1
University of British Columbia
Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Sustainability Program
Student Research Report
Towards Zero Waste: An
Environmental Life Cycle Analysis
of New Furniture vs Participation
in the Furniture Reuse Program
Prepared by: Akash Gondaliya, Eimee Ong, Julianna Wu, Sarah Jepsen, Seppi Saatchi
Supervisor: Prof. Qingshi Tu
Prepared for: UBC Furniture Reuse Program
Course Code: BEST 402 - Industrial Ecology
University of British Columbia
Date: December 18, 2023
Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS Sustainability Program provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies,
as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that
this is a student research project and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore, readers should bear in mind that
these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned
in a report or the SEEDS Sustainability Program representative about the current status of the subject matter of a report”.
Towards Zero Waste: An Environmental LCA of New Furniture vs Reuse Furniture
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
With the steady increase of furniture consumption and increase in the sector’s emission intensity, it is
imperative to gain quantitative insight into the extent of these emissions and where they are rooted in
the product’s life cycle. Identifying the environmental and economic viability of sustainable alternatives
for this sector will facilitate the decision-making shift towards less emission intensive practices in the
future and help reach UBC’s goal in achieving net-zero emissions by 2035. Therefore, this project aims to
quantitatively identify the emission reduction potential of purchasing reused furniture compared to
buying furniture new. More specifically, our assessment focuses on the unique scenario of UBC’s furniture
reuse program to provide UBC decision-makers and community members with context specific data
regarding the potential benefits of utilizing the program.
Our assessment employs the methodology of a life cycle analysis to account for the different emission
hotspots throughout the product’s life cycle and make a relative comparison between different grades
(low and commercial) as well as different brands (IKEA and Wayfair) of tables against the reused
alternative. The representative low-grade table and commercial-grade table for IKEA and Wayfair were
selected based on cost (source: Ikea and Wayfair websites). The LCA methodology provides a holistic way
of assessing product emissions allowing decision making from the perspective of the system as a whole.
By focusing on a ten-year span of furniture use as a functional unit, our results account for both the impact
of purchasing an individual table as well as the quantity of tables purchased over the time period based
on assumed life span. Our methods include the collection of primary and secondary data on table
production, packaging production, and transportation to develop an inventory for each product. The
inventory data was then converted into data that could be imputed into the modeling software, openLCA,
alongside the database ecoinvent_38 which was used to develop the product system for each table. By
applying different reuse factors to the reused table product system, we were able to evaluate different
scenarios of emission accountability on the second user.
We assumed that only the commercial-grade tables (IKEA commercial-grade, and Wayfair commercial-
grade) were good enough to be used for the Reuse program as those tables had long warranty and we
compared the emission of buying those brand-new table versus reusing the table from the Furniture
Reuse Program (IKEA reused, Wayfair reused). ‘IKEA reused’ refers to the IKEA commercial table diverted
from landfill by the UBC reuse program, giving the table a second life instead. Similarly, ‘Wayfair reused’
refers to the commercial-grade Wayfair table recovered by UBC Furniture Reuse Program. The results of
our analysis suggest that the lowest emitting to highest emitting tables were IKEA reused (provided by
UBC reuse program), Wayfair reused (provided by UBC reuse program), IKEA commercial-grade, IKEA low-
grade, Wayfair commercial-grade, and lastly Wayfair low-grade over the 10-year span. These results
suggest the viability of utilizing the furniture reuse program as a means of reducing UBC’s furniture
emission footprint with 85-97% and 60-95% of emissions being avoided by purchasing the second-hand
Wayfair (Wayfair reused) and IKEA (IKEA reused) tables respectively. Furthermore, it was determined that
tables produced by IKEA brand contributed 61.89% (low cost) and 15.44% (commercial) lower in emissions
when compared to their Wayfair counterparts. Assessing the lifecycle hotspots suggested that the major
contributor to the low-grade IKEA table’s emissions were paper production followed by steel casting
whereas Wayfair’s major contributors were determined as fiberboard production followed by packaging.
