Sustainability and the furniture industry: A comprehensive synthesis

Abstract

This paper presents a systematic review of the academic literature published until 2024 about sustainability and the furniture industry. Relevant publications were selected through keyword searches in Scopus and the Web of Science databases. One hundred and one publications were identified after having removed duplicates and other, non-peer-reviewed papers. A content analysis on the 101 identified publications allowed the classification of these papers into the following categories: “Sustainable Design” (21%), “Supply Chain Management” (14%), “Sustainability Strategies” (10%), and “Environmental Management” (9%) with the remaining publications (46%) being distributed among eleven other categories. To find out if the topic attracts more interest today than 10 or 20 years ago, the study also analyzed the distribution of publications by year. Investigations were also done by type of publications, countries, and focal points. Findings suggest that academic studies on sustainability in the furniture industry are still scattered and no coherent or continuous research stream has yet evolved. However, interest in the topic has been increasing lately.

Full Article

Sustainability and the Furniture Industry: A Comprehensive Synthesis

Enis Kucuk  ^a,b,* and Urs Buehlmann ^a

This paper presents a systematic review of the academic literature published until 2024 about sustainability and the furniture industry. Relevant publications were selected through keyword searches in Scopus and the Web of Science databases. One hundred and one publications were identified after having removed duplicates and other, non-peer-reviewed papers. A content analysis on the 101 identified publications allowed the classification of these papers into the following categories: “Sustainable Design” (21%), “Supply Chain Management” (14%), “Sustainability Strategies” (10%), and “Environmental Management” (9%) with the remaining publications (46%) being distributed among eleven other categories. To find out if the topic attracts more interest today than 10 or 20 years ago, the study also analyzed the distribution of publications by year. Investigations were also done by type of publications, countries, and focal points. Findings suggest that academic studies on sustainability in the furniture industry are still scattered and no coherent or continuous research stream has yet evolved. However, interest in the topic has been increasing lately.

DOI: 10.15376/biores.21.1.Kucuk

Keywords: Sustainability; Furniture Industry; Environmental Sustainability; Systematic Literature Review

Contact information: a: Department of Sustainable Biomaterials, Virginia Tech, 1650 Research Center Drive, Blacksburg, VA 24061 USA; b: Department of Forest Faculty, Artvin Çoruh University, Artvin, Turkey; *Corresponding author: ekucuk@vt.edu

INTRODUCTION

Sustainability has become a buzzword. Countless products and services are being sold with claims of being “sustainable,” often with no clear definition of what the term essentially entails (Wuelser et al. 2011; Zhang 2020). Customers frequently give preference to a product or a service with a claim of being created sustainably and which is said to be used more sustainably. To improve sales volume, the industry reacts to customers’ expectations by using the term “sustainable” for its products and operations. An example from the construction industry illustrates our point. The construction industry uses terms like “green concrete” and “energy-efficient materials” as sustainable solutions to promote its products (Choong et al. 2022; Senthilkumar et al. 2023). While such claims may improve the industry’s or the product’s image, the industry needs to address the sector’s significant environmental impacts, as it is responsible for 35% of global CO₂ emissions and 45% to 65% of the waste discarded in landfills (Lima et al. 2021).

A similar situation ails the furniture industry. Every year, the volume of furniture waste increases and creates significant pressure on landfills. To that end, as millions of tons are trashed annually in the European Union (Barbaritano et al. 2019), a number that is expected to grow due to furniture’s eco-friendly characteristics (Nam et al. 2024). In fact, approximately 10 million metric tons of furniture end up in landfills, waiting for actions to deal with this huge amount of waste (Suandi et al. 2022). Reusing furniture, recycling unused items, and using environmentally friendly production methods are vital to mitigating this issue (Xiong et al. 2022; Ofori-Agyei et al. 2023). Such challenges highlight that environmental concerns are a significant component of the sustainability concept in the furniture industry. The academic literature contains numerous definitions of sustainability (Glavič and Lukman 2007; Moore et al. 2017; Hallin et al. 2021). Gruen et al. (2008) define sustainability as the “capability of being maintained at a certain rate or level,” while Donnelly et al. (2006) indicated that sustainability is “minimizing the consumption of the world’s resources by pursuing better environmental performance within product lifecycles.” The terms “sustainability” and “sustainable development” are often intertwined, and authors, including Marcuse (1998), Phillis and Andriantiatsaholiniaina (2001), and Sverdrup and Svensson (2002), use the definition of “sustainable development” when defining sustainability. However, the most frequently used definition of sustainability is provided by Brundtland (1987), which defines sustainable development as “the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.”

According to Elkington (1998), the concept of sustainability has three dimensions, e.g., environmental, social, and economic. This is often referred to as the Triple Bottom Line (TBL). The TBL framework states that sustainability goes beyond environmental concerns, providing a holistic approach that integrates environmental, economic, and social aspects (Elkington 1998; Evans and Sawyer 2010; Nikolaou et al. 2013). Ricetti (2016) described these dimensions as the environmental dimension involving the sustainable consumption of natural resources (materials, energy, air, land, and water, among others), thereby allowing the planet to renew what is consumed; the social dimension, which calls for a socially sustainable system that ensures adequate social services for all involved (health, education, equality, and accountability, among others); and the economic dimension which signifies that managing resources that enable an organization to continue its activities over the long term emphasizing the efficient use of its resources to achieve sustained operational gains.

The furniture industry, like any other industry, is working to become more sustainable (Pei et al. 2024). To make furniture, the industry utilizes various resources, and consequently, waste and emissions are produced (Lima and Silva 2005). Such waste includes wood, plastics, metals, textiles, natural and synthetic leathers, glass, and liquid residues, among others (Nikolić and Gordić 2010). Additionally, the manufacturing of furniture, the distribution of the furniture, the sales processes, the use of the furniture and their final disposure have significant environmental impacts, including resource consumption, emissions, and waste generation (Sakib et al. 2024). For example, the primary material used to make furniture is wood (Namicev and Petrovski 2019), which is obtained from natural forests and/or plantations. The extraction of this raw material may have environmental consequences such as deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and soil degradation, among others, if not properly addressed.

The furniture industry serves humans in every walk of life, addressing the various needs of a vastly diverse set of customers. According to Britannica (n.d.) the furniture industry encompasses “All the companies and activities involved in the design, manufacture, distribution, and sale of functional and decorative objects of household equipment.” According to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), the industry is categorized under the 337 NAICS code – Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing (NAICS Association n.d.). It includes several sub-sectors: NAICS 3371 Household and Institutional Furniture and Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturing, NAICS 3372 Office Furniture (including Fixtures) Manufacturing, and NAICS 3379 Other Furniture Related Product Manufacturing. Each sub-sector in NAICS code 337 has different roles to fulfill in residential, commercial, and industrial furnishing needs. Globally, furniture market revenue for 2024 was projected to reach $765 billion, with approximately $263 billion coming from the United States, $88 billion from China, $172 billion from the European Union, $7.5 billion from Turkey, and $1.4 billion from Vietnam (Statista 2024). The furniture industry also plays a significant role in employment globally, with 338,100 employees in the United States (NAICS code 337, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2024), 1,096,200 employees in the European Union (NACE Code C31, Manufacture of furniture, Eurostat 2024), 908,000 employees in China (CEIC 2024), 355,900 employees in Turkey (NACE Code C31, Manufacture of furniture, Eurostat 2024) and over 500,000 workers in Vietnam (Cosmo Sourcing 2024; The Shiv 2024).

This manuscript presents a systematic bibliometric literature review to analyze and synthesize the existing literature on environmental sustainability and the furniture industry. First, the Introduction section provides general information about sustainability and the furniture industry. The subsequent Experimental section provides details about the methods for this systematic bibliometric literature review. The Results and Discussion section presents the analysis of the documents obtained and then evaluates and discusses some of the more noteworthy findings.

EXPERIMENTAL

This study conducted a systematic literature review by bibliometric analysis to examine the existing literature and to help understand the relationship between the furniture industry and environmental sustainability. James Lind, in 1753 conducted the first systematic review, which marked a milestone in the systematic organization and analysis of scientific research (Poklepovic et al. 2019). Lind’s (1753) study was presented in the form of a paper that aimed to deliver a concise and unbiased summary of evidence regarding scurvy. Since then, uncountable systematic reviews have been published, with some achieving great acclaim such as the widely cited publication “Systematic literature reviews in software engineering – A systematic literature review,” by Kitchenham et al. (2009, 5693 citations on Google Scholar on December 3, 2024), Cocchia’s (2014, 1432 citations) “Smart and digital city: A systematic literature review,” Tremmel et al.’s (2017, 1149 citations) “Economic burden of obesity: a systematic literature review,” or Adams’ (2016, 1790 citations) “Sustainability-oriented innovation: A systematic review.” Dodgson (2021) argued that a systematic literature review is a research approach employing a meticulous process to gather valid and reliable data necessary for building knowledge. Such systematic literature reviews provide numerous benefits, including (1) broadening the scope (expanding the research field by including a wider and more diverse range of studies), (2) by improving transparency (by documenting the search strategies, inclusion criteria, and screening processes), (3) by underlining the significance of empirical evidence over preconceived knowledge (Mallett et al. 2012; Xiao and Watson 2019), and (4) tracking and documenting changes in the literature over time. Also, a systematic literature review uncovers gaps in the relevant literature and shows methodological inconsistencies and weaknesses, thereby contributing to establish priorities for future studies (Paul and Criado 2020). Benefiting from Dodgson’s (2021) work, Rosário and Dias (2022) framed a systematic literature review procedure that involves screening and selecting information sources for analysis and presentation. They presented a framework for structuring this procedure, which consists of three phases and six stages as shown in Table 1. This framework provides that the literature review is conducted systematically, with a strong focus on transparency and repeatability.

This study’s literature search was executed using the Web of Science (WoS) and the Scopus databases. WoS was chosen due to its reputation as the first international bibliographic database with broad coverage, making it an effective and efficient resource for journal selection, research evaluation, and bibliometric analyses (Li et al. 2018). Scopus, being recognized as a comprehensive bibliographic database (Pranckutė 2021) was also used, as it includes some of the world’s most prominent peer-reviewed academic journals (Rosário and Dias 2022). This review is a systematic mapping study and does not include a methodological quality appraisal or a risk-of-bias assessment the publications discussed. No specific search preference (such as title or abstract search) was applied in the document search process. Instead, the default search preferences of the databases were used (In Scopus, the default setting is “Article title, Abstract, Keywords,” whereas in Web of Science it is “All Fields”). Initially, the keyword “sustainability” was searched to identify potential documents. In the search executed on October 23, 2024, there were 501,214 results in the WoS database and 462,014 results in the Scopus database. These documents were then searched for the term “furniture industry” and “furniture sector” (e.g., “sustainability” AND (“furniture industry” OR “furniture sector”). Keywords such as “wood industry” and “forest products” were not included as they encompass the broader forest products industry from forestry to papermaking (IndustrySelect 2024). The same screening procedure was repeated on February 2, 2025, to update the number of relevant publications for 2024 with the results incorporated into Table 2.

