.6.2 Transport
The impact of transport was captured from two sources. The
sales activities of the company are designed to sell product
and therefore sales visits / company car usage and business
travel are part of each product’s carbon footprint. The
business travel element of this collection includes not only
cars but also flights and rail journeys. Due to the nature of
some companies’ record keeping practices some of these
values were estimated.
The second transport impact recorded by the project is the
incoming components’ transport from suppliers to the
factory. The distance components were brought in was
multiplied by their weight in tonnes to provide an input of
tonne kilometres. The Furniture Footprinter
TM
tool then has the
ability to display the amount of carbon generated per tonne
kilometre for a variety of average modes of transport. For
consistency, haulage transport was taken from a list of
averages for that mode of transport. For example, all
articulated lorries were assessed using the UK average for
articulated lorries rather than by a specific weight category.
This decision was made because often the type of articulated
lorry varied from delivery to delivery and data records were
not consistently available.
2.05.0
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
Back to contents page
5.6.3 Materials
In the majority of cases Furniture Footprinter
TM
requests the
user to record the materials content of products by weight.
These values were collected in two ways. The starting point
was always the bill of materials for the product. Some
companies kept weight information as part of their bill of
materials and in these cases data was transposed into an
intermediary spreadsheet and collated into a format that
could easily be put into the tool. In other cases the bill of
materials was used as a guide and each element of the
product was weighed manually.
The Furniture Footprinter
TM
does not contain data for all raw
materials. Selecting how to categorise composite materials
was more challenging. Where possible, materials were put
into the tool on a percentage content basis. For example if a
fabric was 50% polyester and 50% cotton based, the weight
of that fabric was split 50/50 between those two input
categories.
For categories where data on further processing was
available this was also added to the materials input. For
example where steel was powder coated this impact was
added to the metal input category.
5.6.4 Packaging
Packaging was given its own section in the analysis because
it was important to understand its carbon impact in relation to
the furniture concerned. A variety of different packaging was
assessed including plastic packaging, wood packaging, EG
pallets, cardboard packaging, foam packaging. Similar to the
approach used for materials (Section 5.6.3), these values
were collected either as weight information as part of a bill of
materials and transposed into the tool or the bill of materials
was used as a guide and each element of the product was
weighed manually.
5.6.5 Others
The others section includes inputs over and above basic
materials included in items of furniture or specific furniture
componentry. Items included in the others section include
gas lifts for chairs, edge banding and adhesives. Similar to
materials and packaging, these items, on majority, were
estimated using the weight information as part of a bill of
materials or by weighing each product manually.
5.7 Final project methodology
Once the project methodology and boundaries were defined
the data collection and footprint calculation methods were
finalised. As previously discussed, there are two main types
of carbon footprinting data; the organisational footprint of a
company and the footprint of individual products. A total
footprint comprises of the organisational footprint of a
company plus the footprint attributable to its products.
The carbon footprint of a product was estimated by
producing an organisational carbon footprint utilising scope 1
and 2 emissions and adding product materials procurement
and processes to this total. Product specific elements are the
materials used in the production of the furniture item and,
where applicable the production processes and finishes.
The company data was compiled from one year’s utilities
figures and one year’s business travel. This aggregated
footprint data was then attributed to individual products by
dividing the totals by the number of products manufactured
by the company in that year.
4.0
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
A total footprint
comprises of the
organisational footprint
of a company plus the
footprint attributable to
its products
Back to contents page
19
Kitchens
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
Back to contents page
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
6.1 Introduction
The UK has a strong kitchen manufacturing sector. In 2009
there were 1,200 kitchen manufacturers in the UK, and the
kitchen sector recorded sales in the region of £1.2 billion,
with imports making up just 20% of this total
16
. The
manufacture of kitchen units in the UK predominately
focuses on the manufacture of cabinets, utilising imported
frontals and hardware.
The manufacture of kitchen units in the UK predominately
focuses on the manufacture of cabinets, utilising imported
frontals and hardware.
6.2 Product selection
Unlike many other furniture products, kitchen carcasses are
normally manufactured to a standard size format, allowing
for inter-changeability. This has the additional bonus of
allowing for easier comparison between products. Table 1
shows the different products selected for assessment, which
are representative of items found in a typical kitchen. The
average carbon footprint for each product, as well as the
number of products assessed and the number of
manufacturers participating in the project is also shown in
this table.
Full data sets for all kitchen items are in Appendix 1.
However for the purposes of detailed analysis, four key
items were chosen. These key items represent high volume
products:
• 1000mm kitchen wall unit. A wall hanging carcass unit
1000mm in width with a set of double doors and at
least one shelf.
• 500mm wall unit. Similar in carcass construction to
the 1000mm wall unit but half the width. Due to its
smaller size it also only has a single door.
• 1000mm drawer line unit. A base unit normally
featuring a cutlery drawer, a door and at least one
shelf.
• 500mm drawer line unit. Similar in carcass
construction to the 1000mm drawer line unit but half
the width. Due to its smaller size it also only has a
single door.
Results - Kitchens
Table 1 Product data for kitchen items
Item
Number of
products
Number of
manufacturers
Estimated average
carbon footprint
(kgCO
2
e)
1000mm kitchen wall unit 5 4 25
500mm kitchen wall unit 9 7 18
1000mm drawer line unit 4 3 40
500mm drawer line unit 8 6 29
Full height base unit 4 4 17
1000mm storage unit 3 2 42
500mm storage unit 4 3 40
Worktops 4 1 26
Appliance housing 4 4 35
Base sink unit 1 1 22
Back to contents page
6.0
21
6.3 Carbon footprint analysis
The makeups of the average total carbon footprint of the four
key items of products are detailed in Figure 1.
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
The carbon footprints follow similar patterns, with the largest
carbon impact being the raw material content, primarily the
timber and board used in the product. The second highest
carbon contributor is the onsite company utilities usage
(which also makes up some of the organisational footprint).
However this should be analysed in the context that has been
described before regarding utility allocation of data.
The results also show that:
• For 500mm and 1000mm drawer line units, the third
largest carbon contributor is the metal content of the
product. The metal content relates to the hinges and
drawer runners used.
• The 1000mm drawer line unit has the highest footprint
of all the units as this item as it has the highest raw
material volumes.
• The 500mm wall unit is physically half the size of the
1000mm wall unit, however, its carbon footprint is not
half the magnitude of the 1000mm wall unit. This is
probably due to the material content in the smaller unit
being more than half of the larger unit. It may also
indicate that the project methodology in allocating
proportion of the utilities may not justified. However the
implications of this should be fairly insignificant
because the utility is not the largest component of the
overall carbon footprint.
Figure 1 The average total carbon footprint of kitchen items
Timber and board
Metal
Plastic
Packaging
Transport
Utilities
Other
01020304050
1000mm kitchen wall unit
%
Timber and board
Metal
Plastic
Packaging
Transport
Utilities
Other
01020304050
500mm kitchen wall unit
%
Timber and board
Metal
Plastic
Packaging
Transport
Utilities
Other
01020304050
1000mm drawer line unit
%
Timber and board
Metal
Plastic
Packaging
Transport
Utilities
Other
01020304050
500mm drawer line unit
%
Back to contents page
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
Figure 2 shows further analysis of the product data and
highlights the variation of the individual emission categories
that make up a total carbon footprint. This analysis shows
which emission categories have the highest variation and
highlights differences in manufacturing methods.
Figure 2 Data variation for each category of carbon footprint input relative to the average carbon footprint for the key
kitchen products. The data variation graphs represent the maximum and minimum variation in the data relative to the
average value. The zero value on the graph represents the average carbon footprint.
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
1000mm wall unit
Timber and board
Metal
Plastic
Packaging
Transport
Utlities
Other
kgCO
2
e
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
500mm wall unit
Timber and board
Metal
Plastic
Packaging
Transport
Utlities
Other
kgCO
2
e
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
1000mm drawer line unit
Timber and board
Metal
Plastic
Packaging
Transport
Utlities
Other
kgCO
2
e
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
500mm drawer line unit
Timber and board
Metal
Plastic
Packaging
Transport
Utlities
Other
kgCO
2
e
Back to contents page
23
6.0
For all units, but especially the wall units, there was
significant variation in the energy used in the manufacture of
the product. There is, therefore, a potential opportunity for
some manufacturers to implement energy efficiency
measures to reduce the total carbon footprint of their
products. An added advantage of a focus on energy
efficiency is that it is very likely to result in costs savings and
increased competitiveness over the medium to long term.
However it is important to note that the methodology used in
this project for allocating utility use does not highlight this.
When examining the drawer line units it was noted that the
variation in data for raw materials (i.e. metal and
timber/board) was more pronounced compared to that for
the wall units. The variation in timber/board may be due to
differences in styles, or differences in the thickness of board
used. Variation in metal content is primarily due to some
units featuring a metal box type drawer construction, whilst
others utilise an MDF drawer with smaller runners.