Towards Zero Waste: An Environmental LCA of New Furniture vs Reuse Furniture
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary 2
List of Figures 5
List of tables 5
List of abbreviations 6
1. Introduction 7
1.1 Research topic 7
1.2 Research relevance 7
1.3 Project context 7
1.4 Project purpose, goals and objectives 8
2. Methodology and methods 8
2.1 Research methods 8
2.2.1 Primary data collection research methods 10
2.2.2 Secondary data collection research methods 10
2.2.3 Model creation and revision 11
3. Results 13
3.1 Wayfair 13
3.1.1 open lca model graph 13
3.1.2 Global warming potential of Wayfair tables 14
3.1.2 Top contributors to GWP - Wayfair TABLE 15
3.2 IKEA 17
3.2.1 open lca input flows and model graph 17
3.2.2 Global warming potential of IKEA tables 18
3.2.2 Top contributors (activities) to gwp – ikea table 19
3.2.3 Top contributors (process) to gwp – ikea table 20
4. Discussion 21
5. Recommendations 22
5.1 Recommendations for action 22
5.2 Recommendations for future research 23
6. Conclusion 23
Towards Zero Waste: An Environmental LCA of New Furniture vs Reuse Furniture
4
References 24
Appendices 25
Appendix A [Sankey diagram for IKEA low-grade table showcasing the distribution of total kgCO2
eq]……………………………………………………………………………………..…………………. 25
Appendix B [Sankey diagram for IKEA commercial-grade table showcasing the distribution of total kgCO2
eq]…………………………………………………………………………………………………………25
Appendix C [Sankey diagram for Wayfair low-grade table showcasing the distribution of total kgCO2
eq]……………………………………………………………………………………………………..…. 26
Appendix D [Sankey diagram for Wayfair commercial-grade table showcasing the distribution of total
kgCO2 eq]…………………………………………………………………………………………………26
Towards Zero Waste: An Environmental LCA of New Furniture vs Reuse Furniture
5
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: System Boundary selected for the Table LCA 9
Figure 2: Model structure for table 12
Figure 3: List of input flows for the Wayfair low-grade and commercial-grade table 13
Figure 4: Model graph for Wayfair Commercial table which includes the Material processing,
transportation as well as landfill emissions 14
Figure 5: Model graph for Wayfair reused table which includes the Material processing, transportation
as well as landfill emissions 14
Figure 6: Global warming potential of Wayfair tables over 10 years 15
Figure 7: Top contributors (activities) to global warming potential in the Wayfair commercial-grade table
15
Figure 8: Top contributors (activities) to global warming potential in the Wayfair low-grade table 16
Figure 9: Top process contributors to Wayfair low-grade table global warming potential 16
Figure 10: Top process contributors to Wayfair commercial-grade table global warming potential 16
Figure 11: List of input flows for the IKEA low-grade and commercial-grade table 17
Figure 12: Model graph for IKEA Commercial table which includes the Material processing,
transportation as well as landfill emissions 18
Figure 13: Model graph for IKEA Reused table which includes the Material processing, transportation
within UBC and end of life-landfill emissions 18
Figure 14: Global warming potential of Wayfair tables over 10 years 19
Figure 15: Top activity contributors to IKEA Low table global warming potential 20
Figure 16: Top activity contributors to IKEA commercial-grade table global warming potential 20
Figure 17: Top process contributors to IKEA low-grade table global warming potential 21
Figure 18: Top contributors to IKEA commercial-grade table global warming potential
21
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Life Span of table from different sources and the reused tables 11
Table 2: Global warming potential of Wayfair tables (Low, Commercial and Reused) 14
Table 3: Global warming potential of IKEA tables (Low, Commercial and Reused) 19
Towards Zero Waste: An Environmental LCA of New Furniture vs Reuse Furniture
6
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CO2 - Carbon Dioxide Emissions
GHG - GreenHouse Gas
GWP - Global Warming Potential
LCA - Life Cycle Assessment
UBC - University of British Columbia
kg CO2e - Kilogram Carbon Dioxide equivalent
LDPE - Light Density Polyethylene
Towards Zero Waste: An Environmental LCA of New Furniture vs Reuse Furniture
7
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 RESEARCH TOPIC
Furniture goods produce significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from cradle to grave and the consumption of
furniture goods is steadily increasing. This report quantifies and compares the environmental impact (kg CO2e)
associated with new furniture procurement and use at UBC and the equivalent re-used furniture items from the
Furniture Reuse Program at UBC. The carbon emissions of new and reused low-grade and commercial-grade furniture
were quantified according to ISO 14040 and 14044 standards over a 10-year use period.
1.2 RESEARCH RELEVANCE
By providing insight into the carbon emissions associated with the life cycle of both new and reused furniture, our
research may provide quantitative evidence of the carbon savings associated with purchasing and using reused
furniture. This information may inform shifts in furniture procurement practices from new to reused at UBC for
faculty and staff and contribute to UBC achieving net-zero emissions by 2035.
1.3 PROJECT CONTEXT
As climate change persists, phenomena including rising global temperatures, ocean acidification and increased
frequency of extreme weather events are becoming increasingly concerning for both human health and ecosystems.
To minimize these impacts, governments around the world have agreed on targets to reduce their harmful
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. To reach said emission reduction targets, it will be necessary to evaluate various
industries, quantify their greenhouse gas emissions and identify opportunities for GHG mitigation.
The globalized furniture market has grown significantly in the past decade in response to increasing consumption
rates and is projected to increase by 5.02% annually from 2023-2028 in Canada (Statista, 2023). As furniture
consumption continues to increase so will the emission intensity of the industry, therefore there is great scope for
the industry to assess and mitigate carbon emissions.
Previous work in furniture life cycle assessment largely concludes that the pre-manufacturing and raw material
extraction processes, followed by transportation processes contribute to the majority of environmental impacts
associated with the life cycle of furniture items (Krystofik, et al., 2018, Medeiros, et al., 2017). The reuse of furniture
provides a community-based solution to curb the majority of emission-intensive processes in the furniture industry
by eliminating the need for new materials, extensive manufacturing, and reducing transportation.
Towards Zero Waste: An Environmental LCA of New Furniture vs Reuse Furniture
8
1.4 PROJECT PURPOSE, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this project is to understand and compare the environmental impacts associated with the life cycle of
new and reused furniture at UBC to inform both UBC decision-makers and community members on the impacts of
different furniture procurement practices.