Table 1. Stages of the Systematic Bibliometric Literature Review

Screening the documents refers to reviewing documents revealed from a database search to determine how relevant the resulting publications are to this research. The following criteria were established for the document screening process: types of peer-reviewed documents (articles, conference/proceeding papers, books, and book chapters), language (English), and publication years (2024 and earlier). The resulting 101 publications (Table 2) were then analyzed by year, journal, keywords, geography, and number of citations, and followed by an examination of the focal points. Publications were considered “out of scope/irrelevant” when they did not contain elements related to both the furniture industry and sustainability (e.g., studies that discussed sustainability without linking it to the furniture industry, or studies about the furniture industry that did not include any sustainability component). In addition, documents in which the term “sustainability” appeared only in peripheral elements, such as conference or proceedings titles, but were not reflected in the study’s actual content, were also excluded. Also, access to 13 publications could not be obtained despite attempts through institutional databases and open-access platforms. These documents spread across various research areas, and most of them were judged not be included in this review (e.g., Chiurciu et al. 2016, introduced at the 28^th International Business Information Management Association Conference) or technical reports (e.g., Pupo et al. 2012, focusing on composite materials for civil construction) fall outside the scope of this review.

Examining the year of publication for each of these 101 publications made it possible to track the relative interest in this field of study over the years. Analyzing the journals/outlets where these 101 publications were published made it possible to find out where the academic community is researching sustainability and the furniture industry publishes their work most frequently.

Table 2. Screening Methodology

VOSviewer 1.6.20 (2023) was used for the keyword analysis, making it possible to introduce the co-occurrence network of the keywords. In VOSviewer, the co-occurrence network of keywords is used to visually analyze the main research topics and how they relate and cluster related terms based on how frequently they appear together in the literature (Gao et al. 2017). The VOSviewer network visualizes the keyword frequency and co-occurrence patterns (Martynov et al. 2020). It helps to identify trends, popular topics, and the evolving structure of a research field (Ellegaard and Wallin 2015; Zhou et al. 2022). Additionally, such networks allow researchers to explore collaborations, gaps in the literature, and potential new research directions (Lozano et al. 2019). RIS (Research Information Systems) format files were downloaded for the 101 documents from the WoS and Scopus databases to analyze the author-specified keywords in VOSviewer 1.6.20 (2023). These files contain the keywords used by the authors for their publications. VOSviewer evaluates these keywords verbatim (word-for-word). For instance, if one author uses the keyword “ecodesign,” another might use “eco-design”. In such cases, VOSviewer treats both terms as separate keywords. The keywords were not modified to maintain simplicity and ensure that other researchers could replicate this study with the same results. For example, terms like “ecodesign” and “eco-design” were accepted as they are.

To determine the countries where research into sustainability and the furniture industry is most prevalent, the first author’s employer’s country affiliation was used. This metric was used to show the geographical location of the researcher pursuing this topic, which may or may not be identical with the work being described in the paper.

Analyzing article citations is among the most common approaches to assessing the influence of authors, journals, and articles, as it identifies key studies within a research field (Mulet-Forteza et al. 2018). The most-cited works in the relevant research area were analyzed and examined in terms of basic citation metrics such as total citations and average annual citations. Citation data were obtained from Google Scholar on January 29, 2025 to avoid divergent numbers from the WoS and Scopus databases.

For the focal point analysis, the focal point categories were determined through an inductive coding process. During the full-text review of the 101 publications, recurring themes were identified, compared, and clustered, allowing the categories to emerge from the data rather than being imposed a priori. Each publication was reviewed based on its title, abstract, keywords, and, when necessary, the complete text, to determine its most relevant focal point. For example, Pei et al.’s (2024) study was categorized under the Circular Economy focal point because the phrase “Circular Economy” appears directly in the title “Enhancing circular economy practices in the furniture industry through circular design strategies” and is supported by the text. Similarly, Sukmawati and Setiawan (2022) were categorized under the Supply Chain Management category, as the term “green supplier selection” is explicitly stated in the title of their work, “A conceptual model of green supplier selection in the manufacturing industry using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) methods” and in the text. These examples reflect how title-based keywords inform the focal point assignment. Another example is the study by Liu et al. (2022a), which was categorized under the focal point Digitization and Technology Use because its title, “A Conceptual Blockchain Enhanced Information Model of Product Service Systems Framework for Sustainable Furniture.” Liu et al. (2022a) clearly emphasize the application of digital technologies (particularly blockchains) in the context of sustainable furniture. The phrase ‘Blockchain Enhanced Information Model’ in the title justifies its categorization under the digitization-focused category. Additionally, the study’s full text includes frequent appearances of digitization and technology terms.

This way, 15 focal points, as shown in Table 6, were created. All the 101 publications reviewed were categorized under these points. Some publications fall under multiple focal points. An example would be Susanty et al. (2019), where the main focus of the study is on policy-making and strategic decision-making for implementing Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) in the wooden furniture industry. Therefore, the Susanty et al. (2019) article was categorized under Sustainability Strategies as it primarily addresses sustainability from a strategic policy perspective, emphasizing supply chain management practices and their integration into the industry. However, the study also involves supply chain concepts and hence could be categorized under Supply Chain Management. However, its primary contribution lies in the policy and strategic aspects of GSCM implementation. Hence, the study by Susanty et al. (2019) was categorized under Sustainability Strategies. Each of the 101 publications was assigned to a single focal point to maintain consistency in the analysis.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

One hundred and one publications (65 journal articles, 29 conference proceedings, and seven book sections) have been published since 1995 on the furniture industry and environmental sustainability (Table 2). The publications found were analyzed by year, journal, keywords, geography, and number of citations to obtain an overview of the research done. Additionally, a review and discussion of the focal points of the 101 publications is being given and a discussion about the research thrust and the gaps uncovered is discussed.

Publications by Year

The search for published manuscripts in Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) using the keywords “sustainability” AND “furniture industry” OR “furniture sector” yielded 101 manuscripts (Table 2). The earliest published manuscript dates back to 1995 and is entitled “An analysis of tropical hardwood product importation and consumption in the United States” (Smith et al. 1995). The publication analyzed the role of tropical hardwoods in the furniture industry, and their impact on global deforestation.

Fig. 1. Distribution of publications by year from 1995 to 2024

Fig. 2. Distribution of publications by 4-year periods

Based on our keyword search, Smith et al.’s 1995 publication relating to the hardwood product importation and consumption in the United States was not followed by any other publication until 2009. In 2009, two manuscripts were published, followed by 98 more manuscripts published between 2010 and 2024. The highest numbers of manuscripts were published in 2024 (16 publications).

Based on this yearly analysis (Fig. 1), no clear trend for the importance of the subject could be found. However, to eliminate annual fluctuations of manuscript production due to factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, a grouped analysis conducted at four-year intervals (the choice of four years is arbitrary) shows an increasing trend in the number of publications since 2009 (Fig. 2).

Publications by Journal

The 65 analyzed peer-reviewed journal articles found from the literature search (another 36 articles were found either in proceeding papers or in book sections) are distributed across 41 different journals. Table 3 shows the distribution of journals in which publications were published.

Thirty-six journals (87.8%) of the total 41 journals in which peer-reviewed publications with a focus on sustainability and the furniture industry published only one article between 1995 and 2024. Three (7.3%) of the journals published two articles each, while another two (5.4%) published five or more articles. Two journals (Sustainability and Journal of Cleaner Production) published 23 articles combined, accounting for 35.4% of the total number of 65 peer-referred manuscripts published. Sustainability was found to be the leading journal, publishing 18 articles (27.7%), followed by the Journal of Cleaner Production (five articles, 7.7%), followed by Ambiente and Sociedade, Asian Journal of Scientific Research, and Sustainable Production and Consumption (each two articles, 3.1%).

Table 3. Journals in which the 65 Manuscripts were Published

Keyword Analysis

The 101 publications (Table 3) were analyzed to identify the most frequently used keywords entered by the authors. To that end, VOSviewer 1.6.20 software (2023) identified 353 keywords across all the selected publications. Of these, 301 appeared only once, making up 85% of the keywords identified. Thirty-two keywords appeared twice (9%), while twenty (6%) were mentioned three or more times. The most frequently occurring keyword was “sustainability,” appearing 34 times, followed by “furniture industry” (21), “furniture” (10), “circular economy” (7), and “sustainable development” and “sustainable design” (6 each). Figure 3 shows a visual overview of the co-occurrence network of some keywords as prepared by the VOSviewer 1.6.20 software (2023). The minimum number of occurrences for a keyword used in Fig. 3 is two.

Fig. 3. Keywords co-occurrence network by VOSviewer

Geographical Analysis of Publications

The analysis of the first author’s employer’s country affiliation revealed that 31 countries were involved in creating the 101 publications analyzed. Italy (18 publications), Brazil (15), and Indonesia (11) had the highest number of publications, suggesting a greater academic focus on the subject in these regions. Table 4 shows the global distribution of the 101 publications identified in our literature research.

Table 4. First Authors’ Affiliation Countries

Analysis of Citations

The analysis of citations from Google Scholar (January 29, 2025) identified the most-cited work in the field as Dangelico et al. (2013), which had 355 citations. Table 5 shows the nine most cited publications investigated in this literature review. Only publications with 100 or more citations were selected for Table 5.

Focal Points Identified

The 101 publications found by the literature research were categorized into 15 focal points (Table 6). Sustainable Design was the largest focal point, comprising 21 publications (21% of the total). The second category was Supply Chain Management, with 14 articles (14%), and the third category was Sustainability Strategies, with 10 publications (10%).

Table 7 presents a table of publications organized by focal point and year, providing an overview of the distribution of publications over the years. Publications under Sustainable Design appear more frequently and across multiple years. Categories such as Supply Chain Management and Sustainability Strategies are also represented in several years. In contrast, categories like Raw Material Management and Social Responsibility have only one or two entries. Table 7 illustrates that some focal points are more frequently addressed than others.

Below, each of these 15 focal points is analyzed and put into the context of the sustainability of the furniture industry.

Sustainable Design

The focal point with the most publications is Sustainable Design, accounting for 21% of the reviewed publications (Table 6). Bianco et al. (2021) aimed to develop an LCA-based tool that examined how modification of variables such as material type, quantity, product lifetime, and recycling influence the environmental performance of furniture, aiming to enhance sustainability starting from the design phase. Yang and Vezzoli (2024) presented design guidelines and toolkits to enhance environmental sustainability, encouraging the integration of environmental considerations in the early stages of the design process. Borchardt et al. (2012) promoted the development of eco-design-related indicators, helping manufacturers evaluate and update their strategies in terms of environmental concerns, all of which demonstrate efforts to optimize environmental performance at the design stage. Similarly, Vo and Le (2024) aimed to examine why sustainable materials have not been widely used in the furniture sector in Vietnam.

Table 5. Citations by Articles

Table 6. Number of Published Studies by Focal Point with Percentage and Citations

Table 7. Highlight Table Showing the Number of Publications by Focal Point and Publication Year

It also highlighted that sustainable interior design contributes to the conservation of natural resources without causing environmental degradation and investigated possible solutions to increase the demand for sustainable materials. Aguilar et al. (2017) proposed a new product design proposed with consideration of eco-design parameters to directly influence the production process by reducing both waste generation and energy consumption. Eco-design is a concept that systematically integrates environmental considerations into the design process throughout the product life cycle from raw material procurement to final disposal (Bhamra 2004). Hence, environmental impacts are addressed already at the design stage.