Product variation within similar looking items will also be a
function of price point. For example, more expensive ranges
may have sturdier construction with more timber support
within the unit.
Different price ranges and designs may also include slightly
different materials make-ups. For example the inclusion of
Medium Density Fibreboard (MDF) supports or sections can
influence the final footprint. Whilst the predominant material
used in kitchen manufacturing is Melamine Faced
Chipboard (MFC), MDF was also identified as a
manufacturing material in some units. The use of MDF
instead of MFC is important because the carbon footprint of
MDF is estimated to be 24% higher than that of MFC. MDF
is often used in more expensive products.
In conclusion, the data collected indicates that
manufacturers and designers looking to reduce the
embedded carbon within their product should look to
minimise the amount of board materials and metal within
their products, and review the type of drawer construction
used. This is, however, only part of the story as product life is
also important. A thicker carcass and more durable
hardware may result in a longer life span, which may reduce
the overall environmental impact of the product. However it
should be noted that product lifespan is not in the scope of
this project.
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
In conclusion, the data collected indicates that
manufacturers and designers looking to reduce the
embedded carbon within their product should look
to minimise the amount of board materials and
metal within their products, and review the type of
drawer construction used.
Back to contents page
Domestic
Back to contents page
7.1 Introduction
The UK has a strong bedding manufacturing industry,
predominately focusing on mattresses, divan units and
headboards. Bed frames, however are often imported in a flat
pack state and then assembled. In 2009 there were 114 UK
based companies manufacturing mattresses and divans. The
sector recorded sales of nearly £600 million, with imports
accounting for approximately 13% of this
16
.
7.2 Product selection
The bedding items selected for analyses were those
commonly manufactured in the UK, and are shown in Table 2.
The average carbon footprint for each product, as well as the
number of products assessed, and the number of
manufacturers participating in the project, are also shown
in Table 2.
7.3 Carbon footprint analysis
Full data sets for all bedding items are in Appendix 2. For the
purposes of detailed analysis, only two key items were
chosen as insufficient data was gathered for single divans
and headboards to allow valid comparisons to be made.
The average total carbon footprint of double mattresses and
double divans along with the makeup of the carbon footprints
are shown in Figure 3.
Results - Bedding
7.0
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
Table 2 Product data for bedding items
Item
Number of
products
Number of
manufacturers
Estimated
average
carbon
footprint
(kgCO
2
e)
Double
mattress
19 4 79
Single divan 2 1 33
Double divan 6 3 35
Headboard 2 2 22
Figure 3 The average total carbon footprint of
bedding items
Timber and board
Foams and fillings
Textiles
Metal
Plastic
Packaging
Transport
Utilities
Other
01020304050
Double mattress
%
Timber and board
Foams and fillings
Textiles
Metal
Plastic
Packaging
Transport
Utilities
Other
01020304050
Double divan
%
25
Back to contents page
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
The footprints of double mattresses and double divans are
quite different from each other.
For mattresses, the carbon impact of raw materials (i.e.
foams and fillings, textiles and metals) has the biggest
impact.
For double divans, whilst the carbon impact of the raw
materials was also high, the utilities used in the manufacturing
process appeared to have a more significant impact. This
may be a true indication of the energy used to make a double
divan. However it may also be that the project methodology in
allocating a proportion of the utilities to double divan
manufacture and a proportion to mattress manufacture may
not be justified in this case.
Figure 4 shows further analysis of the product data and
highlights the variation of the individual emission categories
that make up a total carbon footprint. This analysis shows
which emissions categories have the highest variation and
highlights differences in manufacturing methods/products.
The results show that for double divans, the largest variation
in carbon impact was found in metal content. This variation,
however, was due to data relating to one product assessed
that featured a sprung edge.
Figure 4 - Data variation for each category of carbon footprint input to the average carbon footprint for the key bedding
products. The data variation graphs represent the maximum and minimum variation in the data relative to the average
value. The zero value on the graph represents the average carbon footprint.
Double mattress
Timber and board
Foams and fillings
Textiles
Metal
Plastic
Packaging
Transport
Utlities
Other
kgCO
2
e
100
80
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
Divan
Timber and board
Foams and fillings
Textiles
Metal
Plastic
Packaging
Transport
Utlities
Other
kgCO
2
e
100
80
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
For mattresses, the greatest variation in
carbon impact was found in the foams
and fillings used.
Back to contents page
27
2.0
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
7.0
The design of products has a significant effect on
carbon footprints. For example, the carbon footprint
of a double mattress depended most on the amount
and type of foam/filling used with larger amounts of
filling leading to higher
carbon footprints.
The second largest variation was shown to be the timber
content. The basic wooden frame of a simple divan is usually
standard in nature from company to company assuming an
item of equal size. However, the data contains divans of
different styles, some of sturdier construction, some including
draws or some including sprung edge designs. This variation
in design plays a large role in determining the timber footprint
of a divan.
For mattresses, the greatest variation in carbon impact was
found in the foams and fillings used. Mattresses come in a
number of designs including sprung, pocket sprung and
foam. In addition, price points are determined by thickness
and comfort which also relates to the volume of materials in a
product.
The project analysed all types of mattress, and this affected
the spread of results. For example, two foam mattresses were
examined. These have much higher foam content than spring
mattresses and therefore affect the average and variation for
all items. In addition, the foam mattresses have no springs,
which again affect the variation, and average for all mattress
products.
Higher variation in textiles’ footprints might have been
expected due to the range of double mattresses that were
considered but this was not the case.
The design of products has a significant effect on carbon
footprints. For example, the carbon footprint of a double
mattress depended most on the amount and type of
foam/filling used with larger amounts of filling leading to
higher carbon footprints.
In terms of the specific foams/fillings, polyester wadding is
estimated to have a carbon impact that is more than double
that of cotton based wadding. Wool is considered a textile
rather than a filling, making comparison with other fillings
difficult; however the wool textile is estimated to be more
carbon intensive than both polyester and cotton wadding.
The use of felt, however, is a relatively carbon efficient method
of padding a mattress as it is estimated to have has a carbon
intensity that is a quarter of the intensity of polyester wadding.
Similarly, the tool indicates that polyurethane foam has an
estimated lower footprint than that of Visco-elastic foam, by
approximately 20% assuming the same weight. The data
indicates that polyester wadding is used much more widely
than cotton wadding. Frequently fillings are made up of a
blend of polyester and cotton. In this case increasing the
percentage of cotton in a filling allows a
manufacturer/designer to reduce the total carbon footprint of
the mattress.
Back to contents page
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
8.1 Introduction
In 2009 the sector recorded sales of over £1.3 billion, with
imports accounting for approximately 43% of this
16
.
Results - Upholstery
8.3 Carbon footprint analysis
Full data sets for all the upholstery items are in Appendix 3.
However, for the purposes of detailed analysis, only two key
items were chosen as insufficient data was gathered for
footstools, electric chairs and sofa beds to allow comparisons
to be made. Additionally, sofas and armchairs represent the
majority of the production for most of the manufacturers who
participated in the project.
Figure 5 illustrates the average total carbon footprint of the
two key items of upholstered furniture and the makeups of
this carbon footprint.
Figure 5 The average total carbon footprint of key
upholstery items
Timber and board
Foams and fillings
Textiles
Metal
Plastic
Packaging
Transport
Utilities
Other
01020304050
Sofa
%
Timber and board
Foams and fillings
Textiles
Metal
Plastic
Packaging
Transport
Utilities
Other
01020304050
Armchair
%
Table 3 Product data for upholstery items
Item
Number of
products
Number of
manufacturers
Estimated
average
carbon
footprint
(kgCO
2
e)
Sofa 11 3 90
Arm chair 5 3 43
Footstool 1 1 17
Electric chair 1 1 75
Sofa bed 1 1 88
8.2 Product selection
The most common upholstery items were selected for
assessment and are listed in Table 3. The average carbon
footprint for each product, as well as the number of products
assessed and the number of manufacturers participating in
the project is also shown in the table.
Photo courtesy of Wesley-Barrell
Back to contents page
29
8.0
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
The largest contributor to total carbon footprint for both items
is material content, in particular foams and fillings. Other
emissions categories of importance are the fabric content
and frame material, which in the majority of cases is wood.
Figure 6 shows variation of data analysis for sofas and
armchairs to allow conclusions as to what area a
manufacturer can focus on to reduce the carbon footprint of
their products.
For an armchair, the impact of company specific utilities and
transport elements are more significant than for the sofa. This
may indicate that the energy needed to make an armchair is
similar to that needed to make a sofa, as the same
production processes are used, despite the smaller size of
the product. However it may also be that the project
methodology in allocating proportion of the utilities may not
be justified in this case. The figure for utilities is averaged out
across all the products so the methodology suggests by its
very nature that a sofa, armchair and footstool all require the
Figure 6 Data variation for each category of carbon footprint input to the average carbon footprint for the key upholstery
items. The data variation graphs represent the maximum and minimum variation in the data relative to the average value.
The zero value on the graph represents the average carbon footprint.