The goal of this project is to quantify the environmental impacts of both new and reused furniture at UBC and
encourage a shift from new to reused furniture procurement on campus.
The objective of this project is to quantitatively identify and compare the environmental impact of both low-grade and
commercial-grade tables from popular retailers (IKEA and Wayfair) as well as the equivalent items if they were to be
purchased from the UBC Furniture Reuse Program. This will be done per the ISO 14040 and 14044 standards over a 10-
year use period.
1. Data Collection
a. Record the type and quantity of input materials of each furniture item included in the assessment
b. Record the mode(s) of transportation
1
and distance traveled for a furniture item to reach its use-phase
c. End-of-life was assumed to be the landfill
2. Modeling
a. Create a model accounting for the production of each furniture item
b. Create a model accounting for the packaging of each furniture item
c. Create a model accounting for the transportation of each furniture item
3. Interpretation
a. Quantify results according to the ISO 14040 and 14044 standards over a 10-year use period
b. Compare the environmental impact (kg CO2e) of all furniture items included in the assessment
4. Recommendations
a. Define and describe our recommendations to UBC faculty, staff and community members regarding
furniture procurement and disposal practices based on our findings.
2. METHODOLOGY AND METHODS
2.1 RESEARCH METHODS
Our assessment utilizes a methodology known as the life cycle analysis which broadly looks at the environmental and/or
social impacts associated with products and processes across various life cycle stages including upstream, use, and
downstream phases. The inputs and outputs of various processes defined within a system boundary are represented
as process flows inputted into a product system. We conducted our analysis following ISO 14040 and 14044 guidelines
provided by The International Organization for Standardization. Conducting an LCA may be used as a tool to inform
decision-making in regards to climate impact and sustainability of a given product or process by weighing the associated
quantitative impacts.
1
Transportation takes into account only the upstream processes (the distance travelled from a local warehouse to
UBC). This assumption was made to simplify calculations for our model.
Towards Zero Waste: An Environmental LCA of New Furniture vs Reuse Furniture
9
To develop our methodology, we first defined our goal and scope, as well as other parameters which allowed us to
generate an organized methodology for collecting data needed to develop a model. In terms of our goal, our model
aims to assess the environmental impact, quantified as global warming potential (GWP), of used furniture relative to
new furniture. The scope of our model includes identifying and measuring the environmental impact of the
manufacturing, upstream transportation and disposal processes. Ultimately, this assessment should allow us to identify
major contributors to the environmental impact of the product’s life cycle in terms of material inputs and processes.
Aligning with our goal and scope, we developed a general modeling question: What is the global warming potential
(GWP) for each table considering its manufacturing process, packaging, upstream transportation and end-of-life
treatment? From our modeling question, a functional unit was established. The purpose of a functional unit in the
context of an LCA is to provide a quantified performance of a product system for use as a reference unit. The chosen
unit should be applicable to all systems or products being compared in the assessment. In the case of our modeling
question, we chose a functional unit of the number of tables used within a ten year “life span”. This unit allows for the
different expected life spans based on product quality to be accounted for. For example, the lifespan of a low-grade
table may be significantly lower than that of a high-end table. This would result in the low-grade table being purchased
more often over a ten-year period which contributes to its overall footprint over the ten-year period.
As mentioned previously, an LCA quantifies the environmental impact of a product from one phase in its life to another
within a defined system boundary. We performed a cradle-to-grave LCA which considers processes from raw material
extraction to end of life (such as disposal or reuse) for all tables. For the reused tables, production flow is equivalent to
their commercial table counterparts as they are assumed to be the same table. However, a reuse factor is added to
account for the percentage of production emissions associated with the second user, with a reuse factor ranging from
0-1. We created two scenarios and adjusted accountability using a reuse factor of 0 and 0.5 suggesting that the second
user accounts for 0% and 50% of the table’s production emissions respectively. An emission factor of zero accounts for
a scenario where none of the upstream emissions from the purchase of the new table, by the original user, falls on the
purchaser (second user) of the reused table from the furniture reuse program. This is assuming the fact that the reused
table was already there and no new resources or refurbishment was done on it, so only the emission due to
transportation is the main factor. In the second scenario, an emission factor of 0.5 is reflective of the lifespan emissions
from the table in that it suggests the second user purchasing from the furniture reuse program is responsible for 50%
of the upstream emissions. The rationale behind this assumption is that the original user is not getting the full use and
instead only half the use - relative to the table’s full lifespan. Moreover, there is a possibility that the original user could
have disposed of the table in a landfill. However, the user consciously decided to opt for the reuse program to donate
and the second user can use the table for the other half of the life span. Therefore, the second user is partly accountable
for the table’s emissions proportional to the point at which the table is purchased from the program during its lifespan,
in this scenario being half way. The implications of this from an emissions perspective would be that the reused table,
from IKEA for example, with an emission factor 0.5 (50%) would have half the emission impact from the new IKEA
table’s material extraction, material production, packaging manufacturing, table manufacturing, and transportation
from the warehouse to the original user as well as the full emission impact from the transportation of the reused table
from the furniture reuse program to the second user. The phases within this system boundary that are applicable to
the reused table are partially the phases up to and including the upstream emissions to the point of “use by consumer”
and the transportation of the table from the furniture reuse program to the second user. Transportation from the
production facility to various shipping checkpoints - and eventually the Vancouver warehouses - were omitted from
the system boundary due to a lack of available primary data and insufficient information to form meaningful
assumptions. This will also add to the GHG emissions for the production of new tables, so the reported GHG emissions
in this study are the low-end estimates. Therefore, the transportation route used in the analysis for the new tables
only accounts for the route taken from the nearest Vancouver warehouse to the original user at the UBC Vancouver
campus. Additionally, transportation of the material inputs for the tables from the point of material extraction to the
manufacturing plant and the subsequent products from the manufacturing plant to the table production facilities were
Towards Zero Waste: An Environmental LCA of New Furniture vs Reuse Furniture
10
omitted - once again due to the lack of available primary data. The system boundary is demonstrated in Figure 1. Lastly,
before starting the data collection, we conducted an inventory analysis to identify what data needed to be collected.