Supply Chain Management

Supply Chain Management was the second most frequently studied focal category, representing 14% of the reviewed publications (Table 6). Schliephake et al. (2009) analyzed resource efficiency and value loss across the supply chains of the timber furniture and food industries. It showed that proactive and integrated collaboration with supply chain partners can improve material efficiency and productivity without increasing environmental impact.

De Marchi et al. (2013) examined environmental sustainability practices in the furniture industry using Global Value Chain (GVC) analysis and identified key approaches to the greening of the furniture value chain. Hisjam et al. (2013 and 2015) developed procurement and partnership models that integrate sustainability into export-oriented furniture manufacturing. Putri et al. (2013) or Sukmawati and Setiawan (2022) demonstrated the use of decision-making techniques such as AHP and TOPSIS in supplier selection processes. Dos Santos et al. (2019) assessed the performance of green suppliers using the entropy-based methods, while Upadhyay et al. (2020) examined the role of ethical practices in sustainable supplier selection. Additionally, Dalalah et al. (2022) proposed an integrated assessment framework to evaluate environmental sustainability in wood-based supply chains. These studies raise the point that considering implementing and improving sustainability practices within the supply chain involves issues such as sustainable supplier selection, performance, and sustainability assessments, which play a significant role.

Sustainability Strategies

Sustainability Strategies represented the third most frequently addressed focal category, accounting for 10% of the reviewed publications (Table 6). Representative studies in this category include Cordero et al. (2010), who emphasized the lack of decision-support tools specifically designed for the furniture sector. Some studies employed the LCA methodology to evaluate the environmental impacts of sustainable design and production strategies (Mirabella et al. 2014; Iritani et al. 2015). Papadopoulos et al. (2014) analyzed why and how furniture companies adopt green product strategies, highlighting the role of sustainability in managerial decision-making. Vignote et al. (2016) examined the planning and implementation of community-based sustainability strategies through a model forest case study in Honduras. Johann et al. (2022) evaluated the impact of sustainability practices on performance and competitiveness in export-oriented furniture companies in Brazil. In general, these studies presented strategic information and tools such as eco-design strategies, green product development approaches, and lifecycle-based assessments about dealing with sustainability issues in the furniture industry. These tools help form strategies for decision-makers and can improve competitiveness, resource efficiency, and innovation. Additionally, some of these studies support integrating a sustainability approach into new product development processes and recommend that businesses make decisions aligned with their sustainability goals.

Environmental Management

The next most frequently addressed focal point was Environmental Management, representing 9% of the reviewed publications (Table 6). Badiu et al. (2015) examined the use of reclaimed wood in furniture manufacturing as an alternative to new wood and discussed how material reuse can reduce environmental impacts. De Souza Pinho et al. (2023) conducted a comparative LCA to evaluate the environmental consequences of wood waste management strategies in the furniture industry, while Kurniawan et al. (2023) in “Utilizing rattan waste of furniture industry in Desa Trangsan, Sukoharjo” explored how valorizing rattan waste could help minimize environmental damage. Kurniawan et al. indicated that through the reuse of primary materials and improved material efficiency, alternative furniture products can be developed while reducing waste in the production process with innovative and environmentally friendly solutions. Luisser and Rosen (2009, 2010) focused on identifying and assessing feasible pollution prevention measures to reduce VOC emissions and improve sustainability in office partition production. Menghi et al. (2018) proposed a practical approach for estimating VOC emissions from furniture based on semi-finished components. Michelsen et al. (2023) highlighted how the Norwegian furniture industry implemented cleaner production practices, LCA, environmental performance indicators, and certified environmental management systems (EMS) to minimize waste and improve environmental outcomes. Rossi et al. (2023) presented a web-based LCA tool designed to help manufacturers perform environmental assessments more easily, with practical validation shown in the furniture industry. Zutshi et al. (2016) investigated how environmental management initiatives were implemented in an Australian furniture retailer and provided comparative insights from other retailers in the sector. In general, these studies presented the importance of environmental evaluation and management practices, including emission control and waste reduction, in improving the environmental performance, considering the furniture industry.

Circular Economy

Circular Economy was the focal point in 6% of the reviewed publications (Table 6). Accorsi et al. (2015) investigated how closed-loop network design can facilitate circular economy practices such as recycling and reuse in the furniture sector. Barbaritano et al. (2019) assessed the level of understanding, implementation efforts, and influencing factors related to circular economy adoption in the luxury furniture market. Bruno et al. (2022) described how an Italian furniture company transitioned toward circularity by redesigning materials, processes, and quality standards. Koszewska and Bielecki (2020) highlighted the roles of component standardization and consumer engagement in enabling a shift toward circular economy practices. Mahalakshmi et al. (2024) focused on circular design strategies emphasizing longevity, disassembly, and recyclability to enhance sustainability while supporting the circular transition. Similarly, Pei et al. (2024) examined the application of circular design strategies in the furniture industry, emphasizing innovations in materials and products as well as the need for systemic, stakeholder-inclusive approaches. These studies suggest that, beyond emphasizing the importance of “recycling,” the transition to a circular economy also requires consideration of additional elements such as design decisions, material standardization, supply chain structure, organizational capacity, and stakeholder engagement.

Digitization and Technology Use

Digitization and Technology Use appeared as the focal point in 6% of the reviewed publications (Table 6). Liu et al. (2022a) in “A conceptual blockchain enhanced information model of product service systems framework for sustainable furniture” developed a blockchain-enhanced product–service system model designed to support the sustainable development of furniture and facilitate the transition to a circular economy through digitally integrated lifecycle management. Makovec Radovan et al. (2024) emphasized the importance of equipping wood science and technology graduates with strong digital and sustainability competencies to support the sector’s shift toward technology-driven sustainability. Marques et al. (2017) introduced a digital architecture to enable reconfigurable product–service systems in the furniture industry to improve sustainability and extend product lifespans. Murmura and Bravi (2018) explored how the adoption of 3D printing technologies can contribute to more sustainable and innovative production practices within the wood furniture sector. Rigillo et al. (2024) described a research initiative to promote circular design and digital innovation by helping small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) implement sustainable manufacturing and material reuse strategies. Finally, Thecka (2014) proposed the adoption of Social, Mobile, Analytics, and Cloud (SMAC) technologies to enhance transparency, stakeholder engagement, and competitiveness in fragmented industries like furniture. These studies presented that digitalization in the furniture industry supports sustainability through tools such as blockchain, 3D printing, and SMAC technologies. Moreover, initiatives such as graduate competency development and SME support programs highlight that digital transformation is not only technological but also an organizational and systemic shift.

Sustainability Evaluation

Six percent of all the 101 investigated publications focused on Sustainability Evaluation (Table 6). Azizi et al. (2016) utilized the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to identify and rank the key factors affecting the sustainable development of Iran’s wooden furniture industry, while Feil et al. (2015) introduced a focused set of sustainability indicators aligned with the Triple Bottom Line (TBL, Elkington 1998) to enable rapid assessments in small furniture enterprises. Building on Feil et al. (2015), Feil et al. (2017) constructed a sustainability index composed of indicators and subindices to support systematic performance measurement and management. Later, Feil et al. (2022) applied a TBL-based sustainability index to evaluate small companies and found environmental dimensions to be the most critical. Kucuk and Akdag (2024) applied the Neutrosophic Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS) method to prioritize environmental sustainability indicators tailored to the furniture industry, while Sriyanto et al. (2019) developed a prototype decision-support system designed to help managers assess sustainability performance based on the TBL perspective. These studies indicate that sustainability performance assessments in the furniture industry are primarily focused on SMEs. Commonly, a holistic approach, e.g., the Triple Bottom Line (TBL, Elkington 1998) was considered, incorporating both economic and social in addition to the environmental dimension. In addition, Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods such as AHP and EDAS (Azizi et al. 2016; Kucuk and Akdag, 2024) were used to evaluate sustainability elements in the furniture industry.

Sustainable Production

Sustainable Production was the focal point in 6% of the analyzed publications (Table 6). Hartini et al. (2020) developed a lean-based sustainability index to assess the wooden furniture production processes. Lins et al. (2021) demonstrated how a factory layout redesign, integrated with Cleaner Production practices, maximizes the use of materials, boosting the reduction of production losses and the waste of natural resources. Nishad et al. (2024) highlighted the role of lean strategies in improving decision-making for more sustainable and efficient manufacturing systems, including applications in the furniture industry. Pedrazzoli et al. (2014) introduced a mini-factory concept promoting local and flexible production to support sustainable and customer-centered wood furniture manufacturing. Sakib et al. (2024) in “A life cycle analysis approach to evaluate sustainable strategies in the furniture manufacturing industry” conducted a comprehensive LCA of the manufacturing and distribution stages of a pinewood table to evaluate its environmental sustainability. Utama et al. (2022) proposed a framework to assess and enhance sustainable manufacturing performance within the furniture sector. These studies in the Sustainable Production focal category focus on achieving sustainability through the improvement, restructuring, or evaluation of production processes.

Business Models

Business Models were the focus of 5% of the reviewed publications (Table 6). Ellingsen and Vildåsen (2022) promoted the adoption of circular products and innovative business models in the Norwegian furniture industry and encouraged sustainable behaviors across manufacturers, supply chains, and end-users to reduce the environmental impact greatly. Høgevold (2011) examined the steps taken by a Norwegian furniture company to build a sustainable business model aligned with long-term corporate goals. Kans et al. (2024) presented a conceptual business model approach to help implement circular strategies in the Swedish furniture sector, highlighting both challenges and sustainability benefits. Külschbach et al. (2020) aimed to develop an international co-creation platform within the European furniture sector to facilitate effective stakeholder collaboration and enable the production of personalized, sustainable furniture by integrating consumer creativity into professional design processes. Finally, Küttim et al. (2024) explored the motivations behind corporate sustainability practices and introduced a typology to support self-assessment and inform policy development. These studies suggest that business models may support progress toward sustainability goals, a conclusion that is also supported by Bocken et al. (2013), who emphasize the role of business models in improving organizational sustainability performance.

Sustainability Policies

Sustainability Policies represented one of the focal points with a moderate share of publications (4% of the total, Table 6). Braulio-Gonzalo and Bovea (2020) analyzed the Green Public Procurement (GPP) criteria used in Spanish furniture tenders, identifying the types and relative importance of environmental, technical, social, and economic considerations in the awarding process. San et al. (2015) evaluated governmental initiatives in Malaysia aimed at promoting sustainable practices and green technologies in the furniture manufacturing sector. Susanty et al. (2019) supported policy-making for GSCM in the wooden furniture industry by applying a combined Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) and system dynamics approach to assess how different factors influence wood waste reduction and raw material demand. Finally, Vrublevska (2024) investigated the preparedness of Ukrainian furniture companies for the EU’s upcoming Eco-design for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR), focusing on the awareness, adaptability, and perceptions of sustainability-related regulatory challenges. These studies inferred that sustainability policies guide more environmentally conscious practices and promote the broader adoption and visibility, regarding the furniture sector.

Green Innovation

Green Innovation was another focal point accounting for 3% of the total (Table 6). Sellitto et al. (2020) investigated how green innovation contributes to competitive advantage within a furniture industry cluster in Southern Brazil, focusing on its influence through operations, product design, and eco-efficiency. Šūmakaris et al. (2023) introduced an integrated evaluation method for eco-innovation strategies that supports strategic green transformation and assists decision-makers in selecting competitive approaches. Vuong (2022) aimed to explore the relationship between environmental sustainability perceptions, lifestyle, and green purchasing behavior to inform eco-innovation strategies in Vietnam’s furniture manufacturing sector. These studies suggest that green innovation supports environmental sustainability and can provide a competitive edge in the furniture industry, as shown by Sellitto et al. (2020).