Sofa
Timber and board
Foams and fillings
Textiles
Metal
Plastic
Packaging
Transport
Utlities
Other
kgCO
2
e
5
10
15
20
0
-5
-10
-15
Armchair
Timber and board
Foams and fillings
Textiles
Metal
Plastic
Packaging
Transport
Utlities
Other
kgCO
2
e
5
10
15
20
0
-5
-10
-15
same energy to manufacture. However, it is not possible to
assess the validity of this assumption due to the methodology
adopted in this research.
Figure 6 shows that the largest variation of data for both
upholstered items is its raw material content, particularly
foams and fillings. This indicates that significant reductions in
the carbon footprint of a sofa can be achieved by minimizing
the amount of fillings used, or by switching to fillings with the
least carbon impact. The carbon footprint of polyurethane
foam is estimated to be approximately 20% lower than that of
visco-elastic foam.
Back to contents page
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
Office
Back to contents page
9.0
9.1 Introduction
There are many players within the UK office seating industry.
Manufacturers of seating vary from those that design and
build their own products in the UK to those who effectively
assemble a kit of parts, predominately sourced from outside
the UK. However the majority of manufacturers would be a
combination of the two.
In 2009 the sector recorded sales of over £250 million, with
imports accounting for over 60% of this
16
.
9.2 Product selection
Two different types of chairs were assessed for this study and
these are shown in Table 4. A task chair is a chair with a seat
height adjustment mechanism designed to be used with a
desk and a computer, while a visitor chair is a side chair for
occasional/meeting use. The average carbon footprint for
each product, as well as the number of products assessed
and the number of manufacturers participating in the project
are shown in Table 4.
Results - Office chairs
9.3 Carbon footprint analysis
Full data sets for both types of chairs are contained in
Appendix 4. The average carbon footprints of both chairs and
the makeups of the average total carbon footprints are shown
in Figure 7.
Figure 7 The average total carbon footprint of key
office chair items
Timber and board
Foams and fillings
Textiles
Metal
Plastic
Packaging
Transport
Utilities
Other
01020304050
Task chair
%
Timber and board
Foams and fillings
Textiles
Metal
Plastic
Packaging
Transport
Utilities
Other
01020304050
Visitor chair
%
31
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
Table 4 Product data for office chairs
Item
Number of
products
Number of
manufacturers
Estimated
average
carbon
footprint
(kgCO
2
e)
Task chair 13 6 72
Visitor chair 3 3 36
Back to contents page
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
For a task chair, the two major contributors to the final
product footprint are the carbon embodied within just two
materials; metal and plastic. These two materials account for
approximately 70% of the total footprint of a task chair. The
shape of the carbon footprint of a visitor chair is more uniform
with all the components having an impact on the overall
footprint.
The variation of data for the footprints of a task chair and
visitor chair are illustrated in Figure 8.
For a task chair, the greatest variation is within the key
construction materials, i.e. metal and plastic. The largest
variation between footprints is attributable to metal content.
Many chairs, especially those assembled from a kit of parts
have a predominantly plastic construction, with minimal metal
content restricted to the gas lift cylinder and seat reclining
mechanism. However, more design-led products often use
metal components as a style feature, particularly in the base
of the product.
Significant carbon footprint reductions can be achieved by
minimising metal content, followed by plastic and then other
materials.
Visitor chairs vary significantly in design from simple wooden
or metal framed side seats, to heavily upholstered side
chairs. This explains why there are significant carbon
emissions variations between the base materials. The largest
variation was within foams and fillings components. This
suggests that fully upholstered chairs will have a higher
carbon impact than other designs.
As with the analysis of the kitchen sector the carbon
footprints produced for the office seating sector only look at
the carbon embedded in the product, and do not consider
the life span of a product. Metal components may give a
longer life span than plastic components, and are potentially
easier to re-cycle.
Figure 8 Data variation for each category of carbon
footprint input to the average carbon footprint for the key
office chair items. The data variation graphs represent the
maximum and minimum variation in the data relative to the
average value. The zero value on the graph represents the
average carbon footprint.
Task chair
Timber and board
Foams and fillings
Textiles
Metal
Plastic
Packaging
Transport
Utlities
Other
kgCO
2
e
0
-20
-40
20
40
60
80
Visitor chair
Timber and board
Foams and fillings
Textiles
Metal
Plastic
Packaging
Transport
Utlities
Other
kgCO
2
e
0
-20
-40
20
40
60
80
Back to contents page
33
10.1 Introduction
There are two main types of office storage manufacturers,
those that focus predominantly on metal storage and those
that are constructed from both board and metal. In 2009, the
sector recorded sales of over £578 million, with imports
accounting for 24% of this
16
.
10.2 Product selection
A number of different storage products commonly found in
an office were assessed for this study. These are shown in
Table 5 together with the average carbon footprint for each
product, as well as the number of products assessed and the
number of manufacturers participating in the project.
10.3 Carbon footprint analysis
Full data sets for all office storage items are in Appendix 5.
For the purposes of detailed analysis, two key items were
chosen. These key items are the desk high pedestal and
bookcase. Insufficient data was gathered for the other
products to allow comparisons to be made
The average carbon footprints of the 2 key items of office
storage furniture and the makeups of the average carbon
footprints are shown in Figure 9.
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
10.0
Results - Office storage
Figure 9 The average total carbon footprint of key office
storage items.
Timber and board
Metal
Plastic
Packaging
Transport
Utilities
Other
010203040 50 60 70
Desk high pedestal
%
Timber and board
Metal
Plastic
Packaging
Transport
Utilities
Other
010203040 50 60 70
Bookcase
%
Table 5 Product data for office storage
Item
Number of
products
Number of
manufacturers
Estimated
average
carbon
footprint
(kgCO
2
e)
Desk high
pedestal
7 5 28
Bookcase 3 3 18
Wooden filing
cabinet
2148
Tambour 2 2 50
Steel pedestal 1 1 44
Cupboard 2 2 31
Back to contents page
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
Whilst a desk high pedestal is normally of a standard size,
bookcases can vary considerably in size. While every effort
was made to ensure that the products selected were similar in
size, it was not always possible to achieve this, and this point
needs to be taken into account when reviewing the bookcase
footprint.
For both items, the largest carbon contribution is found in the
timber and board content. This is particularly true for
bookcases, which were constructed almost entirely from
timber based materials.
For the desk high pedestal, the carbon impact of metal and
plastic content are also high compared with other emissions.
These relate to the drawer runners and castors that are
sometimes fitted to the products. In contrast, the contribution
from the manufacturer’s utilities is much lower than the
embodied carbon in the board, metal and plastic.
The variation of the carbon footprint data for the desk high
pedestal and the bookcase is shown in Figure 10.
For desk high pedestals, the greatest variation in the carbon
footprint is in the timber and board, metal and plastic
categories. This variation can be attributed to the fact that not
all desk high pedestals are manufactured from the same
materials. Some pedestals feature a predominately metal
construction, whilst others are manufactured from board. It
was noted that those products that featured metal or plastic in
place of board materials had a higher overall carbon footprint.
For the bookcases, the main variables are the timber/board
and company utilities components of the footprint. Despite the
bookcases not being of standard sizes the data variation was
quite low compared to the variation in desk high pedestal
carbon footprints. Since the amount of timber/board used in a
wooden bookcase would be fairly constant, this may suggest
that utilities contribution has a significant impact. However it is
important to note that the methodology used to attribute the
whole company utility usage to a product is not accurate
enough to make any definite conclusions regarding the effect
of utilities in a product’s carbon footprint.
As with all other sectors, it should be remembered that the
product footprints produced take no account of the life span
of a product, and that different designs and/or materials may
extend the usable life of a product despite containing more
initial embedded carbon.
Figure 10 Data variation for each category of carbon
footprint input to the average carbon footprint for the key
office storage items. The data variation graphs represent
the maximum and minimum variation in the data relative to
the average value. The zero value on the graph represents
the average carbon footprint.
Desk high pedestal
Timber and board
Metal
Plastic
Packaging
Transport
Utlities
Other
kgCO
2
e
5
10
15
0
-5
-10
Bookcase
Timber and board
Metal
Plastic
Packaging
Transport
Utlities
Other
kgCO
2
e
5
10
15
0
-5
-10
Back to contents page
11.0
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
11.1 Introduction
Office desk manufacturers in the UK supply large amounts of
product to the contract sector and often install desking
systems as well as selling pre-made or flat packed desks.
These companies frequently offer whole office solutions
including seating and storage. Similar to figures for office
storage (Section 10.0), in 2009, the sector recorded sales of
over £578 million (excluding seating), with imports
accounting for 24% of this
16
.
11.3 Carbon footprint analysis
The full data sets for all the desk items can be found in
Appendix 6. However, for the purposes of the detailed
analysis, the 1600mm x 800mm rectangular desk was
chosen. Made up of an MFC top and metal supports, this
desk is one of the most common desk sizes marketed in
the UK.