We needed primary data for table dimensions, materials, and transportation as well as secondary data for assumptions,
transportation, data conversion, and any materials that were not specified within our primary data. The three tables
being studied include both a low and commercial-grade table for IKEA and Wayfair, as well as a reused table from the
furniture reuse program for both companies.
Figure 1: System Boundary Selected For The Table LCA
2.2.1 PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION RESEARCH METHODS
As previously stated, our LCA model has three interconnected components: the table, packaging, and transportation
2
.
Primary data collection included noting the table components, transportation mode and distance for the new and
reused tables. Our sample size for new tables consisted of four tables of two different grades (low-grade and
commercial-grade), from two different companies (Ikea and Wayfair) to understand the role of quality in the final
environmental impact. Although the furniture reuse program hosts a variety of furniture products that could have been
the focus of the analysis, we selected a table as our product of interest as its dimensions and materials are relatively
simple to model as compared to other furniture products. Additionally, tables across different manufacturers and
brands are often similar in their size and composition allowing for a more consistent comparison between similar grade
tables produced by different companies.
Regarding the new tables from Wayfair and IKEA, the dimensions and majority of materials of each table were recorded
directly from the company websites on the product’s online page. Some materials however, were not disclosed by
primary online sources and so were instead assumed - which will be discussed in the following section. Using this
primary data, we were able to calculate the mass or area of each component which would be later inputted into our
product system. Regarding transportation, primary data respecting the mode of transportation and distance for the re-
used tables was provided directly from the furniture reuse program. As for the new tables, each company’s local
warehouse near Vancouver was researched and located online. The primary data was organized into spreadsheets
delineating tables based on grade and brand.
2
Transportation considers the distance travelled and mode of transportation from a local warehouse to UBC. For the reused
tables, this distance was assumed to be 4 km (2 km for delivery to the warehouse and 2 km for delivery to its final destination).
Towards Zero Waste: An Environmental LCA of New Furniture vs Reuse Furniture
11
2.2.2 SECONDARY DATA COLLECTION RESEARCH METHODS
Once the primary data was collected, secondary data as well as data regarding any assumptions were collected to fill
the gaps in our inventory. To calculate the amount of each material used collected as primary data, information was
either found online or assumed based on available information. For example, the density of a material was collected
as secondary data to convert primary data (cubic meters of wood) into a mass of product which could be inputted
into our model (kilograms of wood). As for dimensions, the detailed data that was not published by the companies
were given assumptions that were kept consistent for all tables. An example of this would be the material of leg pads
and its dimensions as this was not specified on the Wayfair website for either grade of table. The final spreadsheet
included the product (brand and grade of table), its components (table top, table legs, steel reinforcement, etc.), the
material of each component, the dimensions of components available from primary sources, the assumptions for
conversions and the assumption’s source, and the final amount of each component and its materials used. As for
transportation, the spreadsheet included the location of the nearest warehouse, the route to the UBC Vancouver
campus (kilometers traveled), and the mode of transportation. This information provided a sufficient amount of data
for our openLCA model. Ultimately, by adding this data to the spreadsheet and compiling an inventory of both
primary and secondary data, each table, packaging, and transportation was converted into a ready to model form in
units that could be inputted directly into openLCA.
Additionally, there were various assumptions made while creating the model in which secondary data needed to be
collected and applied. For the transportation process from the Vancouver Warehouse to the UBC Vancouver campus,
it was assumed that the tables were located in the company's warehouse closest to Vancouver before being
transported to the UBC Vancouver campus. As for table lifespan, which relates back to our ability to apply our model
to a functional unit, the lifespan of each table was assumed with reference to their warranty time. The lifespan of the
same table grade is also assumed to be uniform, therefore, all low-cost tables have the same life span and all high-
cost tables have the same lifespan. The assumed lifespan of each table is shown in Table 1. Ultimately, secondary
data served the purpose of converting and applying assumptions to primary data so that each material could be
inputted into the model in the relevant units of distance, mass, or area.
Table 1: Life Span of table from different sources and the reused tables
Table retailer
Life span (years)
Wayfair
3-4
Wayfair
10
Wayfair
10
Towards Zero Waste: An Environmental LCA of New Furniture vs Reuse Furniture
12
IKEA
2-3
IKEA
10
IKEA
10
2.2.3 MODEL CREATION AND REVISION
Our model was constructed in openLCA, A professional software used for calculating the life cycle impact of a product.