Green Marketing

Green Marketing was another focal point with a modest share of the total publications, representing 3% of the total 101 publications reviewed (Table 6). Primožič and Kutnar (2022) in “Sustainability communication in global consumer brands” examined how global brands across major industries communicate sustainability messages through online platforms. Savelli (2017), using a case study approach, analyzed how environmental standards are integrated into the marketing strategies of eco-sustainable furniture products. Yeğin and Ikram (2022) assessed the performance of green furniture brands by applying an integrated multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach within the framework of Marketing 4.0 (the term Marketing 4.0 first appeared in the study of Kotler et al. 2017). Based on these studies, it can be stated that a competitive advantage can be gained through improving the clarity and effectiveness of green messaging, which also helps to strengthen customer loyalty and brand image.

Raw Material Management

Raw Material Management accounted for approximately 2% of the reviewed publications (Table 6) with Smith et al. (1995) highlighting the environmental consequences of tropical hardwood importation and consumption in the United States, particularly its contribution to global deforestation and resource depletion. Likewise, Hromatka and Savage (2010) examined timber shortages in the Malaysian furniture sector and indicated that the industry’s sustainability is closely tied to responsible sourcing and the long-term availability of raw materials. It can be inferred that sustainable raw material supply in the furniture industry is closely linked to forest resource management and that promoting private forestry can help ensure long-term timber availability.

Social Responsibility

Social Responsibility accounted for approximately 2% of the reviewed publications (Table 6). Mello and Mello (2017) examined how Brazilian manufacturers integrated social responsibility into their strategic planning. Migliaccio and Rossetti (2020) explored how SMEs in the Italian furniture industry addressed sustainability and business ethics, particularly emphasizing sustainability’s ethical dimensions. Based on these findings, it can be stated that incorporating social responsibility and ethical practices into sustainability strategies positively impacts organizations’ economic and social performance.

Other Focal Points

Four publications were classified under the Other category because their topics did not align with any of the focal points used (Table 6). Carbonell-Blasco et al. (2024) introduced CO₂-based hot-melt adhesives and evaluated their potential as a sustainable alternative for use in footwear, wood, and furniture applications. Imteaz et al. (2017) investigated the reuse of wood chips from furniture production in embankments and landscaping, emphasizing their environmental benefits. Kostecka and Kopczewska (2023) developed a Spatial Customer Relationship Management (CRM) approach for optimizing pick-up point locations in the furniture industry, using IKEA Poland as a case study. This approach improves customer access, supports sustainability, and improves cost-effectiveness. Oblak et al. (2020) examined the European furniture sector in terms of market outlook, industry challenges, design innovations, and recent trends, focusing on innovation, sustainability, and global competitiveness

DISCUSSION

Since 2009, a growing number of published studies on sustainability in the furniture industry signify increasing interest in the topic (Figs. 1 and 2). The highest number of publications was published in 2024, with 16 documents (Fig. 1), followed by 2020 (12), 2022 (11), and 2023 (9), all quite recently. This may reflect a shift in global policy and industrial focus toward environmental sustainability for the furniture industry. Factors such as the adoption of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by numerous countries in 2015 (United Nations n.d.) and the Paris Agreement in 2015 (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC] 2015) may have supported this trend. Notably, over 70% of the publications in the present corpus were published after 2015, coinciding with the adoption of the United Nations SDGs and the Paris Agreement. However, while sustainability has become more deeply embedded in the research agendas of fields such as renewable energy and green building (Norouzi and Fani 2021; Zuo and Zhao 2014), it appears less so for the furniture industry, as it lacks an established and sustained academic research path so far.

The journal analysis reveals that a highly dispersed publication structure characterizes the dissemination of research on the furniture industry and sustainability. Of the total 41 different journals in which these 65 peer-reviewed publications were published, 36 journals published only a single publication over all these years (1995 – 2024). Only the journal Sustainability and the Journal of Cleaner Production featured more than five articles on “sustainability” and the “furniture industry” (Table 3). The fragmented structure of publications across various journals indicates that sustainability in the furniture industry is a niche research area with many differing specialties contributing to it. The absence of a focused journal in this field may create difficulties for researchers in tracking developments and following the progress of studies on this topic. A simple solution to this problem could be the creation of special issues by journals on this subject. The journal Sustainability accounts for the highest number of publications on this topic, thanks to its multidisciplinary nature and thus publishing a broad range of sustainability-related research since its establishment in 2009. As of 2025, Sustainability has published over 92,543 papers (Sustainability, n.d.). Similarly, the Journal of Cleaner Production, a relatively older and more selective journal founded in 1993, has published 42,630 papers to date (SciSpace n.d.).

A keyword co-occurrence analysis (Fig. 3) shows that the clusters around sustainability and furniture industry centers around concepts such as “circular economy,” “sustainable design,” and “ecodesign.” This can be inferred to signify a strong emphasis on design-oriented solutions, reflecting the growing role of design thinking in addressing environmental concerns while integrating sustainability into product development (Verganti et al. 2021; Rösch et al. 2023). However, the wide array of keywords, ranging from “pollution” to “competitiveness” (Fig. 3), shows the scope of work being done and reiterates the challenge the industry is facing to achieve sustainability.

Countries with large contributions to the field of sustainability in the furniture industry (Table 4), e.g., Italy (18), Brazil (15), and Indonesia (11)) accounted for almost half of all the selected publications (44 out of 101, Table 3). Italy’s leading position in fashion may have contributed to the number of publications in furniture design, as well as aligning with Italy’s status at the leader in furniture production capacity within the European Union (Łukiewska and Brelik 2021). Brazil, in addition to its abundant forest resources, is home to initiatives such as the Sustainability of the Brazilian Furniture Industry (SIMB – Sustentabilidade da Indústria do Mobiliário do Brasil), who may have triggered enhanced research activities (Johann et al. 2022), while in Indonesia, the country’s most prominent furniture-producing region is Jepara, located on the northern coast of Central Java Province (Larasatie 2018). However, local forests in Jepara cover only 5% of the furniture industry’s timber demand (Melati and Shantiko 2013), hence its furniture production depends on continuous external timber supplies (Nurrochmat et al. 2015). Such challenges may have contributed to increased sustainability-focused research and initiatives in Indonesia’s furniture sector. Conversely, large markets for furniture, such as the USA, China, and Germany, appear to have contributed little to the scientific literature on sustainability and the furniture sector. For China, this lower contribution may be related to an insufficient adoption of sustainable development concepts within the furniture industry and a lack of comprehensive green manufacturing technology systems, as highlighted by Xiong et al. (2021). Germany and the USA, both, have hemorrhaged large parts of their furniture industry over the last two decades and may not find it worthwhile to invest resources to the topic.

The publication with the highest total number of citations is by Dangelico et al. (2013), with 355 citations in the Journal of Product Innovation Management. The highest annual average citation belongs to Dos Santos et al. (2019), with 55.8 citations per year in the Journal of Cleaner Production. However, this statistic does not necessarily reveal the interest in the furniture industry topic itself. Instead, it reflects their relevance across different contexts. To support this claim, an examination of the citing publications of the study by Dangelico et al. (2013) in WoS reveals that, under the Citation Topics Meso classification, 78% of citations are associated with the field of Management and 4% with Sustainability Science according to Clarivate (2022). WoS generated a three-level hierarchy for topics as 10 broad macro-topics, 326 meso-topics and 2,444 micro-topics). Additionally, only two papers included the “furniture industry” keyword among these studies. To that end, it can be hypothesized that the citations belong to the broader research areas (e.g., Corporate Social Responsibility) rather than the furniture industry. Similarly, an argument can be made that the citation popularity of the study by Dos Santos et al. (2019) is also not related to the furniture industry. It was postulated that its popularity comes from the methodology used (e.g., Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods – MCDM methods). To support this claim, an analysis of citing papers in WoS shows that approximately 52% fall under the “Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning” topic and around 50% are categorized under “Fuzzy Decision-making.” These figures indicate that citations come from researchers interested in decision science studies instead of a focus on the furniture industry.

Almost half (45%, Table 6) of the 101 studies investigated are focused on either Sustainable Design (21%), Supply Chain Management (14%), or Sustainability Strategies (10%). The focus on sustainable design shows that integrating sustainability principles at the design stage is a critical strategy for enhancing the environmental performance of furniture products.

Sustainable design (eco-design) is expressed as a practice of blending environmental considerations into all phases of product development, aiming to minimize environmental impacts, considering the entire life cycle of a product (Septiani et al. 2022). Over time, the environmental burden of furniture waste has become more apparent, making blending sustainable design principles into furniture manufacturing increasingly crucial (Li et al. 2023). With growing awareness of the environmental impact associated with the furniture industry, design is now widely regarded as a key leverage point for innovation toward more sustainable furniture solutions (Yang and Vezzoli 2024). The demand for furniture made with sustainable and environmentally friendly materials is steadily increasing (Suandi et al. 2022; Mittal et al. 2023), making the Sustainable Design focal point ever more important to researchers.

Supply chain management, e.g., the managing of a network of interconnected organizations to efficiently deliver products and services while optimizing processes and resources across the supply chain (Harland 1996; Chen et al. 2023), was the second-ranking focal category based on the number of published studies (14%) for a reason. Supply chain decisions directly shape a company’s environmental impact (Vachon and Klassen 2007; Green et al. 2012), as they play a fundamental role in ensuring sustainability in the furniture industry by influencing various processes, from the sourcing of raw materials to supplier relationships and from transportation efficiency to material traceability. Sustainable supply chain management refers to overseeing material and information flows across the supply chain while simultaneously considering three dimensions of sustainability (TBL), e.g., economic, social, and environmental (Elkington 1998; Chen et al. 2023). Farhan and Iqbal (2021) indicate that the number of publications relating to a sustainable supply chain management focus has steadily been increasing in recent years from zero in 2000 to over 350 per year in 2020. For example, a Google Scholar search using the relevant keyword (sustainable supply chain management) yields approximately 11,700 results for 2024, 9,070 for 2023, 7,240 for 2022, 5,770 for 2021, and 4.750 for 2020. The furniture sector is characterized by a complex supply chain structure, which makes supply chain management particularly challenging (Andry et al. 2023) but also rewarding.

Sustainability Strategies, the third ranking focal point (10%, Table 6), allows the furniture industry to promote more environmentally friendly approaches that help reduce waste generation, resource consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions while promoting sustainable consumption and production patterns (Righi et al. 2023) and, hopefully, make the business more profitable. Although the furniture industry’s environmental impact and connection to sustainability are widely acknowledged in the literature, the sector, unfortunately, still lacks a well-developed, science-based framework tailored to its specific challenges and needs for advancing sustainability (Yang 2023).

By contrast, the focal point of raw material management (2%, Table 6) is represented last, together with social responsibility (2%). This situation is noteworthy, given that wood is the primary material for furniture manufacturing, and thus, the environmental implications of raw material extraction are critical. This lack of attention from the research community may have to do with the ubiquitous availability of lumber and engineered wood products worldwide, which allows the industry to neglect such an important topic. However, as Hromatka and Savage (2010) show, in places where the ubiquitous availability of wood is fragile, such a topic automatically gains attention and researchers are starting to investigate it. In the future, will the industry place more emphasis on the sourcing of its major raw material?

