Work on developing the environmental labelling scheme for the furniture sector began in late 2024 with an exploratory co-development phase. This phase gave way to a trial phase in early 2026.
This page summarises the main work carried out during the technical co-development phase.

On 7 January 2025, a workshop was held on the End-of-Life module for furniture.

You can find the Miro presentation used during our workshop here.

Here is a list of the main points discussed during the workshop:

  • The workshop was structured around the latest version of the FCBA-ADEME-BPX30 “Meuble Meublant” guideline to build on the sector’s latest developments
  • Discussions centred on the “40 per cent collection rate” parameter used as the basis for the three scenarios proposed in the guidance document (how is this rate used in the calculations? Do market operators have any means of action to optimise the likelihood of end-of-life furniture being collected? Can this rate be specified more precisely?)
  • Discussions regarding the possibility of distinguishing between end-of-life scenarios for furniture collected by the sector and that which is not collected (as the realities and outlets differ)
  • Discussions regarding the three levels of furniture recyclability (is furniture recyclability accessible to all types of furniture and all market operators? Are the rules harmonised within the sector? Can the level of furniture recyclability be modelled directly within the method for calculating environmental labelling?)
  • Discussions on the value of specifying end-of-life scenarios for collected and recyclable furniture by material (the sector proposes specific scenarios by material)

Many thanks for your valuable contributions!

On 10 January 2025, a workshop on furniture sustainability took place.

You can find the Miro presentation used during our workshop here.

Here is a list of the main points discussed during the workshop:

  • The workshop was structured around the latest version of the FCBA-ADEME-BPX30 “Meuble Meublant” standard, building on the sector’s latest developments
  • Discussions on sustainability and highlighting the need to consider all aspects of sustainability (“holistic sustainability”)
  • Discussions on the accessibility of physical durability tests (in particular, it was highlighted that suppliers could carry out these tests at the component level)
  • Discussions on the reparability of furniture (highlighting the ‘incentive to repair’ criterion currently used in the textile sector and based on the ratio between the product’s retail price and the average cost of repair)
  • Discussions on the ‘extrinsic/emotional sustainability’ dimension to identify criteria influencing purchasing decisions (and therefore a shorter lifespan for the furniture)
  • Request for the sharing of literature reviews on: ‘fast-furniture’ practices / the average lifespan of furniture / the causes of furniture reaching the end of its life / market trends)

Many thanks for your valuable contributions!

On 30 January 2025, a workshop was held on the benefits of developing a supplement to life cycle assessment (LCA) focusing on the relationship between biodiversity and forestry practices.

You can find the Miro presentation used during our workshop here.

Here is a list of the main points discussed:

  • Clarification that the current LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) methodological framework does not, at present, allow for the accurate reflection of the biodiversity impacts of various silvicultural practices,
  • A reminder of the methodological framework for environmental labelling (unit = environmental cost expressed in points; methodological framework based on LCA with the option to incorporate supplementary elements, etc.),
  • Background information on the French furniture timber market (sawn timber vs. panels / imports vs. local production / main timber species used in the French furniture market, etc.) => :eyes: this data is to be finalised in the coming weeks,
  • Open discussions on the links between TimberOrigin<=>TimberSpecies<=>ForestryPractice,
  • Discussions on the level of traceability within the furniture sector regarding its timber supply,
  • Discussions on existing labels and standards,
  • Discussions on definitions of different forest management models (“sustainable management” / “plantation forest” / what constitutes “intensive management” / etc.),
  • Discussions on a number of satellite imagery tools (e.g. the EU Forest Observation Service on global deforestation and forest degradation),
  • Discussions on deforestation (is the furniture sector affected? What are the main at-risk sources of supply? etc.),
  • Discussions on illegal logging.

A big thank you to all participants for sharing their experiences!

Three workshops on Sustainability (cross-cutting issues + physical sustainability + non-physical sustainability) took place during the week of 15 September 2025.

Recordings are available in this file.

Here are the presentations:

Here are the key takeaways from our discussions:

  • the need to clarify the definitions of certain key parameters (e.g. dismantlability),
  • the need for feedback from brands regarding the physical durability tests proposed in the BPX standards (on the one hand, we note encouraging feedback from FCBA profiles on the value of these tests; on the other hand, we have noted initial, more nuanced feedback from brands and design bureaux regarding the accessibility of these tests, both in terms of time and cost),
  • the need to further develop the criteria relating to non-physical sustainability (e.g. the possible introduction of criteria linked to promotions or the renewal of collections),
  • the need to cover the various facets of the ‘adaptability’ aspect of furniture.

A second workshop on the benefits of differentiating the environmental cost of timber according to the impact of associated silvicultural practices on biodiversity was held on Wednesday 24 September 2025.

The slides are available here and the recording is available here.

Here are the key takeaways from our discussions:

  • the benefits of using existing certifications,
  • the difficulty for the sector in mapping out the timber supply chains for the furniture market in detail,
  • divergent views on the value of differentiating between certifications and taking the corruption index into account,
  • no proposals regarding Option 3, which involves listing the main high-risk supply chains (e.g. Brazilian eucalyptus) in order to clarify the supplementary requirements,
  • the absence of input from environmentalists, academics and biodiversity experts during this workshop.
Haut de page