The average carbon footprints, and its component parts, of
these desks are shown in Figure 11.
Unsurprisingly the results show that the two largest
contributors to the product’s final footprint are timber/board
and metal.
Results - Office desks
Figure 11 The average total carbon footprint of a
1600mm x1800mm rectangular desk.
Timber and board
Metal
Plastic
Packaging
Transport
Utilities
Other
01020304050
Office desk
%
35
11.2 Product selection
The UK desking manufacturing industry tends to produce
desks with standard worktop sizes, to meet both customer
demand, and to allow some interchangeability of products in
the work place. Table 6 shows the most common office desk
types selected for assessment in this study.
The average carbon footprint, the number of products used
for this carbon footprint and the number of manufacturers are
also shown in Table 6.
Table 6 Product data for office desks
Item
Number of
products
Number of
manufacturers
Estimated
average
carbon
footprint
(kgCO
2
e)
1600mm x 1800mm
rectangular desk
8 6 35
6 people bench
desk
2 2 228
1600mm x 800mm
wave desk
1163
1600mm x 1200mm
work station
1 1 45
Back to contents page
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
Figure 12 shows the variation of data for the individual
emission categories that make up the total carbon footprint.
The large variation for metal is attributable to desk design.
Metal supports (e.g. four standard legs or a cantilever
configuration) result in a greater footprint than the use of MFC
panel legs.
The desks are manufactured to a defined table top size, with
similar materials, and, as such, there was very little variance
between products.
Unlike all other products, the second largest footprint variation
is attributable to transport.
It is important to note that the methodology followed for the
calculation of the transport impact (i.e. considering first
supplier only) may significantly under estimate this effect for
some manufacturers. Two manufacturers imported significant
amounts of product from their European manufacturing base,
skewing the transport figures considerably, whilst others
declared the transport impact of purchased materials only
from a local agent.
Figure 12 Data variation for each category of carbon
footprint input to the average carbon footprint for the
rectangular desk. The zero value on the graph represents
the average carbon footprint.
Office desks
Timber and board
Metal
Plastic
Packaging
Transport
Utlities
Other
kgCO
2
e
5
10
15
20
0
-5
-10
-15
Back to contents page
Contract
Back to contents page
12.1 Introduction
Contract furniture extends wider than the office sector,
although some items referred to as contract cross over to the
office sector. It includes supply to commercial premises such
as hotels, restaurants, conference centres, schools and care
homes
12.2 Product selection
Producing averages for furniture sold into the contract sector
is challenging because standard items are rare. In many
cases the items made for this sector are bespoke and
designed to fulfil a specific contract. For this reason, the high
volume products from each manufacturer were assessed.
These items are shown in Table 7 together with the average
carbon footprint for each product, as well as the number of
products assessed and the number of manufacturers
participating in the project.
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
Results - Contract furniture
12.3 Carbon footprint analysis
Full data sets for contract furniture are in Appendix 6. For the
purposes of detailed analysis, two key items were chosen.
These key items are dining tables and dining chairs.
Insufficient data was gathered for waiting room beam seating
to allow any comparisons to be made.
The products’ average carbon footprints and component
parts are in Figure 13.
01020304050
Dining table
%
Timber and board
Foams and fillings
Textiles
Metal
Plastic
Packaging
Transport
Utilities
Other
01020304050
Dining chairs
%
Timber and board
Foams and fillings
Textiles
Metal
Plastic
Packaging
Transport
Utilities
Other
Table 7 Product data for contract furniture
Item
Number of
products
Number of
manufacturers
Estimated
average
carbon
footprint
(kgCO
2
e)
Dining table 3 3 25
Dining chairs 3 1 27
Waiting room
beam seating
2166
Figure 13 The average total carbon footprint of key
contract furniture items
Back to contents page
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
39
12.0
For both products, the raw material content is responsible for
the largest carbon impact; timber and board for dining tables
and foams and fillings for dining chairs. The results also
indicate the significant impact of utilities. However the
methodology used to attribute the whole company utility
usage to a product is not accurate enough to make any
definite conclusions regarding the effect of utilities in the
product’s carbon footprint.
A range of different sized dining tables were assessed hence,
as expected, the largest footprint variation is attributable to
the timber / board components.
Dining chair footprints are governed by the style of the chair.
Heavily upholstered chairs tend to exhibit higher footprints.
This reflects the trend for other upholstered products
(Section 8.0).
Reductions in the carbon footprint of a contract dining chair
can be achieved by minimizing the amount of fillings used, or
by switching to fillings with the least carbon impact. However,
it is important to note that due to the bespoke nature of
contract furniture, product design is influenced by the end
user and design changes will not be as simple as in, for
example, the office sector.
Figure 14 Data variation for each category of carbon
footprint input to the average carbon footprint for the key
contract furniture items. The data variation graphs
represent the maximum and minimum variation in the data
relative to the average value. The zero value on the graph
represents the average carbon footprint.
Contract dining tables
Timber and board
Foams and fillings
Textiles
Metal
Plastic
Packaging
Transport
Utlities
Other
kgCO
2
e
5
10
15
0
-5
-10
Contract dining chairs
Timber and board
Foams and fillings
Textiles
Metal
Plastic
Packaging
Transport
Utlities
Other
kgCO
2
e
5
10
15
0
-5
-10
Back to contents page
13.0
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
Carbon footprinting is a complex science. Full product
footprint analysis, where the complete product supply chain
is examined in detail, certainly has merit in terms of it
increased accuracy but has significant cost implications.
The analyses within this report are based on average
emissions values for raw materials. This inevitably introduces
a degree of uncertainty, but is a cost effective alternative to
assessing the actual footprint of each material within a
product. Using such data encourages industry engagement
in a concept that might previously have been considered to
be prohibitively expensive.
Other uncertainties for raw materials are also likely such as:
• Footprints for some materials are not available and a
closest fit approximation has to be made using data
for a similar material;
• Determining the exact make up of composite products
can be difficult and this has been addressed by
estimating the average makeup of the materials in a
product (such as a castor). However overall, the
number of composite products that were minimal so
any uncertainty from this should be very small;
• All materials figures are UK based averages. e.g. a
piece of steel is assigned the same footprint whether
manufactured in China or the UK which may result in
over or under-estimating the true carbon footprint of a
steel component;
• Uncertainty in estimating the impact of transportation
is due to the limit of transport data collection only
extending to the first supplier. If a company is buying
through local distributors the true carbon impact of
bringing raw materials to site will be underestimated.
Potential uncertainties in estimating the impact of Utilities can
be attributed to the following factors:
• Business model – different business models and
levels of manufacturing affect the utilities usage. The
amount of manufacturing one company does
compared to another varies considerably across the
industry. A company may essentially assemble
furniture or construct it from raw materials. In addition
a utilities figure for one company might include office
and warehouse facilities where as other companies
figures may relate only to dedicated manufacturing
sites. This creates a problem both internally within a
sector but also externally when comparing cross
sector products.
• Utilities averaged across different product types –
when a manufacturer makes several product types,
methodological choices mean that they all have the
same utilities footprint. Consequently a footstool
appears to require the same energy to manufacture as
a 3 seat sofa.
• Companies record their total manufacturing output in
different ways. A unit is not always a complete item of
furniture. This will lead to some inconsistency in
attributing company values to individual products.
Uncertainty
Back to contents page
41
14.0
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
Feasibility of benchmarking
of furniture products
The aim of this project was to assess the feasibility of
producing product footprint benchmarks for the furniture
industry. In doing so companies wishing to make green
claims would have a standard method and benchmarkable
data set. It would also allow purchasers to make informed
decision about carbon related environmental benefits.
The benefits of such an exercise are clear however successful
product benchmarking should ensure that the data is truly
comparable and consistent.
Figure 15 shows the average total carbon footprint, and within
product variations, for the products highlighted within this
report. The number of products that the data are derived from
(i.e. n) is also shown.
Figure 15 Summary of total average carbon footprints for all key items of furniture. The error bars denote the variation
of data and n stands for the number of products that the data are derived from.
1000mm wall unit (n=5)
500mm wall unit (n=9)
900/1000 drawer line unit (n=4)
500mm drawer line unit (n=8)
Mattress (n=8)
Divan (n=8)
Sofa (n=11)
Armchair (n=5)
Task chair (n=13)
Visitor reception chair (n=7)
Desk high pedestal (n=7)
Bookcase (n+3)
1600 x 800 rectangular desk (n=8)
Dining table (n=3)
Dining chairs (n=3)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
kgCO
2
e
Back to contents page
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
Figure 16 Summary of % change between minimum and maximums carbon footprints for all key items of furniture,
n stands for the number of products that the data are derived from.
Figure 16 shows the difference between the minimum and
maximum carbon footprint for all key items as a percentage
of the average carbon footprint.
The key component that makes up the carbon footprint of an
item of furniture is the amount and type of material used in a
product.
In the kitchen sector the variation of products is relatively
small, as products are all of the same design, and
manufactured in the same materials.