Social responsibility (2%, Table 6) ranked last with raw material management. Only two publications were captured by the present search on the WoS and the Scopus databases relating to the social responsibility category. These studies examined the correlation between sustainability, commercial ethics, social responsibility, and management practices (Mello and Mello 2017; Migliaccio and Rossetti 2020). Researchers from a wide range of specialties, such as law, economics, management, production, and systems engineering, have contributed to these studies, emphasizing that the topic of sustainability in the furniture industry is approached from an interdisciplinary perspective. Most likely, research focusing solely on social issues is not being done focusing on a particular industry like furniture but on larger strata of the industry and society. Also, such studies may rarely use sustainability in the title or in its keywords.

Tools like Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM), case studies and surveys/interviews, and lean systems are often used to address sustainability-related problems in the furniture industry, as they are also widely adopted across industry sectors to tackle sustainability challenges. For instance, Lima et al. (2021) in “Sustainability in the construction industry: A systematic review of the literature” noted that LCA was frequently used by researchers in the context of sustainability in the construction industry. Additionally, in their literature analysis, Nuralievna and Park (2023) indicated that MCDM methods are frequently applied, and mathematical modeling approaches are commonly employed in the automobile industry. Another systematic review entitled “A systematic review of green construction research using scientometrics methods” by Luo et al. (2022) indicated that Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is commonly employed to evaluate the environmental sustainability of green construction projects, suggesting that EIA use is frequent in construction-focused studies. One can speculate that such tools will be used even more in the future to address the challenges of sustainability in the furniture industry, including environmental, social, and economic (TBL, Elkington 1998) issues, as in the end, the furniture business can only be sustainably conducted, if all the TBL aspects are resolved.

The growing importance of sustainability in the furniture industry can also be observed through public statements made by leading companies. IKEA, which is known for its pursuit of sustainability (Ojo et al. 2015; Cosmo and Yang 2017; Yang and Shao 2019; Enquist and Sebhatu 2021), began documenting and disclosing its sustainability practices starting in 2005 (Ojo et al. 2015). In alignment with this, IKEA (n.d.) has named its sustainability strategy “People and Planet Positive.” The company defines its 2030 sustainability ambitions as follows: “We have big ambitions for 2030. We are committed to doing our part to tackle climate change, unsustainable consumption, and inequality. Our three major focus areas are Healthy and Sustainable Living, Circular and Climate Positive, and Fair and Equal (IKEA n.d.).” Despite those good intentions, IKEA was accused by Earthsight (n.d.) in 2020 of manufacturing chairs using beech wood that was illegally obtained, despite being certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). Such dubious situations clearly highlight the necessity of transparent timber traceability systems (Environmental Investigation Agency [EIA] 2025) and enduring vigilance of the furniture industries participants towards bad actors.

Considering sustainability and the furniture industry, researchers studied numerous subjects such as material selection, supply chain management, chemical analyses, regulations, and others. This variety supports the requirement for an interdisciplinary approach in this research area. Sustainability in the furniture industry starts with design and raw material sourcing before manufacturing a product. As an example, even though wooden materials are renewable, this does not automatically mean they are sustainable. Forests must be managed sustainably to ensure long-term resource continuity. In addition to ensuring the sustainability of resources, a sustainable design approach also helps to reduce environmental impact before production begins. Additionally, some chemicals used in production may cause pollution, which is another issue to deal with to achieve sustainability.

Digitalization in the furniture industry is also gaining interest. In a recent study, Çardak et al. (2025) demonstrated how machine-learning models and large-scale e-commerce data can be used to predict consumer preferences. The sustainability concept can also be integrated into this kind of study. In another context, some studies in the literature offer methodologically comparable mappings of wood-based value chains. For example, Akyüz et al. (2025) conducted a bibliometric analysis of wood pellets. When viewed together with such work, the present review on sustainability and the furniture industry contributes to a broader effort to understand patterns and developments across interconnected forest product sectors.

Although this study primarily considered environmental sustainability, the literature reviewed addresses a variety of issues. For example, the studies investigated are concerned about supply chain decisions, environmental regulations, and material longevity. Producing furniture using eco-friendly methods, emitting less CO₂, and using less water do not constitute holistic sustainability, meaning that sustainability encompasses not only the responsible cultivation or sourcing of raw materials but also the entire sequence of processes a product goes through; from production and distribution to consumer use and end-of-life management, including disposal or recycling. A Furniture Today article (2023) claimed that “Too many furniture companies claim sustainability without giving evidence.” The article talks about greenwashing in the furniture industry and explains that many companies say they are sustainable without showing clear and reliable proof. Even if a product is made from recycled materials, this does not necessarily mean it is recyclable (MARK Product 2022) or environmentally beneficial. For example, Liu et al. (2022b) indicated that plastics recycled from electronic waste cause more ozone depletion than making new (virgin) plastics. Therefore, achieving sustainability requires a holistic approach that starts from design to raw materials sourcing to end-use recovery, including recycling and customer engagement. It involves the active participation of various stakeholders, including designers, regulators, manufacturers, supply chain participants, wholesalers, retailers, consumers, recyclers, and waste specialists, among others. From this perspective, the sustainability issue in the furniture industry is not simply a technical issue but requires holistic actions and involves multiple actors along the furniture value chain.

Limitations

This review has some limitations related to the scope of the literature search conducted. Broader sectoral terms such as “wood industry,” “forest products,” and “timber sector” were intentionally excluded to maintain a focused dataset centered explicitly on the furniture industry. This decision may have led to the omission of studies in which furniture appears as a sub-domain of a more exhaustive research into forest products. Another limitation of the search strategy is the strict requirement that the term “sustainability” appears in the search query. Although this approach ensured that all selected publications explicitly framed their contributions within the sustainability discourse, it may also exclude studies that address sustainability-related topics under other labels, such as eco-efficiency, life-cycle performance, circular production, resource efficiency, or green manufacturing. As a result, the chosen dataset represents a clearly bounded but somewhat conservative subset of the broader research landscape in which sustainability themes are present but are not always explicitly named. Another limitation of this review is that each publication was assigned to a single focal point. This approach allows for clear synthesis but may underrepresent research that can be categorized into multiple themes, such as design and supply chain interactions or strategy and business model overlaps. Therefore, focal points of the studies can be interpreted as reflecting each publication’s dominant emphasis rather than its complete thematic breadth.

Future Work

Future research could focus on examining technology adaptation in the furniture industry revealing whether companies are actively engaging in environmental sustainability initiatives through emerging technologies. If so, what types of technologies are being used and how for what purpose? Another topic could be to research whether the firms perceive sustainability as a strategic priority or whether they merely treat it as a regulatory requirement. Research of that type would help to understand the motivations behind actions that improve sustainability and inform policies and practices that encourage meaningful transformation. Most likely, the pressure, regulatory and consumer-induced, on the furniture industry to offer sustainable products will only increase.

Additionally, future literature could grow by examining sustainability in the furniture industry holistically. In this case, the TBL perspective can be integrated with related sectors, such as the forest products and wood industries. In studies that follow firms over a long period, sustainability indicators can be monitored to assess real improvements in performance and the possible influence of digitalization and studies that compare different countries can help clarify whether companies adopt sustainability as a strategic choice or mainly in response to regulatory requirements. Also, mixed methods approaches incorporating LCA with organizational analysis could offer valuable insights into the alignment between environmental performance and design or supply chain decisions. Finally, as global value chains become more complex, there is an increasing need for supply chain studies that involve multiple actors and focus on traceability across regions and industry segments. Last but not least, future research could further explore the substantial yet underutilized potential of construction and demolition waste as a secondary material resource for sustainable furniture design and circular manufacturing strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

One hundred and one peer-reviewed publications related to sustainability in the furniture industry were investigated as well as providing a detailed thematic analysis of sustainability studies in the furniture industry. The documents were evaluated by year of publication, publishing journals, author keywords, country affiliations of the first author, and number of citations. Additionally, the study identified both well-researched areas, such as Sustainable Design, Supply Chain Management, and Sustainability Strategies, as well as underexplored areas, such as raw material management and social responsibility.

1. Keyword analysis revealed that concepts including sustainable design and circular economy were central in the studies reviewed.
2. Based on the affiliation of the first author, Italy, Brazil, and Indonesia were the leading countries for such publications, whereas major furniture markets like the United States, China, and Germany contributed considerably less.
3. The citation analysis showed that the most cited studies were primarily associated with broader fields, such as management and decision science, rather than focusing specifically on the furniture industry.
4. The most prominent focal points observed were Sustainable Design, Supply Chain Management, and Sustainability Strategies. Raw Material Management and Social Responsibility were addressed in a limited number of studies.
5. The terms highlighted by the keyword analysis in the first part, such as “eco-design” and “circular economy” align closely with the prominent focal points identified in this section.
6. The studies reviewed have addressed different aspects of sustainability, showing that the furniture sector continues to approach sustainability in a fragmented manner.
7. Additionally, customer-oriented (end-user) factors such as aesthetics, ergonomics, and functionality are significant elements in the furniture sector, making the design stage particularly distinctive because trade-offs between customer-oriented factors and sustainability must be made. Trends, fashion, and cultural preferences also influence product and production decisions.

This literature review emphasizes the interdisciplinary nature of the field and highlights the importance of collaboration between all actors of the furniture industry for future research directions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) for the financial support provided under the 2219 Postdoctoral Research Scholarship Program. They also greatly appreciate the input from Scott Leavengood, Oregon State University, and two anonymous reviewers for their detailed review.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Use of Generative AI

No generative AI tools were used in this work.

REFERENCES CITED

Accorsi, R., Manzini, R., Pini, C., and Penazzi, S. (2015). “On the design of closed-loop networks for product life cycle management: Economic, environmental and geography considerations,” Journal of Transport Geography 48, 121-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.09.005

Adams, R., Jeanrenaud, S., Bessant, J., Denyer, D., and Overy, P. (2016). “Sustainability‐oriented innovation: A systematic review,” International Journal of Management Reviews 18(2), 180-205. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12068

Akyüz, İ., Ersen, N., Bardak, S., Polat, K., and Acar, M. (2025). “Global research trends in wood pellets, a renewable energy: A bibliometric analysis,” Drewno. Prace Naukowe, Doniesienia, Komunikaty, 2025. https://doi.org/10.53502/wood-206928

Andry, J. F., Hadiyanto, H., and Gunawan, V. (2023). “Intelligent decision support system for supply chain risk management process (SCRMP) with COBIT 5 in furniture industry,” International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering & Information Technology 13(2), article 17359. https://doi.org/10.18517/ijaseit.13.2.17359

Armir, N. Z., Zakaria, S., Ara Begum, R., Chamhuri, N., Ariff, N. M., Harun, J., and Kadir, M. (2020). “The readiness of Peninsular Malaysia wood-based industries for achieving sustainability,” BioResources 15(2), 2971-2993. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.15.2.2971-2993

Aschehoug, S. H., Boks, C., and Aasland, K. E. (2013). “Building sustainability knowledge for product development and design – Experiences from four manufacturing firms,” Progress in Industrial Ecology, An International Journal 8(1/2), article 45. https://doi.org/10.1504/PIE.2013.055062

Aschehoug, S. H., Boks, C., Ringen, G., and Aasland, K. E. (2012). “Investigating the importance of sustainability information in product development and design,” Proceedings of the 9^th NordDesign Conference (NordDesign 2012).