This software is easily accessible with various databases available online for download. Specifically, our methodology
utilizes the database ecoinvent_38 as a main source of data modeled in openLCA. Model creation for each table
involves four major parts: table production, packaging, end-of-life treatment, and transportation.
Table production is modeled in openLCA with the input as the materials used in manufacturing - such as fiberboard,
steel, plastic, and coating materials - and the output as the table. Each of the four new tables (Wayfair low-grade,
Wayfair commercial-grade, IKEA low-grade, and IKEA commercial-grade) are modeled separately since the tables have
different material inputs. As previously stated, the production of the reused table is the same as the respective
commercial tables, since they are assumed to be the same tables with a reuse factor applied to adjust for the
accountability of emissions.
Packaging, similar to table production, is modeled by inputting packaging materials such as the cardboard box, plastic
film, and bubble wrap. The output is the packaging. Packing for each of the four new tables are also modeled separately,
and the packing output is added into models of tables as an input. Reused tables are assumed to have no packaging.
End-of-life treatment is modeled in openLCA, but the emissions from tables in landfill are calculated based on emission
factors provided by USEPA (2021). Total emission from each table is calculated by adding up emissions from each
material in one table. The emission of each material is calculated by timing emission factor to weight of each material.
In the model, disposal processes for each table are created, with the disposed table being the input, and emissions
being the output. Disposal emissions for reused tables have a reuse factor applied to account for the reduced number
of disposals by reusing a table.
Transportation is added to the model as an input. The transportation distance is determined by calculating the distance
between UBC and the nearest warehouse of the corresponding company. The transported weight is assumed to be the
weight of each table. Transportation distance for reused tables is assumed to be 4 km on average. The transportation
in the disposal process is already accounted for in the emission factors, so additional transportation is not added to the
disposal process.
Towards Zero Waste: An Environmental LCA of New Furniture vs Reuse Furniture
13
Linkage between model elements are shown in Figure 2. This flowchart shows how each part of the model is connected
together. Note that due to limited data availability and research capacity, the “transportation” flow only includes the
furniture’s transportation from local warehouses to UBC. After linking all the elements, the final model represents the
full life cycle of a table within the scope of our study.
Finally, the processes for different tables are compared to obtain results on the global warming potential of each table.
The number of tables used in our time span of 10 years is determined based on the expected life span of each table.
Wayfair low-grade table has an expected life span of 3.33 years, which means 3 tables are used in 10 years. Both
commercial tables and reused tables are expected to last 10 years, so 1 of each is used in 10 years. Similarly for IKEA,
three low-grade tables were required in a span of 10 years and 1 for both commercial as well as reused tables in a 10
years period.
Figure 2: Model structure for table
3
3. RESULTS
3.1 WAYFAIR
3.1.1 OPEN LCA MODEL GRAPH
Wayfair low-grade and commercial-grade tables differ primarily in their overall weight. The main materials used are
almost identical, but the commercial-grade table has more steel for structuring and thus has a longer lifespan. The
inputs into the Wayfair low-grade and commercial-grade tables are shown in Figure 3. As shown in the figures, the low-
grade table contains 3.67 kg of steel, which makes up the frame and legs of the table. The commercial-grade table
3
Transportation assumption: Due to limited data availability and research capacity we only included the transportation
emissions incurred from the distance traveled between a local warehouse and the consumer (UBC). Transportation emissions
throughout the rest of the product life cycle were not accounted for.
Towards Zero Waste: An Environmental LCA of New Furniture vs Reuse Furniture
14
contains 7.36 kg of steel, which is double the amount of low-grade table, resulting in a better support of structure and
longer lifespan.
Figure 3: List of input flows for the Wayfair low-grade and commercial-grade table
The resulting models are shown in Figures 4 and 5. As explained in the methodology, production materials, packaging,
and transportation flow in, and disposal is the outflow. The reused table is a Wayfair commercial table resold by the
Furniture Reuse Program. For the reused table, no packaging is included. Models for Wayfair commercial-grade,
Wayfair low-grade, and Wayfair reused table are calculated and compared by openLCA.
Figure 4: Model graph for Wayfair Commercial table which includes the Material processing, transportation as well as
landfill emissions
Figure 5: Model graph for Wayfair reused table which includes the Material processing, transportation as well as
landfill emissions
Towards Zero Waste: An Environmental LCA of New Furniture vs Reuse Furniture
15
3.1.2 GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL OF WAYFAIR TABLES
The results of calculation are shown in Table 2. The same results are visualized in Figure 6. ‘Wayfair reused’ refers to
the table rescued by the UBC Furniture Reuse Program. The ‘50% of production-related emissions’ indicates the
production emissions of the reused table is assumed to be 50% of the original table, which is the Wayfair commercial
table. The ‘0% of production-related emissions’ indicates none of the original production emissions are accounted for
by the reuser. As shown in the bar chart, Wayfair commercial-grade has a GWP more than 50% lower than Wayfair low-
grade tables, while the Wayfair reused table is showing another reduction of over 50% for the criteria 1, where we
assumed that the second user is responsible for the 50% of production emission. Wayfair low-grade table produces a
highest GWP of 107.821 kg CO2 eq in 10 years, while Wayfair reused table produces a lowest of 18.4126 kg CO2 eq in
10 years (second user responsible for 50% emission) and 1.29 kg CO2 eq in 10 years (assuming 0% of production-related
emissions). In comparison, Wayfair reused tables achieved a GWP reduction of over 80-97%.