In other sectors the large variation in footprints shown in
Figure 16 predominately relates to product design.
An office chair featuring a metal base and mesh fabric could
have a significantly higher carbon footprint than a simple,
predominantly plastic design, despite fulfilling the same
purpose.
The carbon footprint for mattresses varies considerably.
However, a consumer could make an informed decision on
what mattress to select, by balancing the carbon impact of
the product against its comfort in use. Similarly a designer of
an office chair could look to replace as many metal
components with plastic in order to ensure that his product
has a low carbon footprint when placed on the market.
However the study identified some fundamental issues with
the methodology used which affect the feasibility of initiating
a carbon footprint benchmarking scheme at this time.
Dining chairs (n=3)
Dining table (n=3)
1600 x 800 rectangular desk (n=8)
Bookcase (n+3)
Desk high pedestal (n=7)
Visitor reception chair (n=7)
Task chair (n=13)
Armchair (n=5)
Sofa (n=11)
Divan (n=8)
Mattress (n=8)
500mm drawer line unit (n=8)
900/1000 drawer line unit (n=4)
500mm wall unit (n=9)
1000mm wall unit (n=5)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
% Change between min and max values
Back to contents page
43
14.0
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
• Where variation in footprints within product types is
large it is difficult to define an average, poor or good
carbon footprint. This is particularly the case when
sample numbers are low. The remedy is to undertake a
larger number of product assessments, thus ensuring
greater statistical certainty to any published data.
• Despite the best intentions of the researchers, it was
extremely difficult to ensure consistency of data input
and comparable boundaries (for example errors
associated with the distance from first suppliers and
relative contributions of “business wide footprints”).
• The emissions factors selected for inclusion in the
Furniture Footprinter™ tool used for the project only
account for emissions applicable to products
manufactured in the UK. It is not suitable for estimating
the carbon impact of product manufactured in Europe,
the US or Far East, where the embedded carbon
values for both materials and utilities will be
considerably different. As approximately 40% of
products sold in the UK are imported16, it is not
feasible to compare and ratify the footprints of all
products on the market without up stream supply chain
data collection.
• Similarly when components and hardware are
purchased from overseas manufacturers the carbon
impact is only assessed based on UK data for the
base material (rather than the actual data for the
country of manufacture), and contains no energy
usage component. This may mean a manufacturer
using imported components may be assigned a lower
or higher footprint than is actually the case.
• A conscious decision was made to include UK average
materials emissions factors to maximise simplicity and
usability in the Furniture Footprinter
TM
tool. This does,
however create a problem when comparing product
footprints including components or materials from
several countries. This fact removes the incentive in
switching to a supplier with a lower carbon footprint if
showing a calculated reduction in your product carbon
footprint is your primary motivating factor. This is
particularly significant because the results show that
the materials component of the overall footprint for
most products is very significant. Therefore, the
accounting methodology permits tacking of only two of
three key options to address this impact: design out
either material weight or high carbon intensity
materials. However, while this is a problem, it is clear
that a company that is serious about reducing its
materials footprint needs to invest in further
investigation of those elements that will have a
significant impact.
• Externally sourced materials and components are
sometimes bought in bulk directly from an overseas
supplier, (carbon emissions attributable to transport are
thus declared), whereas others are sourced from a
local agent, and only the transport impact from the
local agent is declared, thus distorting the comparative
carbon footprints. However the data gathered showed
that the impact of transport is relatively insignificant in
the product footprint and hence not a huge factor.
• It is important to note that the methodology used in this
project does not currently fully account any pre-
manufacturing processes that are involved in the
components of an item like a task chair. This may result
in a company that brings in the components of a
product rather than manufacturing them in-house to
underestimate the carbon footprint of the final product.
A more detailed and lengthy, and hence expensive,
methodology would have to employed in order to map
the carbon impact of manufacturing a unit of furniture.
The key component that makes up the carbon
footprint of an item of furniture is the amount and
type of material used in a product.
Back to contents page
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
The use of carbon footprinting data has advantages, in that it
is relatively widely known and understood, however it is only
one element of the total assessment of the environmental
impact. Carbon footprinting only assesses embedded carbon
of materials, manufacturing and company processes.
A more inclusive assessment of environmental impact should
include such elements as:
• The toxicity of any substances used in
manufacture or production
• Product life span
• Recyclability and reusability
• Biodegradability of non-recyclable or
reusable components
For example, by using the Cradle to Gate assessment
methodology, a product could be designed to have a very low
footprint, by minimising the volume of materials used in its
construction. However it is possible that such a product may
have a short life span, and need replacing more frequently
that a more robustly manufactured product, and the ultimate
carbon impact is for the low carbon product over its life span.
Cradle to cradle methodologies, and more in depth
environmental analysis may provide a better indication of the
overall environmental impact of a product.
Carbon footprinting addresses a high profile and particularly
important environmental issue, enabling businesses to
address a key area of cost and risk. However, it should be
remembered that is only one of many important environmental
metrics.
As illustrated previously, there are obvious shortcomings when
attempting to use a simple, low cost carbon footprinting
methodology as a method of benchmarking products
particularly if purchasing decisions are predicated on
inconsistent comparisons arising out of variable source data.
ANEC the European consumer voice in standardisation
makes a similar point in a document released in 2010
21
.
“A static Product Carbon Footprint stand-alone label providing
a total CO
2
footprint on products does not make sense and is
not very relevant for consumer decision making. Although
consumers are increasingly aware of the relevance of climate
impacts resulting from their purchasing behaviour and usage
of products, the display of a total CO
2
e footprint figure alone
would not be of much help to them.”
The document states that releasing this kind of figure
suggests an accuracy and certainty not demonstrable with
current methodologies. Releasing product carbon footprints
for some products without guiding benchmarks risks
consumers be they public or business, forming the opinion
that a product with the footprint displayed will have a lower
footprint than a product without such a label.
Whilst the ANEC observation has some merit, it is important to
note that organisations that are willing to invest effort in
producing accurate company and product footprints should
be encouraged to use these for carbon reduction policies and
to promote their successes.
Carbon footprinting addresses a high profile and
particularly important environmental issue, enabling
businesses to address a key area of cost and risk.
Back to contents page
45
Advice to manufacturers
15.0
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
The results of the study showed that embodied carbon in the
raw materials used in furniture manufacture is the most
significant contributor to the carbon footprint of a product. This
indicates that the furniture industry, in order to bring about the
largest reductions in carbon emissions, must consider design
options to reduce the amount of raw materials that are used,
or to select alternative lower carbon materials for use in their
products. It is, however, important not to use this information
in isolation as other environmental considerations should also
be considered. Some of these considerations include the end
of life characteristics, toxicity, durability and the availability of
sustainable sources of material.
It is also important to continually evaluate the availability of
new environmentally friendly materials as they become
available. This could include anything from natural and
renewable fabrics, sustainable timber alternatives or steel
compounds designed not to require degreasing processes.
Whilst the data produced in the course of the project indicated
that the carbon impact from utility usage and transport had a
limited impact on a product footprint, reducing the utility
usage and transport costs should not be ignored. Indeed
when addressing any environmental concern a company
should always look internally first and identify efficiency
measures. These efficiency measures should include an
examination of utilities usage, transportation practices and
manufacturing waste reduction. These areas can often be
looked at as part of lean manufacture, energy assessments,
environmental management systems and transport
management programmes. Often successful businesses will
address all these areas as a matter of course because greater
efficiency increases competitiveness. The reductions made in
these areas are also easy to track report on.
It is important to recognise that the outsourcing of carbon
intensive activities should not be regarded as a way of
reducing the carbon footprint of the business or products.
This practice simply displaces that carbon elsewhere in the
supply chain. The carbon impact of furniture needs to be seen
in a global light, displacing emissions to other nations does
not address the fundamental problem.
Once a company has addressed its energy efficiency
performance and considered design aspects, the next step is
the consideration of greening their supply chain. The key to
successfully greening a supply chain is to form partnerships
and work closely with suppliers to achieve the desired results.
When looking to form supplier or customer partnerships it is
important to involve them early. The reason for this being that
in many cases long lead times necessitate early sourcing and
supplier involvement in green product development. Similarly
customers need to be buying product with its full life cycle in
mind. In this context, it is important to look the chain and
provide customers waste saving proposals and initiatives.
Back to contents page
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
16.0
Advice to specifiers
The requirement for manufacturers to declare both their
organisational and product carbon footprints is featuring
increasingly in tenders for the supply of furniture and related
services.
In the absence of any carbon footprint benchmarks in the
furniture industry for either individual products or for
businesses, and with the danger of inconsistent
representation of source data, it is impossible to make
legitimate quantitative comparisons solely based on
manufacturer’s self declarations when evaluating tender
submissions.
The purpose of this project was to investigate the viability of
benchmark average data that would allow specifiers to make
an informed decision on the environmental impact of a
product based on its carbon footprint. The results clearly
indicate the difficulties associated with this concept and that
further research would be required to enable well sourced
benchmarks to be established:
• Large volumes of data are needed to produce
statistically accurate average values.