Azizi, M., Mohebbi, N., and De Felice, F. (2016). “Evaluation of sustainable development of wooden furniture industry using multi criteria decision making method,” Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 8, 387-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2016.02.034

Badiu, A., Badiu, I., and Dragomir, M. (2015). “Studies regarding the use of reclaimed wood in the manufacture of modern furniture – Part II,” Acta Technica Napocensis – Series: Applied Mathematics, Mechanics, and Engineering 58(2).

Barbaritano, M., Bravi, L., and Savelli, E. (2019). “Sustainability and quality management in the Italian luxury furniture sector: A circular economy perspective,” Sustainability 11(11), article 3089. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113089

Bhamra, T. (2004). “Ecodesign: The search for new strategies in product development,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 218(5), 557-569. https://doi.org/10.1177/095440540421800509

Bianco, I., Thiébat, F., Carbonaro, C., Pagliolico, S., Blengini, G. A., and Comino, E. (2021). “Life cycle assessment (LCA)-based tools for the eco-design of wooden furniture,” Journal of Cleaner Production 324, article 129249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129249

Bocken, N., Short, S. W., Rana, P., and Evans, S. (2013). “A value mapping tool for sustainable business modelling,” Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society 13(5), 482-497. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-06-2013-0078

Borchardt, M., Sellitto, M. A., Pereira, G. M., and Gomes, L. P. (2012). “Ecodesign case studies for furniture companies using the analytic hierarchy process,” International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Theory, Applications and Practice 19(8), 330-340. https://doi.org/10.23055/ijietap.2012.19.8.651

Borowiecki, R., Siuta-Tokarska, B., Janas, M., Kruk, S., Krzemiński, P., Thier, A., and Żmija, K. (2022). “The competitive position of small business furniture industry enterprises in Poland in the context of sustainable management: Relationships, interdependencies, and effects of activities,” Sustainability 14(15), article 9368. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159368

Braulio-Gonzalo, M., and Bovea, M. D. (2020). “Criteria analysis of green public procurement in the Spanish furniture sector,” Journal of Cleaner Production 258, article 120704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120704

Britannica (n.d.). “Furniture industry,” Encyclopædia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/furniture-industry (Accessed Nov. 25, 2024).

Brundtland, G. (1987). Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Bruno, D., Ferrara, M., D’Alessandro, F., and Mandelli, A. (2022). “The role of design in the CE transition of the furniture industry—The case of the Italian company Cassina,” Sustainability 14(15), article 9168. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159168

Carbonell-Blasco, M. P., Marco-Aleixandre, A., Pérez-Campos, R. M., Mollá-Landete, J., Arán-Aís, F., and Orgilés-Calpena, E. (2024). “Polyurethane adhesives from CO₂-based polyols and their applied use in footwear, wood and furniture industries,” International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 134, article 103779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2024.103779

Çardak, H., Bardak, S., Bardak, T., Capraz, O., Ozcetin, S., and Kizilirmak, S. (2025). “Predicting consumer preferences for furniture products on e-commerce platforms: An analysis using machine learning and favorite listing data,” BioResources 20(4), 9768-9784. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.20.4.9768-9784

Cardoso Braga, J., Moreira da Silva, F., Ferrão, L., and Paschoarelli, L. C. (2017). “Insertion of sustainable strategic design in the furnishings of micro and small enterprises,” The International Journal of Designed Objects 11(3), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.18848/2325-1379/CGP/v11i03/1-16

CEIC (2024). “China No. of Employee: Furniture Manufacturing,” CEIC Data. Available at: https://www.ceicdata.com/en/china/no-of-employee-by-industry-monthly/no-of-employee-furniture-manufacturing (Accessed Apr. 15, 2025).

Chen, L., Dong, T., Peng, J., and Ralescu, D. (2023). “Uncertainty analysis and optimization modeling with application to supply chain management: A systematic review,” Mathematics 11(11), article 2530. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11112530

Chen, T. L., Chen, C. C., Chuang, Y. C., and Liou, J. J. (2020). “A hybrid MADM model for product design evaluation and improvement,” Sustainability 12(17), article 6743. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176743

Chiurciu, I. A., Soare, E., Constantin, D. M., Bogan, E., and Grigore, E. (2016). “Cotton market trends in the world and in the European Union,” in: Proceedings of the 28^th International Business Information Management Association Conference – Vision, 2521-2536

Choong, W. S., Chiu, J. C., Lopez-Martinez, F., Alaklabi, A., Oliveira, M. C., Puspitasari, S. D., and Adebayo, J. (2022). “Utilization of green material for concrete in construction,” Civil and Sustainable Urban Engineering 2(2), 82-95. https://doi.org/10.53623/csue.v2i2.116

Ciccullo, F., Pero, M., Gosling, J., Caridi, M., and Purvis, L. (2020). “When sustainability becomes an order winner: Linking supply uncertainty and sustainable supply chain strategies,” Sustainability 12(15), article 6009. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156009

Clarivate (2022). “Introducing citation topics,” Clarivate Blog. Available at: https://clarivate.com/academia-government/blog/introducing-citation-topics/ (Accessed Nov. 8, 2022).

Cocchia, A. (2014). “Smart and digital city: A systematic literature review,” in: Smart City: How to Create Public and Economic Value with High Technology in Urban Space, R. P. Dameri and C. Rosenthal-Sabroux (eds.), Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 13-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06160-3_2

Cordero, P., Poler, R., and Sanchis, R. (2010). “Identification of the key sustainability issues to develop new decision support tools in the Spanish furniture sector,” World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 42, 1126-1138. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1080346

Cosmo Sourcing (2024). “How to find furniture manufacturers in Vietnam – Vietnam furniture sourcing guide,” Cosmo Sourcing. Available at: https://www.cosmosourcing.com/blog/how-to-find-furniture-manufacturers-innbsp-vietnam-vietnam-furniture-sourcing-guidenbsp#:~:text=Employment%3A%20The%20furniture%20industry%20in,as%20timber%20production%20and%20logistics (Accessed 2024).

Cosmo, D. E., and Yang, K. (2017). “A further strategic move to sustainability—A case study on IKEA,” Journal of Strategic Innovation & Sustainability 12(2), 39-47. https://doi.org/10.33423/jsis.v12i2.799

D’Itria, E., Pei, X., and Bertola, P. (2024). “Designing sustainability today: An analytical framework for a design for sustainability model in European fashion and furniture industries,” Sustainability 16(8), article 3240. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16083240

Dalalah, D., Khan, S. A., Al-Ashram, Y., Albeetar, S., Abou Ali, Y., and Alkhouli, E. (2022). “An integrated framework for the assessment of environmental sustainability in wood supply chains,” Environmental Technology & Innovation 27, article 102429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2022.102429

Dangelico, R. M., Pontrandolfo, P., and Pujari, D. (2013). “Developing sustainable new products in the textile and upholstered furniture industries: Role of external integrative capabilities,” Journal of Product Innovation Management 30(4), 642-658. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12013

De Marchi, V., Di Maria, E., and Ponte, S. (2013). “The greening of global value chains: Insights from the furniture industry,” Competition and Change 17(4), 299-318. https://doi.org/10.1179/10245294

De Souza Pinho, G. C., Calmon, J. L., Medeiros, D. L., Vieira, D., and Bravo, A. (2023). “Wood waste management from the furniture industry: The environmental performances of recycling, energy recovery, and landfill treatments,” Sustainability 15(20), article 14944. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014944

Djunaidi, M., Sholeh, M., and Mufiid, N. M. (2018). “Analysis of green supply chain management application in Indonesian wood furniture industry,” AIP Conference Proceedings 1977(1), article 5042906. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5042906

Dodgson, J. E. (2021). “Critical analysis: The often-missing step in conducting literature review research,” Journal of Human Lactation 37(1), 27-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890334420977815

Donnelly, K., Beckett-Furnell, Z., Traeger, S., Okrasinski, T., and Holman, S. (2006). “Eco-design implemented through a product-based environmental management system,” Journal of Cleaner Production 14(15-16), 1357-1367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.029

Dos Santos, B. M., Godoy, L. P., and Campos, L. M. S. (2019). “Performance evaluation of green suppliers using entropy-TOPSIS-F,” Journal of Cleaner Production 207, 498-509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.235

Dos Santos, J. A., and Brandao, M. B. (2016). “Integrated resource management: Creating sustainable advantages in the new product development process,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Technology Management Conference (ICE 2008).

Earthsight.org. (n.d.). “IKEA accused of using illegally obtained beech wood despite FSC certification,” Earthsight. Available at: https://earthsight.org.uk.

Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21^st Century Business, New Society Publishers.

Ellegaard, O., and Wallin, J. A. (2015). “The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact?” Scientometrics 105(3), 1809-1831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z

Ellingsen, O., and Vildåsen, S. S. (2022). “Developing circular business models: LCA and strategic choice,” Procedia CIRP 109, 437-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2022.05.275

Enquist, B., and Sebhatu, S. P. (2021). “The circular economy and values-based sustainability business practice: People & planet positive at IKEA,” in: Business Transformation for a Sustainable Future, Routledge, London, UK, pp. 34-54. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003188773-4

Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA). (2025, April 8). “IKEA’s Romanian wood sourcing woes highlight the need for national transparent timber traceability systems across Europe,” EIA. Available at: https://eia.org/blog/ikeas-romanian-wood-sourcing-woes-highlight-the-need-for-national-transparent-timber-traceability-systems-across-europe.

Eurostat (2024). “Employment by sex, age and economic activity (from 2008 onwards, NACE Rev. 2) – Furniture manufacturing (C31) [Data set],” Eurostat. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/for_emp_lfs/default/table?lang=en (Accessed Apr. 15, 2025).

Evans, N., and Sawyer, J. (2010). “CSR and stakeholders of small businesses in regional South Australia,” Social Responsibility Journal 6(3), 433-451. https://doi.org/10.1108/17471111011064799

Farhan, M., and Iqbal, M. K. (2021). “Twenty years of sustainable supply chain: Past trends and future research suggestions,” International Journal of Business and Psychology 3(1), 1-16.

Feil, A. A., de Brito Reiter, I., Oberherr, R., Strasburg, V. J., and Schreiber, D. (2022). “Analysis and measurement of the sustainability level in the furniture industry,” Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02005-8

Feil, A. A., de Quevedo, D. M., and Schreiber, D. (2015). “Selection and identification of the indicators for quickly measuring sustainability in micro and small furniture industries,” Sustainable Production and Consumption 3, 34-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2015.08.006

Feil, A. A., de Quevedo, D. M., and Schreiber, D. (2017). “An analysis of the sustainability index of micro- and small-sized furniture industries,” Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 19, 1883-1896. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-017-1372-7

Furniture Today. (2023). “Too many furniture companies claim sustainability without giving evidence, says exec,” Furniture Today. Available at: https://www.furnituretoday.com/furniture-manufacturing/too-many-furniture-companies-claim-sustainability-without-giving-evidence-says-exec/.