Table 2: Global warming potential of Wayfair tables (Low, Commercial and Reused)
Global Warming Potential per 10 year period (kg CO2 eq)
Wayfair Low-grade
107.8
Wayfair Commercial
43.1
Wayfair Reused provided by UBC Reuse program
(assuming 50% of production-related emissions)
18.4
Wayfair Reused provided by UBC Reuse program
(assuming 0% of production-related emissions)
1.29
Figure 6: Global warming potential of Wayfair tables over 10 years
Towards Zero Waste: An Environmental LCA of New Furniture vs Reuse Furniture
16
3.1.3 TOP CONTRIBUTORS (ACTIVITIES) TO GWP - WAYFAIR TABLE
To see the composition of GWP producers during the lifespan of the tables, the top contributors to GWP for Wayfair
commercial-grade table and low-grade table are shown in Figures 7 and 8 as examples.
For Wayfair's commercial and low-grade tables, the top 5 contributors are:
1) Disposal (Landfill)
2) Ammonia production
3) Polyol production
4) Heat production from coal
5) Heat production from natural gas
Figure 7: Top contributors (activities) to global warming potential in the Wayfair commercial-grade table
Towards Zero Waste: An Environmental LCA of New Furniture vs Reuse Furniture
17
Figure 8: Top contributors (activities) to global warming potential in the Wayfair low-grade table
As shown in Figures 7 and 8, the GWP of “others” are both significantly the highest for Wayfair commercial-grade and
low-grade table. This is due to the complex nature of the tables as a very large number of items are present in the
components of a table which contribute to their GWP. For example, under the GWP of fiberboard used to make the
tables, hundreds of items are considered, including every ingredient of the fiberboard, all forms of energy used in
every step of production, and the transportation of each different ingredient.
3.1.4 TOP CONTRIBUTORS (PROCESS) TO GWP – WAYFAIR TABLE
When looking at the process contribution to GWP, the Wayfair low-grade and commercial-grade tables major process
contributors were as follows (As shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10).
1) Fiberboard production
2) Packaging - Cardboard and LDPE
3) Steel powder coating
4) Landfill - Transportation and biogenic decay
5) Steel casting
The breakdown of the total CO
2
e is also shown using Sankey diagrams in Appendix C and Appendix D.
Figure 9: Top process contributors to Wayfair low-grade table global warming potential
Figure 10: Top process contributors to Wayfair commercial-grade table global warming potential
Towards Zero Waste: An Environmental LCA of New Furniture vs Reuse Furniture
18
3.2 IKEA
3.2.1 OPEN LCA INPUT FLOWS AND MODEL GRAPH
The main difference between the IKEA low-grade and commercial-grade table was the weight of the overall table as
well as the quality of material used. For instance, the quantity of metal component required for IKEA low-grade table
was around 3.4 kg which is significantly less compared to the IKEA commercial-grade (32.15 kg). The list of all flows has
been shown in Figure 11. This will provide insight regarding the type and amount of materials that go into producing
an IKEA table.
Figure 11: List of input flows for the IKEA low-grade and commercial-grade table
Once the input flow and output flows were added to the LCA model, we got the model graphs shown in Figure 12 and
Figure 13. These figures represent the production materials, packaging and transportation in-flow as well as the
disposal out-flow. Models for the IKEA commercial-grade, IKEA low-grade, and IKEA reused table are calculated and
compared by openLCA.
Towards Zero Waste: An Environmental LCA of New Furniture vs Reuse Furniture
19
Figure 12: Model graph for IKEA Commercial table which includes the Material processing, transportation as well as
landfill emissions
Figure 13: Model graph for IKEA reused table which includes the material processing, transportation within UBC and
end of life-landfill emissions
3.2.2 GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL OF IKEA TABLES
The results of calculation are shown in Table 3. The same results are visualized in Figure 14. As shown in the bar chart,
IKEA commercial-grade has a GWP over 10% lower than IKEA low-grade tables as a lower number of tables are used
for a 10-year period, indicating landfill emissions are also reduced. The IKEA reused table are found to have a GWP
reduction of over 50-95% compared to the IKEA commercial-grade table. The IKEA low-grade table produces the highest
GWP at 41.089 kg CO2 eq in 10 years, while an IKEA reused table produces a lowest of 16.226 kg CO2 eq (assuming
50% of production-related emissions) and 1.76 kg CO2 eq (assuming 0% production-related emissions)
Towards Zero Waste: An Environmental LCA of New Furniture vs Reuse Furniture
20
in 10 years. Therefore, relative to the IKEA low-grade table, the IKEA reused table achieved a GWP reduction of over
50%.
Table 3: Global warming potential of IKEA tables (Low, Commercial and Reused)
Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq)
IKEA Low-grade
41.1
IKEA Commercial
36.5
IKEA Reused provided by UBC Reuse program
(assuming 50% of production-related emissions)
16.2
IKEA Reused (assuming 0% production-related
emissions)
1.766
Figure 14: Global warming potential of IKEA tables over 10 years
3.2.3
TOP CONTRIBUTORS (ACTIVITIES) TO GWP – IKEA TABLE
The major GWP contributors identified by our LCA for IKEA low and commercial-grade tables derived from the
following activities, shown in Figure 15 and Figure 16.