• Carbon footprinting methodologies require accurate
assessment boundaries.
• Benchmarking within the UK has its problems but
widening this on a global level to incorporate imports
creates greater challenges.
Product life span, re-use, recyclability, toxicity are all important
selection criteria. The carbon footprint impact of a product
should be considered in conjunction with such environmental
considerations.
Specifiers are encouraged to ask suppliers to measure, review
and improve the carbon footprint of their businesses and / or
products.
Evidence of these activities should be sought either through
first party declaration or third party verification. It should be
noted that carbon offsetting should be seen as the route of
last resort when looking to reduce carbon impact, and not the
easiest option.
When assessing a supplier’s environmental credentials there
are other avenues which can be considered to ensure the
supplier adheres to all relevant environmental regulations, and
are committed to the continuous improvement of its
environmental performance. For example, selecting a
company who has an effective Environmental Management
System, such as ISO 14001 offers a level of re-assurance.
Similarly selecting a supplier who is a full member of the
Furniture Industry Sustainability Programme (FISP) indicates
that that supplier is addressing wider sustainability issues than
just carbon reduction or environmental management.
In conclusion, it is good practice to ensure that suppliers strive
towards reducing the carbon footprint of their activities. It is
inadvisable, however, to rely on quantitative product
benchmarking at this point in time for choosing between
alternate products.
Back to contents page
47
17.0
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
Conclusions
The main aim of the project was the investigation of the
feasibility of developing carbon footprinting benchmarks for
the UK furniture industry based on current readily available
information from the industry. The research shows that, when
using the simple standardised methodology, comparison of
product carbon footprints is not currently recommended
within the furniture industry.
The ‘Cradle to Gate’ methodology used does not adequately
assess all the environmental and sustainability impact of a
product, and therefore may be misleading when used to
establish the green credentials of a product. A more in depth
‘Cradle to Cradle’ assessment may provide more accurate
results; however this is likely to be considerably more
expensive to produce as not all data needed will necessarily
be available to the manufacturer.
Further objectives were also set for the project.
Develop and critique a cost effective
methodology, from which UK furniture
producers could calculate the carbon
footprint of their products
A carbon footprinting methodology for the furniture industry
needs to be accessible to companies of all sizes and types. In
this respect, a cost effective methodology was successfully
developed which enabled data to be collected from a variety
of different UK furniture manufacturers. All footprints were
ensured to contain, where practicable, the same emissions
sources at the same level of detail.
However, whilst some companies have been collating data for
some time, this data often relates to differing accounting
boundaries and is subject to gaps, or missing data. These
inconsistencies only served to demonstrate the complexities
of data collection for accurate carbon footprinting and the
potential pitfalls when trying to benchmark products or
organisations.
Examine the viability of comparing the
footprint of similar furniture products on a
like for like basis and to identify furniture
sectors and product categories that are
suitable for comparison
Provide industry benchmarks for
appropriate products
The furniture industry is diverse in nature and it is recognised
that a one size fits all approach may not be appropriate for all
sectors within the industry. The results of the study showed
this to be the case and despite the use of a standard
methodology, comparison of furniture products on a like for
like basis is not realistically achievable within the UK furniture
industry. The results are not suitable for a stakeholder to make
an informed decision on the selection of a product based on
its carbon footprint. In this respect, the results presented in
this study do not allow a company to establish that their
product is better or worse than an industry average.
Back to contents page
Provide advice to the UK furniture
industry and furniture specifiers on
the interpretation of product carbon
footprint claims
One of the major stimuli for commissioning this research
project was the lack of understanding and fragmented
approach to carbon footprinting in the industry. This lack of
consistency can create uncertainty around green claims
whether they are aimed at specifiers or consumers. In this
respect, the results of the project allowed to provide advice to
the UK furniture industry and furniture specifiers as well as
manufacturers. The key message was that carbon footprinting
as a tool has value in understanding the makeup of a
product’s footprint, and then allowing it to be evaluated to see
what can be done to reduce the footprint.
It is clear that much of this data was much harder to collate
than was originally envisaged and that widespread valid
benchmarking under the current business environment would
prove difficult.
However, this does not mean that the industry should ignore
the benefits to be gained from improving its carbon impact,
and efforts need to continue to be made to develop viable
techniques that will measure a company’s carbon
performance. Companies should be encouraged to start by
measuring the footprint of their activities and focus on the
continuous improvement of their carbon impact.
To take benchmarking forward, a number of issues need
to be addressed:
• Any carbon footprinting methodology for the furniture
industry needs to be accessible to companies of all
sizes and types.
• Greater consistency in the way that companies record
data is needed.
• A larger amount of data needs to be generated to
enable statistically valid comparisons.
• How to easily address the impacts of imports and
components should be considered.
• Reporting footprints on per kg or per product cost, or
other basis to create more realistic comparisons could
be considered.
• Ways of incorporating other environmental criteria
within a footprinter calculation should be established
(i.e. re-use, recyclability, life span).
When reviewing the data obtained during the research, a key
finding from the report was that in the majority of furniture
ranges examined, the embedded carbon contained within the
materials and processes used for the manufacture of the
product were the highest contributers to the product’s carbon
footprint, rather than company factors such as utilities or
transportation.
Similar conclusions have been identified by other
manufacturing industries. For example the computer industry
has identified that only around 10% of the carbon emissions
attributed to the manufacture of a computer relate to direct
sources, such as utilities, whilst the carbon embedded in
purchased parts were the largest components of their cradle
to gate footprints. Other examples include motor vehicle
manufacture which has a similar 90% figure for embedded
emissions and the newspaper industry where the figure is
60% embedded emissions
18
.
It is therefore important to remember that carbon footprinting
can be a very useful tool for the furniture industry. The more
the furniture industry understands the footprint of its products
the more it can look to reduce it in targeted, intelligent and
innovative ways. Such carbon reductions can also lead to
significant cost savings for manufacturers.
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
It is therefore important to
remember that carbon footprinting
can be a very useful tool for the
furniture industry. The more the
furniture industry understands the
footprint of its products the more it
can look to reduce it in targeted,
intelligent and innovative ways.
Such carbon reductions can also
lead to significant cost savings for
manufacturers.
Back to contents page
49
18.0
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
References
1. Le Treut, H., R. Somerville, U. Cubasch, Y. Ding, C.
Mauritzen, A. Mokssit, T. Peterson and M. Prather
(2007). “Historical Overview of Climate Change”. In:
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z.
Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
2. DECC (2009). “The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan –
National Strategy for Climate and Energy”. Crown
Copyright, UK.
3. Alan C. McKinnon (2010). "Product-level carbon auditing
of supply chains: Environmental imperative or wasteful
distraction?", International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management, Vol. 40, Iss. 1/2, pp. 42 – 60.
4. Wiedmann, T. and Minx, J. (2008). A Definition of
'Carbon Footprint'. In: C. C. Pertsova, Ecological
Economics Research Trends: Chapter 1, pp. 1-11, Nova
Science Publishers, Hauppauge NY, USA.
5. Carbon Trust (2007). “Carbon footprint measurement
methodology. Version 1.1”. The Carbon Trust, London,
UK.
6. DEFRA (2009). “Guidance on how to measure and
report your greenhouse gas emissions”. DEFRA,
London, UK.
7. Carbon Trust (2010). "Carbon Trust Standard Rules,
Version 1.3". The Carbon Trust, London, UK
8. British Standards Institute (2006). “BS ISO 14064-
1:2006. Greenhouse gases. Specification with guidance
at the organization level for quantification and reporting of
greenhouse gas emissions and removals”.
BSI, London, UK.
9. British Standards Institute (2006). “BS ISO 14064-
2:2006. Greenhouse gases. Specification with guidance
at the project level for quantification, monitoring and
reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or
removal enhancements”. BSI, London, UK.
10. British Standards Institute (2006). “BS ISO 14064-
3:2006. Greenhouse gases. Specifications with guidance
for the validation and verification of greenhouse gas
assertions”. BSI, London, UK.
11. British Standards Institute (2007). “BS ISO 14065:2007.
Greenhouse gases. Requirements for greenhouse gas
validation and verification bodies for use in accreditation
or other forms of recognition”. BSI, London, UK.
12. British Standards Institute (2008). Publicly Available
Specification (PAS) 2050. BSI, London, UK.
Note: Subsequent amendments to PAS 2050:2008
also apply.
13. British Standards Institute (2006). “BS EN ISO
14040:2006. Environmental management. Life cycle
assessment. Principles and framework”.
BSI, London, UK.
14. British Standards Institute (2006). “BS EN ISO
14044:2006. Environmental management. Life cycle
assessment. Requirements and guidelines”.
BSI, London, UK.
15. British Standards Institute (2010). “BS EN ISO
14025:2010. Environmental labels and declarations. Type
III environmental declarations. Principles and
procedures”. BSI, London, UK.