Gao, Y., Wang, Y., Zhai, X., He, Y., Chen, R., Zhou, J., and Wang, Q. (2017). “Publication trends of research on diabetes mellitus and T cells (1997-2016): A 20-year bibliometric study,” PLOS ONE 12(9), article e0184869. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184869

Glavič, P., and Lukman, R. (2007). “Review of sustainability terms and their definitions,” Journal of Cleaner Production 15(18), 1875-1885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.12.006

Gramegna, S. M., Mattioli, F., and Pei, X. (2024). “What Italian furniture companies do towards sustainable transition? Design actions and strategies showcased during Milan Design Week 2023,” Proceedings of the Design Society 4, 1269-1278. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2024.129

Green, K. W., Zelbst, P. J., Meacham, J., and Bhadauria, V. S. (2012). “Green supply chain management practices: Impact on performance,” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 17(3), 290-305. DOI: 10.1108/13598541211227126

Gruen, R. L., Elliott, J. H., Nolan, M. L., Lawton, P. D., Parkhill, A., McLaren, C. J., and Lavis, J. N. (2008). “Sustainability science: An integrated approach for health-programme planning,” The Lancet 372(9649), 1579-1589. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61659-1

Gutierrez Aguilar, C. M., Panameño, R., Perez Velazquez, A., Angel Alvarez, B. E., Kiperstok, A., and César, S. F. (2017). “Cleaner production applied in a small furniture industry in Brazil: Addressing focused changes in design to reduce waste,” Sustainability 9(10), article 1867. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101867

Hallin, A., Karrbom‐Gustavsson, T., and Dobers, P. (2021). “The transition towards and of sustainability—Understanding sustainability as performative,” Business Strategy and the Environment 30(4), 1948-1957. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2726

Harland, C. M. (1996). “Supply chain management: Relationships, chains and networks,” British Journal of Management 7, S63-S80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.1996.tb00148.x

Hartini, S., Ciptomulyono, U., and Anityasari, M. (2020). “Manufacturing sustainability assessment using a lean manufacturing tool: A case study in the Indonesian wooden furniture industry,” International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 11(5), 943-971. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-12-2017-0150

Hisjam, M., Guritno, A. D., Supriyatno, N., and Tandjung, S. D. (2015a). “A sustainable partnership model among supply chain players in wooden furniture industry using goal programming,” Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 3, 154-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2015.01.030

Hisjam, M., Habibie, A., Sutopo, W., and Widodo, K. H. (2013). “A supplier-manufacturer model for procurement plan in export-oriented furniture industry with sustainability considerations,” in: Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Vol. 186, pp. 247-260. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5651-9_18

Hisjam, M., Sutopo, W., Devi, R. A., and Widodo, K. H. (2015b). “A manufacturer-buyer relationship model in export-oriented furniture industry with sustainability considerations,” in: Proceedings of the Joint International Conference on Electric Vehicular Technology and Industrial, Mechanical, Electrical and Chemical Engineering (ICEVT & IMECE), IEEE, pp. 298-303. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEVTIMECE.2015.7496697

Høgevold, N. M. (2011). “A corporate effort towards a sustainable business model: A case study from the Norwegian furniture industry,” European Business Review 23(4), 392-400. https://doi.org/10.1108/09555341111145771

Hromatka, T., and Savage, V. R. (2010). “Timber shortage and the sustainability of the Malaysian furniture industry,” in: Sustainability Matters: Environmental Management in Asia, World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, pp. 413-442. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814322911_0017

IKEA. (n.d.). “People and planet positive: IKEA sustainability strategy,” IKEA. Available at: https://www.ikea.com/us/en/files/pdf/6c/5b/6c5b7acd/people-and-planet-positive-ikea-sustainability-strategy.pdf.

Imteaz, M. A., Altheeb, N., Arulrajah, A., Horpibulsuk, S., and Ahsan, A. (2017). “Environmental benefits and recycling options for wood chips from furniture industries,” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Waste and Resource Management 170(2), 85-91. https://doi.org/10.1680/jwarm.17.00011

Ince, M. N., Tasdemir, C., and Gazo, R. (2023). “Lean and sustainable supplier selection in the furniture industry,” Sustainability 15(22), article 15891. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215891

IndustrySelect (2024). “Key trends & statistics in the U.S. wood products industry,” IndustrySelect. Available at: https://www.industryselect.com/blog/us-wood-products-industry-facts-and-trends

Iritani, D. R., Silva, D. A. L., Saavedra, Y. M. B., Grael, P. F. F., and Ometto, A. R. (2015). “Sustainable strategies analysis through life cycle assessment: A case study in a furniture industry,” Journal of Cleaner Production 96, 308-318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.029

Johann, G. B., Silva, G., Mazzioni, S., and Casagrande, R. M. (2022). “Sustainability practices, performance and competitiveness in the export furniture industry management,” Ambiente & Sociedade 25, article e02922. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422asoc20210029r2r1vu2022L3OA

Kans, M., Hetti Arachchige, C. M., and Paulin, D. (2024). “Circular strategies in the Swedish furniture industry – A business modelling approach,” in: Proceedings of the 11^th Swedish Production Symposium (SPS2024), pp. 552-563. https://doi.org/10.3233/ATDE240197

Kitchenham, B., Brereton, O. P., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Bailey, J., and Linkman, S. (2009). “Systematic literature reviews in software engineering – A systematic literature review,” Information and Software Technology 51(1), 7-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.009

Kostecka, Z., and Kopczewska, K. (2023). “Spatial CRM and location strategy: E-commerce solutions in the furniture industry. Case of IKEA pick-up points in Poland,” Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 62, article 101308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2023.101308

Koszewska, M., and Bielecki, M. (2020). “How to make furniture industry more circular? The role of component standardisation in ready-to-assemble furniture,” Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 7(3), article 1688. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2020.7.3(17)

Kotler, P., Kartajaya, H., and Setiawan, I. (2017). Marketing 4.0: Moving from Traditional to Digital, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, USA.

Kucuk, E., and Akdag, H. C. (2024). “Neutrosophic EDAS method in the indicator determination process: Sustainability indicators of the furniture industry,” in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems (INFUS), Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 717-727. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-67192-0_80

Külschbach, A., Leiting, T., and Stich, V. (2020). “Do-it-together concept for production ecosystems,” in: Proceedings of the Conference on Production Systems and Logistics, pp. 369-376. https://doi.org/10.15488/9679

Kurniawan, B., Sekarningrum, D. A., Nugrahadi, G., and Samri, I. (2023). “Utilizing rattan waste of furniture industry in Desa Trangsan, Sukoharjo,” AIP Conference Proceedings 2594, article 030010. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0110236

Küttim, M., Niine, T., Kull, M., Kotov, A., Gerstlberger, W., Hartšenko, J., and Hurt, U. (2024). “Growing green processes and sustainable business – Mapping company-level motives to initiate sustainable practices based on the wood and metal industries in Estonia,” Scientific Papers of the University of Pardubice, Series D: Faculty of Economics and Administration 32(2). https://doi.org/10.46585/sp32022087

Lähtinen, K., Samaniego Vivanco, D. A., and Toppinen, A. (2014). “Designers’ wooden furniture ecodesign implementation in Scandinavian country-of-origin (COO) branding,” Journal of Product & Brand Management 23(3), 180-191. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-07-2013-0354

Larasatie, P. (2018). “Indonesian furniture producers: Change makers or change takers?” BioProducts Business 3(8), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.22382/bpb-2018-004

Li, K., Rollins, J., and Yan, E. (2018). “Web of Science use in published research and review papers 1997-2017: A selective, dynamic, cross-domain, content-based analysis,” Scientometrics 115(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2622-5

Li, Y., Xing-fu, X., and Qu, M. (2023). “Research on the whole life cycle of a furniture design and development system based on sustainable design theory,” Sustainability 15(18), article 13928. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813928

Lima, E. G. De, and Silva, D. A. Da. (2005). “Waste generated in wood furniture industries at the city of Arapongas-Brazil,” Floresta 35(1), 105-116. https://doi.org/10.5380/rf.v35i1.2434

Lima, L., Trindade, E., Alencar, L., Alencar, M., and Silva, L. (2021). “Sustainability in the construction industry: A systematic review of the literature,” Journal of Cleaner Production 289, article 125730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125730

Lind, J. (1753). A Treatise of the Scurvy in Three Parts, Kincaid.

Lins, P. S., Kiperstok, A., Cunha, R. D. A., Rapôso, Á. L. Q. R. E. S., Merino, E. A. D., and César, S. F. (2021). “(Re) layout as a strategy for implementing cleaner production: Proposal for a furniture industry company,” Sustainability 13(23), article 13109. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313109

Liu, J., Liu, Z., Yang, Q., Osmani, M., and Demian, P. (2022a). “A conceptual blockchain enhanced information model of product service systems framework for sustainable furniture,” Buildings 13(1), article 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13010085

Liu, X., Lu, X., Feng, Y., Zhang, L., and Yuan, Z. (2022b). “Recycled WEEE plastics in China: Generation trend and environmental impacts,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 177, article 105978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105978

Lozano, S., Calzada-Infante, L., Adenso-Díaz, B., and García, S. (2019). “Complex network analysis of keywords co-occurrence in the recent efficiency analysis literature,” Scientometrics 120, 609-629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03132-w

Luisser, F. S., and Rosen, M. A. (2009). “Improving the sustainability of office partition manufacturing: Balancing options for reducing emissions of volatile organic compounds,” Sustainability 1(2), 234-253. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1020234

Luisser, F. S., and Rosen, M. A. (2010). “Feasibility analysis of sustainability-based measures to reduce VOC emissions in office partition manufacturing,” Sustainability 2(2), 624-644. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2020624

Łukiewska, K., and Brelik, A. (2021). “A model for measuring the international competitiveness of furniture industry in the European Union countries,” European Research Studies Journal 24(Special Issue 3), 334-350. https://doi.org/10.35808/ersj/2432

Luo, W., Sandanayake, M., Hou, L., Tan, Y., and Zhang, G. (2022). “A systematic review of green construction research using scientometrics methods,” Journal of Cleaner Production 366, article 132710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132710

Mahalakshmi, S., Nallasivam, A., Kumar, H., Kautish, S., and Madan, S. (2024). “From assembly to reassembly: IKEA’s circular design for a sustainable future,” in: Utilizing Technology for Sustainable Resource Management Solutions, IGI Global, Hershey, PA, pp. 261-280. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-2346-5.ch017

Makovec Radovan, D., Kropivšek, J., and Goropečnik, L. (2024). “Empowering advancement of wood and furniture sector through key digital and sustainability competencies,” Drvna Industrija 75(3), 337-347. https://doi.org/10.5552/drvind.2024.0165

Mallett, R., Hagen-Zanker, J., Slater, R., and Duvendack, M. (2012). “The benefits and challenges of using systematic reviews in international development research,” Journal of Development Effectiveness 4(3), 445-455. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2012.711342

Marcuse, P. (1998). “Sustainability is not enough,” Environment and Urbanization 10(2), 103-112. https://doi.org/10.1177/09562478980100020

MARK Product. (2022, September). “Table Talk 02: Greenwash in the furniture industry,” MARK Product. Available at: https://www.markproduct.com/2022/09/table-talk-02-greenwash-in-the-furniture-industry/.