1) Direct CO2 emission into the air from landfill
2) Heat Production by coal furnace
3) Coal extraction process
4) Ammonia production for making particle board
5) Heat generation to run furnace via natural gas burning
Towards Zero Waste: An Environmental LCA of New Furniture vs Reuse Furniture
21
In the case of the IKEA commercial-grade table, the GWP due to ammonia production was greater than the IKEA low-
grade table because the tabletop is completely composed of particle board, which is not the case with low-grade
table (70% is filled with paper-based honeycomb support).
Figure 15: Top activity contributors to IKEA low-grade table GWP
Figure 16: Top activity contributors to IKEA commercial-grade table GWP
3.2.4 TOP CONTRIBUTORS (PROCESS) TO GWP – IKEA TABLE
If we look at the process’s GWP, it was observed that for the IKEA low-grade major process contributors were as
follows (As shown in Figure 17 and Figure 18). The breakdown of the total CO
2
e is also shown using Sankey diagram in
Appendix A and Appendix B.
1. Paper production
2. Steel casting
3. Particle board
4. Packaging - Cardboard and LDPE
5. Landfill - Transportation and biogenic decay
Similarly, for the IKEA commercial-grade table, it was observed that the major process contributors to GWP were
1) Particle board production process
Towards Zero Waste: An Environmental LCA of New Furniture vs Reuse Furniture
22
2) Aluminum bar extrusion
3) Packaging
4) Landfill
5) Powder coating for metal
Figure 17: Top process contributors to IKEA low-grade table GWP
Figure 18: Top contributors to IKEA commercial-grade table GWP
4. DISCUSSION
An LCA was conducted and analyzed to yield the environmental impact, quantified as GWP, of 6 different tables sourced
from 2 companies (Wayfair and IKEA - Commercial and Low-grade) and we used ‘IKEA reused’ and ‘Wayfair reused’ as
a representative of the furniture reuse program. This analysis takes into consideration various life cycle stages including
upstream, use, and downstream phases in the production of the tables. The compiled data from our LCA identified the
most to least sustainable table options to be the IKEA reused, Wayfair reused, IKEA commercial-grade, IKEA low-grade,
Wayfair-commercial-grade, and lastly Wayfair low-grade when considering the life-span of each table to be 10 years.
The reused tables of both brands yielded significantly lower global warming potential values relative to their new
counterparts. The reused Wayfair table, for instance, avoided 57-97% of the carbon emissions relative to its new
commercial-grade equivalent, while the reused commercial-grade IKEA table avoids 56-95%. The reason for the broad
range is because of our assumptions about the production emission we made for the reused table (Case 1: second user
responsible for 50% production emission; case 2: No production emission from reused table). These reductions in
environmental impact are reflective of the avoidance of new raw material extraction, manufacturing processes,
Towards Zero Waste: An Environmental LCA of New Furniture vs Reuse Furniture
23
packaging and some transportation associated with a reused table, relative to a new table. Rather than being
transported to the landfill, the reused tables are sold in a ready-to-use form, allowing for the extension of its lifespan
and maximization of the resources utilized for the table. It is known to the general public that actions that can help the
environment include the 3Rs, namely reduce, reuse, and recycle. It should be taken into consideration that high-quality
items have the potential to be reused.
Based on the data presented, it is also recognized that the production of tables from IKEA is more environmentally
sustainable than those manufactured by Wayfair. In both scenarios the IKEA tables, low and commercial-grade, had
61.89% and 15.44% lower emissions respectively when compared to those of Wayfair tables. With this information in
mind, when sourcing a new table, IKEA would be a better brand choice for environmentally conscious consumers.
While reused tables are associated with reducing the environmental impact of furniture consumption, they also reap
economic benefits. Calculations for the overall monetary input for the purchase and disposal of the tables over a 10-
year lifespan conclude that the reused tables from the UBC Furniture Reuse Program have the best value. For instance,
the reused IKEA commercial-grade table is priced 99 CAD less than its closest equivalent IKEA commercial-grade table.
Furthermore, if the carbon emissions avoided from utilizing the reused table was instead offset in the carbon market
at current market price, the cost of the low and commercial-grade tables would increase drastically.
A handful of limitations are present in the study which should be accounted for. One of the limitations present includes
the limited access to required data. As a result of this, educated assumptions were made which may slightly impact the
results. These assumptions include making inferences on the amount of material used for each product, the pathway
of transportation taken from the warehouses to the consumer, and its proper disposal at the end of its lifetime.
Additionally, the environmental analysis of the study is primarily focused on GWP, overlooking other aspects such as
eutrophication, acidification, ozone impact and more.
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION
This study supports that the UBC Furniture Reuse Program provides both environmental and financial benefits to the
UBC community by collecting and re-selling reused furniture items. Due to the environmental and financial benefits,
it is recommended that resources be provided to allow for the growth and expansion of the program. Reducing
carbon emissions from furniture is in-line with UBC goals in the Climate Action Plan 2030 and the Zero Waste Action
Plan: Towards a Circular Economy 2030.