16. World Business Council for Sustainable Development
and World Resources Institute (2011). “Greenhouse
Gas Protocol Product Life Cycle Accounting and
Reporting Standard”. WBCSD and WRI, USA.
17. World Business Council for Sustainable Development
and World Resources Institute (2011). “Greenhouse
Gas Protocol Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3)
Accounting and Reporting Standard”. WBCSD and
WRI, USA.
18. Furniture Industry Research Association (2010).
“Competitiveness of the UK Furniture Manufacturing
Industry”. FIRA, Stevenage, UK.
19. IPCC (2007). “Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories”. National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Programme, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change.
Note: Subsequent amendments to IPCC also apply
20. Furniture Industry Research Association (2010).
“Statistical Digest for the UK Furniture Industry”. FIRA,
Stevenage, UK.
21. ANEC (2010). ” Environmental product indicators and
benchmarks in the context of environmental labels and
declarations”.
22. Dornfeld (2010). http://green-
manufacturing.blogspot.com/2010/03/greening-
manufacturing-supply-chain.html.
Back to contents page
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
Back to contents page
Breakdown of kitchen furniture
carbon footprint data
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
Total Timber Metal Plastic Packaging Transport Utilities Other
1000mm wall unit footprint & board
Product A 26.46 13.68 1.13 1.17 0.41 2.03 7.26 0.78
Product B 32.25 13.20 2.66 0.02 0.21 4.83 9.91 1.42
Product C 28.09 9.99 2.04 0.02 0.21 3.95 9.91 1.97
Product D 16.26 9.99 0.62 0.03 0.38 1.50 3.00 0.74
Product E 22.46 10.80 1.77 0.00 0.31 0.97 4.93 3.68
500mm wall unit
Product A 16.73 6.23 0.35 0.03 0.20 1.84 7.26 0.83
Product B 16.75 10.27 0.64 0.07 0.54 0.53 2.57 2.14
Product C 23.89 7.63 1.72 0.02 0.10 3.48 9.91 1.02
Product D 24.01 6.76 2.35 0.02 0.10 3.51 9.91 1.37
Product E 9.70 4.40 0.31 0.03 0.38 1.13 3.00 0.45
Product F 31.37 7.24 2.99 2.73 1.55 3.40 12.56 0.90
Product G 10.58 5.98 1.18 0.04 0.28 0.23 1.56 1.30
Product H 12.22 6.52 0.95 0.78 0.30 0.22 1.56 1.90
Product I 13.49 4.87 1.03 0.00 0.21 0.65 4.93 1.80
1000mm drawer line unit
Product A 40.73 18.34 7.43 2.68 0.81 3.21 7.26 0.99
Product B 40.82 19.37 3.93 1.28 0.21 5.11 9.91 1.01
Product C 35.97 17.80 2.03 1.28 0.21 2.51 9.91 2.22
Product D 45.03 14.21 7.54 2.73 1.69 4.14 12.56 1.60
500mm drawer line unit
Product A 26.61 10.37 3.52 1.72 0.00 2.43 7.26 1.32
Product B 32.65 13.74 3.89 1.28 0.06 2.18 9.91 1.58
Product C 29.94 13.10 1.98 1.28 0.06 1.99 9.91 1.63
Product D 41.82 15.86 4.50 2.73 1.55 3.62 12.56 1.00
Product E 19.12 13.11 0.29 1.26 0.30 0.29 1.56 2.33
Product F 17.73 10.91 0.69 1.63 0.30 0.23 1.56 2.41
Product G 33.08 13.02 10.81 0.64 1.22 0.62 2.57 4.20
Product H 34.59 12.44 12.93 0.84 0.21 0.78 4.93 2.46
Full height base unit
Product A 11.92 6.14 0.36 0.08 0.38 1.18 3.00 0.77
Product B 15.07 8.01 1.99 1.27 0.29 0.32 1.56 1.63
Product C 21.43 11.66 0.47 1.26 0.55 0.58 2.57 4.35
Product D 18.09 9.56 0.17 0.81 0.21 0.60 4.93 1.82
Appendix 1
51
Back to contents page
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
Total Timber Metal Plastic Packaging Transport Utilities Other
500mm storage unit footprint & board
Product A 48.05 28.21 2.21 1.34 0.15 3.29 9.91 2.93
Product B 46.56 26.13 1.59 1.34 0.15 3.45 9.91 3.98
Product C 39.32 14.00 2.99 2.73 1.55 3.65 12.56 1.84
Product D 25.03 8.84 6.68 0.85 0.21 0.80 4.93 2.73
1000mm storage unit
Product A 41.05 14.90 2.99 2.73 1.69 4.11 12.56 2.07
Product B 46.29 19.61 2.99 2.73 1.69 4.59 12.56 2.12
Product C 39.38 16.19 13.55 1.52 0.54 0.67 2.57 4.35
Worktops
Product A 20.36 14.95 0.38 1.33 3.00 0.70 20.36 14.95
Product B 25.83 20.28 0.38 1.46 3.00 0.70 25.83 20.28
Product C 25.47 19.93 0.38 1.45 3.00 0.70 25.47 19.93
Product D 32.76 27.05 0.38 1.63 3.00 0.70 32.76 27.05
Appliances housing
Product A 45.60 19.05 2.99 2.73 1.55 4.60 12.56 2.12
Product B 29.17 20.14 2.16 1.60 0.11 0.58 1.56 3.01
Product C 22.04 12.94 4.35 1.39 0.32 0.37 1.56 1.10
Product D 42.09 19.99 14.32 1.67 1.46 1.04 2.57 1.05
Base sink unit
Product A 21.76 8.80 2.90 5.26 0.30 0.32 1.56 2.63
Back to contents page
53
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
Total Timber Foams Textiles Metal Plastic Packaging Transport Utilities Other
Mattress footprint & board & fillings
Product A 43.71 0 23.77 6.48 7.16 0.00 2.81 1.20 2.14 0.14
Product B 65.88 0 25.05 17.46 16.13 0.00 2.81 2.15 2.14 0.14
Product C 43.38 0 23.73 6.20 7.16 0.00 2.81 1.20 2.14 0.14
Product D 163.63 0 128.18 27.33 0.00 0.00 2.81 3.03 2.14 0.14
Product E 61.85 0 18.82 10.20 27.76 0.00 1.04 0.58 3.40 0.05
Product F 51.08 0 9.60 8.54 27.73 0.00 1.04 0.54 3.40 0.22
Product G 85.63 0 39.35 5.98 34.90 0.00 1.04 0.69 3.40 0.28
Product H 82.58 0 42.01 10.74 23.69 0.00 1.04 1.01 3.40 0.70
Product I 81.04 0 36.06 6.16 32.82 0.00 1.04 0.70 3.40 0.88
Product J 83.00 0 68.23 4.67 0.16 0.51 4.87 1.12 3.40 0.05
Product K 71.09 0 17.55 20.52 27.77 0.00 1.04 0.76 3.40 0.05
Product L 67.00 0 2.00 17.00 30.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 15.00 0.00
Product M 63.00 0 9.00 3.00 33.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 15.00 0.00
Product N 102.00 0 29.00 37.00 17.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 15.00 0.00
Product O 125.00 0 48.00 12.00 47.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 15.00 0.00
Product P 82.98 0 46.34 0.74 24.16 3.15 1.90 1.44 4.93 0.33
Product Q 104.64 0 36.81 2.84 48.37 5.68 3.17 1.56 4.93 1.29
Product R 41.37 0 14.25 1.10 16.45 1.16 1.87 1.29 4.93 0.33
Product S 90.85 0 49.99 10.29 16.64 4.52 2.70 1.45 4.93 0.33
Single/double divan
Product A 18 414001133
Product B 31 7 3 2101 1 1 3 2
Product C 62 1 0 5380 3 1150
Product D 37 13 0 3 1 0 4 1 15 0
Product E 36 2200402251
Product F 26 1501012251
Product G 25 1301112251
Product H 42 2400712251
Headboard
Product A 31.00 7.00 1.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 15.00 0.00
Product B 12.41 3.28 2.95 1.70 0.13 0.00 0.56 0.41 3.40 0.00
Breakdown of bedding furniture
carbon footprint data
Appendix 2
Back to contents page
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
Total Timber Foams Textiles Metal Plastic Packaging Transport Utilities Other
Sofa footprint & board & fillings
Product A 119.76 14.99 57.38 25.00 7.71 0.00 3.44 5.51 5.60 0.13
Product B 105.65 13.64 49.03 22.39 6.86 0.00 3.16 4.85 5.60 0.13
Product C 81.51 12.19 32.41 18.66 5.16 0.00 3.16 4.21 5.60 0.13
Product D 110.83 16.85 45.08 24.66 7.71 0.00 3.44 7.37 5.60 0.13
Product E 117.90 15.13 49.01 28.27 9.07 0.00 3.64 7.07 5.60 0.13
Product F 86.33 9.39 40.55 21.35 3.63 0.77 1.20 2.73 3.40 3.32
Product G 72.30 8.73 38.91 10.13 3.42 0.74 1.20 4.50 3.40 1.28
Product H 103.22 12.09 37.90 31.78 4.74 0.00 3.16 7.51 5.60 0.44
Product I 65.00 12.00 32.00 9.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 3.00 0.00
Product J 65.00 12.00 32.00 12.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 3.00 0.00