Moreover, given its strength, our recommendations for the program is to develop strategies to render the
organization more exposure to the public and possibly other institutions that would be interested in purchasing their
re-used furniture items.
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Towards Zero Waste: An Environmental LCA of New Furniture vs Reuse Furniture
24
Several areas for improvement and expansion of our report have been identified. Firstly, expanding the scope of both
furniture brands and furniture items are crucial, as IKEA and Wayfair are not the sole retailers of furniture and there
are many different mass-consumed furniture items that have variable environmental impacts. By considering other
furniture providers (For example Staples) and furniture products, the data collected will be more representative of a
realistic scenario in which there are many furniture items, reused and new, that vary in their environmental impact.
This expanded insight may be beneficial in understanding a more accurate average environmental impact of new to
reused furniture items and also in comparing the environmental sustainability of different furniture brands and
products.
Additionally, it is essential to explore various potential scenarios. While our current study focuses on the tables with a
lifespan of 10 years, realistically the use of these products may vary. Tables that are located in a highly trafficked area
might need to be replaced more often compared to those with less use. Lastly, this report only covers downstream
emissions along with upstream emissions from manufacturing and raw material extraction. Going forward, a thorough
cradle to grave analysis can be performed including the transportation of raw materials to the manufacturing sites, the
transportation to the production facilities and warehouses. This additional data can help provide a more accurate
perspective on the environmental impacts of the tables from IKEA and Wayfair given their different quality grade.
6. CONCLUSION
This report focuses on identifying the amount of carbon emission made throughout the life cycle of a low-grade,
commercial-grade, and reused table sourced from IKEA or Wayfair within a 10-year timeframe. For this analysis,
openLCA was utilized in accordance with the ISO 14040 and 14044 standards to help quantify the carbon emissions
produced from the upstream, use, and downstream phases of the table. The functional unit identified was the number
of tables used within a ten year “life span”. The necessary information was compiled utilizing both primary and
secondary sources. Making use of the database ecoinvent_38, a LCA model was created taking in mind the four main
aspects namely table production, packaging, end-of-life treatment, and transportation. A LCA model was created for
all 6 different tables that are to be examined. The tables with the highest to lowest environmental impact are: Wayfair
low-grade, Wayfair commercial-grade, IKEA low-grade, IKEA commercial-grade, Wayfair reused, and IKEA reused. The
carbon emissions for the tables range from 16.2 to 107.8 kg CO2 eq. The reused tables are found to have significant
carbon reduction in comparison to its unused counterpart with up to 84.95% of the carbon emissions can be avoided
in Wayfair and 60.51% for IKEA. Between the 2 companies, IKEA tables have lower GHG emissions, whether that is
through sourcing a reused table from this brand or from a new product. Not only does giving a second-hand table
another life and reduce its global warming potential, it is also the best monetary option. Over the course of the 10-year
functional unit, the financial savings with the reused table is 99 CAD in comparison to the next inexpensive option. The
presence of limitations in the analysis should be acknowledged. Future research should focus on addressing these gaps,
particularly the scope of company selections, potential scenarios, and the inclusion of social aspects in the LCA.
REFERENCES
● ANFALLARE / ADILS Desk, bamboo/white, 140x65 cm (551/8x255/8") - IKEA CA. (n.d.). IKEA. Retrieved from
https://www.ikea.com/ca/en/p/anfallare-adils-desk-bamboo-white-s09417693/
Towards Zero Waste: An Environmental LCA of New Furniture vs Reuse Furniture
25
● Barid Desk. (n.d.). Wayfair.ca. Retrieved from https://www.wayfair.ca/furniture/pdp/wade-logan-barid-desk-
c011085385.html?piid=366749370%2C366749368
● BEKANT Desk, white, 160x80 cm (63x311/2") - IKEA CA. (n.d.). IKEA. Retrieved from
https://www.ikea.com/ca/en/p/bekant-desk-white-s19022808/#content
● Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories. (1BC). . Data set, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
● Raliek rectangle 2 person computer table. (n.d.). Wayfair.ca. Retrieved from
https://www.wayfair.ca/shop-
office-spaces/pdp/ebern-designs-raliek-computer-table-
c010890193.html?piid=1866354733%2C1866354731%2C1866354740
● Mark et. al., Adaptive remanufacturing for multiple lifecycles: A case study in office furniture, Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, Volume 135, 14-23, 2018
● Medeiros, D.L., Tavares, A.O.d.C., Rapôso, Á.L.Q.R.e.S. et al. Life cycle assessment in the furniture industry:
the case study of an office cabinet. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22, 1823–1836 (2017)
● Furniture - Canada Statista, https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/furniture/canada (last visited December
19, 2023
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Sankey diagram for IKEA low-grade table showcasing the distribution of total kgCO2 eq
Towards Zero Waste: An Environmental LCA of New Furniture vs Reuse Furniture
26
Appendix B: Sankey diagram for IKEA commercial-grade table showcasing the distribution of total kgCO2 eq
Appendix C: Sankey diagram for Wayfair low-grade table showcasing the distribution of total kgCO2 eq
Towards Zero Waste: An Environmental LCA of New Furniture vs Reuse Furniture
27
Appendix D: Sankey diagram for Wayfair commercial-grade table showcasing the distribution of total kgCO2 eq