Product K 64.00 8.00 31.00 13.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 3.00 0.00
Armchair
Product A 50.77 9.21 20.11 7.01 3.54 0.00 1.94 3.23 5.60 0.13
Product B 41.80 7.02 13.03 7.02 4.43 0.00 1.94 2.63 5.60 0.13
Product C 41.83 7.02 13.03 7.02 4.43 0.00 1.94 2.66 5.60 0.13
Product D 49.28 2.91 30.10 2.40 0.18 0.00 0.19 2.23 8.56 2.71
Product E 30.04 4.64 6.29 9.74 1.93 0.60 0.64 1.14 3.40 1.68
Footstool
Product A 17.41 2.74 3.88 1.77 0.57 0.00 1.75 1.04 5.60 0.06
Electric chair
Product A 75.16 11.42 14.37 3.00 28.21 2.65 0.74 3.50 8.56 2.71
Sofa bed
Product A 87.62 9.55 7.46 19.76 35.87 1.03 0.64 7.38 3.40 2.54
Breakdown of upholstery furniture
carbon footprint data
Appendix 3
Back to contents page
55
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
Total Timber Foams Textiles Metal Plastic Packaging Transport Utilities Other
Office task chair footprint & board & fillings
Product A 77.80 0.00 4.24 8.53 18.03 26.65 4.44 5.26 6.14 4.53
Product B 59.75 0.00 3.39 5.14 28.28 11.58 0.00 4.69 6.14 0.54
Product C 143.10 0.00 3.18 13.24 93.30 13.54 4.44 6.54 6.14 2.72
Product D 106.98 0.00 15.21 8.53 55.13 11.13 3.50 4.10 6.14 3.25
Product E 61.40 0.25 3.73 0.01 28.65 7.71 0.95 7.01 6.14 6.96
Product F 93.20 0.00 3.77 0.93 43.55 41.38 0.12 2.36 0.89 0.20
Product G 40.30 0.00 5.55 0.97 8.86 22.00 0.12 1.71 0.89 0.20
Product H 64.72 0.00 2.82 1.05 8.09 48.28 0.19 0.93 3.04 0.32
Product I 55.71 0.74 0.03 0.56 37.29 12.40 0.40 0.93 3.04 0.32
Product J 50.13 0.00 1.04 1.05 0.00 38.46 0.30 1.24 4.63 3.41
Product K 56.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 20.00 20.00 1.00 6.00 3.00 3.00
Product L 54.00 0.00 11.00 2.00 10.00 23.00 0.00 2.00 3.00 3.00
Product M 77.00 0.00 6.00 2.00 8.00 53.00 0.00 2.00 3.00 3.00
Office visitor reception chair
Product A 80.86 7.36 5.79 25.58 25.48 0.46 4.44 5.19 6.14 0.41
Product B 34.25 0.46 5.49 4.24 4.01 5.78 4.44 3.69 6.14 0.00
Product C 63.46 2.93 5.09 17.05 25.98 0.59 2.96 2.19 6.14 0.54
Product D 22.65 2.56 4.88 0.01 2.75 0.00 0.95 2.31 6.14 3.06
Product E 64.32 3.95 25.99 17.05 3.47 0.13 3.50 3.56 6.14 0.54
Product F 22.50 1.25 2.37 1.57 7.42 0.00 0.23 0.89 7.58 1.19
Product G 46.71 0.65 3.96 1.23 6.52 22.64 0.23 1.02 7.58 2.87
Product H 46.77 0.65 3.61 1.23 9.51 19.91 0.23 1.19 7.58 2.87
Product I 21.32 0.51 1.94 1.05 5.65 0.91 0.23 1.00 7.58 2.46
Product J 70.00 0.00 52.00 6.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 3.00 0.00
Product K 27.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 11.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 0.00
Product L 22.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 14.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 0.00
Product M 24.00 5.00 5.00 2.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 0.00
Product N 30.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 9.00 14.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 0.00
Product O 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 3.00 0.00
Product P 25.00 3.00 6.00 1.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 3.00 0.00
Product R 27.00 3.00 6.00 3.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 3.00 0.00
Product S 27.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 1.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Product T 22.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 8.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 3.00 0.00
Breakdown of office furniture - chairs
carbon footprint data
Appendix 4
Back to contents page
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
Breakdown of office furniture - storage
carbon footprint data
Appendix 5
Total Timber Metal Plastic Packaging Transport Utilities Other
Desk high pedestal footprint & board
Product A 34.77 6.70 3.78 18.22 0.88 2.45 0.89 1.85
Product B 19.57 11.46 4.02 0.56 1.19 0.55 1.68 0.10
Product C 39.12 13.89 10.88 7.61 0.34 3.44 0.89 2.09
Product D 22.95 11.99 5.35 0.11 0.95 0.76 3.04 0.74
Product E 28.64 14.73 8.05 0.11 0.95 0.82 3.04 0.93
Bookcase
Product A 20.00 13.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 5.00 1.00
Product B 13.39 9.86 0.23 0.00 1.06 1.07 1.08 0.10
Product C 21.03 14.16 0.00 0.00 0.62 1.15 4.63 0.47
Tambour
Product A 38.00 18.76 4.84 9.44 1.45 1.73 1.68 0.10
Product B 62.27 17.90 2.12 32.75 0.53 1.43 4.63 2.91
Steel pedestal
Product A 44.22 0.00 35.40 0.00 3.90 3.14 1.68 0.10
Wood filing cabinet
Product A 39.00 22.00 5.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 5.00 1.00
Product B 57.00 34.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 2.00 5.00 5.00
Cupboard
Product A 25.00 15.00 1.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 5.00 1.00
Product B 37.52 26.06 5.94 0.04 1.54 2.15 1.68 0.10
Back to contents page
57
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
Breakdown of office furniture - desks
carbon footprint data
Appendix 6
1600mm x 1800mm Total Timber Metal Plastic Packaging Transport Utilities Other
rectangular desk footprint & board
Product A 25.00 10.00 5.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 5.00 1.00
Product B 25.00 12.00 4.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 5.00 2.00
Product C 38.42 10.79 19.12 0.00 0.00 7.27 0.89 0.36
Product D 37.45 12.72 18.05 0.00 2.34 2.55 1.68 0.10
Product E 30.56 14.38 14.16 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.89 0.36
Product F 29.66 13.49 10.17 0.27 1.13 0.71 3.04 0.85
Product G 38.71 12.13 16.19 0.46 0.62 1.26 4.63 3.41
Product H 56.08 12.76 34.41 0.39 0.00 1.27 5.76 1.50
6 people bench desk
Product A 270.55 54.55 185.82 7.66 18.19 0.95 3.04 0.32
Product B 185.02 53.39 119.94 0.00 0.00 2.53 5.76 3.40
1600mm x 800mm wave desk
Product A 62.96 11.39 38.70 0.00 2.50 8.58 1.68 0.10
1600mm x 1200mm work station
Product A 44.68 16.72 19.28 0.18 0.00 1.25 5.76 1.50
Back to contents page
Benchmarking carbon footprints of furniture products
Total Timber Foams Textiles Metal Plastic Packaging Transport Utilities Other
Dining table footprint & board & fillings
Product A 23.78 10.96 0.09 0.00 0.18 1.27 8.56 2.71 23.78 10.96
Product B 17.53 2.23 7.54 0.00 0.62 1.07 4.63 1.45 17.53 2.23
Product C 33.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 12.00 0.00 33.00 18.00
Dining chairs
Product A 18.01 3.06 1.17 0.60 0.18 0.00 0.19 1.55 8.56 2.71
Product B 26.14 5.36 5.82 1.20 0.09 0.00 0.19 2.21 8.56 2.71
Product C 37.94 3.29 19.03 2.40 0.35 0.00 0.19 1.41 8.56 2.71
Waiting room beam seating
Product A 75.00 0.00 16.00 56.00 1.00 75.00 0.00 Unknown 3.00 0.00
Product B 57.00 6.00 8.00 40.00 1.00 57.00 6.00 Unknown 3.00 0.00
Breakdown of contract furniture
carbon footprint data
Appendix 7
Back to contents page
Back to contents page
FIRA International Ltd,
Maxwell Road, Stevenage,
Hertfordshire, SG1 2EW
T +44 (0)1438 777 700
F +44 (0)1438 777 800
FIRA International Ltd • A BMTRADA Group Company
Registered Office: Chiltern House, Stocking Lane,
Hughenden Valley, High Wycombe,
Buckinghamshire, HP14 4ND, UK
Registered No. 3181481 England
FIL019/RIGA/11/11
Back to contents page