Marques, M., Poler, R., Agostinho, C., and Jardim-Goncalves, R. (2017). “An architecture to support the development of reconfigurable and updatable product-service systems in furniture sector,” in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC 2017), IEEE, pp. 1076-1081. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICE.2017.8280001

Martynov, I., Klima-Frysch, J., and Schoenberger, J. (2020). “A scientometric analysis of neuroblastoma research,” BMC Cancer 20, 1-10. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-06974-3

Melati, P., and Shantiko, B. (2013). Making Research Work for Small-Scale Furniture Makers: Action Research in the Jepara Furniture Industry, Indonesia, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/004310

Mello, M. F. de, and Mello, A. Z. de. (2017). “An analysis of the practices of social responsibility and sustainability as strategies for industrial companies in the furniture sector: A case study,” Gestão & Produção 25(1), 81-93. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-530×1625-16

Menghi, R., Ceccacci, S., Papetti, A., Marconi, M., and Germani, M. (2018). “A method to estimate the total VOC emission of furniture products,” Procedia Manufacturing 21, 486-493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.02.148

Michelsen, O., Skaar, C., and Fet, A. M. (2023). “From waste to value: A story about life cycle management in the furniture industry,” in: Business Transitions: A Path to Sustainability, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 145-154. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22245-0_14

Migliaccio, G., and Rossetti, L. U. (2020). “Italian furniture sector SMEs: Sustainability and commercial ethics,” in: Thrassou, A., Vrontis, D., Weber, Y., Shams, S. M. R., and Tsoukatos, E. (eds.), The Changing Role of SMEs in Global Business: Volume II: Contextual Evolution across Markets, Disciplines and Sectors, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 225-259. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45835-5_11

Mirabella, N., Castellani, V., and Sala, S. (2014). “LCA for assessing environmental benefit of eco-design strategies and forest wood short supply chain: A furniture case study,”International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 19(8), 1536-1550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0757-7

Mittal, A., Sachan, S., Kumar, V., Vardhan, S., Verma, P., Kaswan, M. S., and Garza-Reyes, J. A. (2023). “Essential organizational variables for implementing Quality 4.0: Empirical evidence from the Indian furniture industry,” TQM Journal 36(6), 1550-1568. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-06-2023-0189

Moore, J. E., Mascarenhas, A., Bain, J., and Straus, S. E. (2017). “Developing a comprehensive definition of sustainability,” Implementation Science 12(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0637-1

Mulet-Forteza, C., Martorell-Cunill, O., Merigó, J. M., Genovart-Balaguer, J., and Mauleon-Mendez, E. (2018). “Twenty five years of the Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing: A bibliometric ranking,” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 35(9), 1201-1221. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2018.1487368

Murmura, F., and Bravi, L. (2018). “Additive manufacturing in the wood-furniture sector: Sustainability of the technology, benefits and limitations of adoption,” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 29(2), 350-371. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-08-2017-0175

NAICS Association (n.d.). “NAICS code description: 337 – Furniture and related product manufacturing,” NAICS Association. Available at: https://www.naics.com/naics-code-description/?code=337 (Accessed Apr. 17, 2025)

Nam, H. K., Choi, J., Jing, T., Yang, D., Lee, Y. G., Kim, Y., and Kim, Y. (2024). “Laser-induced graphene formation on recycled woods for green smart furniture,” EcoMat 6(4), article 12447. https://doi.org/10.1002/eom2.12447

Namicev, P., and Petrovski, M. (2019). “Wood as a primary selection of material for furniture production,” Journal of Process Management-New Technologies 7(4), 6-12. https://doi.org/10.5937/jouproman7-23198

Nikolaou, I. E., Evangelinos, K. I., and Allan, S. (2013). “A reverse logistics social responsibility evaluation framework based on the triple bottom line approach,” Journal of Cleaner Production 56, 173-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.12.009

Nikolić, N., and Gordić, D. (2010). “Waste minimization in the furniture industry,” Proceedings of the 4^th International Quality Conference, 385-394.

Nishad, S., Sahu, A. K., and Sahu, N. K. (2024). “Advocating lean practices and strategies in decision-making for reinforcing industrial and manufacturing designs,” in: Industrial and Manufacturing Designs, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, USA, pp. 75-103. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394212668.ch3

Norouzi, N., and Fani, M. (2021). “World on the road to 100% renewable energy,” Trends in Renewable Energy 7(1), 114-126. https://doi.org/ 10.17737/tre.2021.7.1.00132

Nuralievna, K. S., and Park, Y. W. (2023). “Circular economy in automobile industry: Literature analysis,” Management Review: An International Journal 18(1), 83-113. https://doi.org/10.55819/mrij.2023.18.1.83

Nurrochmat, D. R., Yovi, E. Y., Hadiyati, O., Sidiq, M., and Erbaugh, J. T. (2015). “Changing policies over timber supply and its potential impacts to the furniture industries of Jepara, Indonesia,” Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika (Journal of Tropical Forest Management) 21(1), 36-44. https://doi.org/10.7226/jtfm.21.1.36

Oblak, L., Ayrilmis, N., and Kuzman, M. K. (2020). “The European furniture industry: Market design and trends,” Proceedings of Scientific Papers 113.

Ofori-Agyei, G. O., Baah, O. P. K., Adom, D., Amankwa, J. O., and Abedi, A. (2023). “Upcycling of solid waste for furniture production: An environmentally sustainable solution for waste disposal,” Journal of Innovations and Sustainability 7(4), article 04. https://doi.org/10.51599/is.2023.07.04.04

Ojo-Fafore, E., Mbohwa, C., and Akinlabi, E. (2015). “Sustainability – Competitive advantage?” in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Operations Excellence and Service Engineering (OESE 2015), pp. 592-600.

Papadopoulos, I., Karagouni, G., Trigkas, M., and Beltsiou, Z. (2014). “Mainstreaming green product strategies: Why and how furniture companies integrate environmental sustainability?” EuroMed Journal of Business 9(3), 293-317. https://doi.org/10.1108/EMJB-12-2013-0058

Paul, J., and Criado, A. R. (2020). “The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know?” International Business Review 29(4), article 101717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101717

Pedrazzoli, P., Cavadini, F. A., Corti, D., Barni, A., and Luvini, T. (2014). “An innovative production paradigm to offer customized and sustainable wood furniture solutions exploiting the mini-factory concept,” in: Advances in Production Management Systems. Innovative and Knowledge-Based Production Management in a Global-Local World: IFIP WG 5.7 International Conference, APMS 2014, Ajaccio, France, September 20–24, 2014, Proceedings, Part II, Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp. 466-473. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44736-9_57

Pei, X., Italia, M., and Melazzini, M. (2024). “Enhancing circular economy practices in the furniture industry through circular design strategies,” Sustainability 16(15), article 6544. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156544

Pereira, D., Cunha, S. K. da, and Pereira, L. (2018). “Ecodesign in the furniture industry: Opportunities and challenges for organizational insertion,” Ambiente & Sociedade 21(0). https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422asoc0079r1vu18l1ao

Phillis, Y. A., and Andriantiatsaholiniaina, L. A. (2001). “Sustainability: An ill-defined concept and its assessment using fuzzy logic,” Ecological Economics 37(3), 435-456. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00290-1

Poklepovic Pericic, T., and Tanveer, S. (2019). “Why systematic reviews matter,” Elsevier Connect. Available at: https://www.elsevier.com/connect/why-systematic-reviews-matter (Accessed Nov. 18, 2024).

Pranckutė, R. (2021). “Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic world,” Publications 9(1), article 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010012

Primožič, L., and Kutnar, A. (2022). “Sustainability communication in global consumer brands,” Sustainability 14(20), article 13586. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013586

Pupo, H. F., Caldeira, M. D. S., Gamba, V. S., Chiarelli, D., Ferreira, M. Z., and Leão, A. L. (2012). “Alternatives panels from waste plastics reinforced with fibers of pupunha palm for use in civil construction and furniture industry,” Key Engineering Materials, 517, 635-640. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.517.635

Putri, D. N. E., Hisjam, M., Sutopo, W., and Widodo, K. H. (2013). “Simulation of supplier-manufacturer relationship model for securing availability of teak log in furniture industry with sustainability consideration,” in: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM 2013), IEEE, pp. 367-371. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEM.2013.6962435

Ricetti, F. (2016). The Effects that a Supply Chain Sustainable Strategic Fit has on Triple Bottom Line Performance: A Survey in the Wood and Furniture Industry, Master’s Thesis, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy.

Righi, S., Prato, E., Magnani, G., Lama, V., Biandolino, F., Parlapiano, I., Carella, F., Iafisco, M., and Adamiano, A. (2023). “Calcium phosphates from fish bones in sunscreen: An LCA and toxicity study of an emerging material for circular economy,” Science of The Total Environment 862, article 160751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160751

Rigillo, M., Galluccio, G., Fabbricatti, K., Block, M., Ermolli, S. R., and Perriccioli, M. (2024). “Digital and circular innovation for Made in Italy wood supply chain: The FoRWARD research project,” in: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Networks, Markets and People (NMP 2024), pp. 138-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-74723-6_12

Rosário, A. T., and Dias, J. C. (2022). “Sustainability and the digital transition: A literature review,” Sustainability 14(7), article 4072. DOI: 10.3390/su14074072

Rösch, N., Tiberius, V., and Kraus, S. (2023). “Design thinking for innovation: Context factors, process, and outcomes,” European Journal of Innovation Management 26(7), 160-176. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/EJIM-03-2022-0164

Rossi, L., Menato, S., Leone, D., Landolfi, G., Fontana, A., Sorlini, M., and Canetta, L. (2023). “Life cycle assessment tool for environmental characterization of manufacturing companies: A methodological guidance,” in: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC 2023), IEEE, pp. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICE/ITMC58018.2023.10332269

Sakib, M. N., Kabir, G., and Ali, S. M. (2024). “A life cycle analysis approach to evaluate sustainable strategies in the furniture manufacturing industry,” Science of The Total Environment 907, article 167611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167611

San, H. P., Singh, K. S. A., Ismail, A. Z., Singh, K. K. A., and Kum, P. S. (2015). “Initiatives and efforts towards greening Malaysian furniture industry,” Asian Journal of Scientific Research 8(2), 122-133. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajsr.2015.122.133

Savelli, E. (2017). “Using environmental standards to communicate security, quality and eco-design in the furniture sector: An Italian case study,” in: Proceedings of the 7^th International Conference on Mechanics and Materials in Design, Symp. on Quality Management: Theory, Applications and Case Studies, Albufeira, Portugal, pp. 11-15.

Schliephake, K., Stevens, G., and Clay, S. (2009). “Making resources work more efficiently: The importance of supply chain partnerships,” Journal of Cleaner Production 17(14), 1257-1263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.03.020

SciSpace (n.d.). “Journal of Cleaner Production,” SciSpace. Available at: https://scispace.com/journals/journal-of-cleaner-production-8zuzmoim (Accessed May 1, 2025).

Sellitto, M. A., Camfield, C. G., and Buzuku, S. (2020). “Green innovation and competitive advantages in a furniture industrial cluster: A survey and structural model,” Sustainable Production and Consumption 23, 94-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.04.007

Senthilkumar, V., Nagamani, T., Dhivya, M., Haritha, M., Kishore, R., and Prasanna, B. (2023). “Experimental investigation of green concrete,” E3S Web of Conferences 399, article 03010. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202339903010

Septiani, M., Putri, N. C., Verma, G., and Sasongko, N. A. (2022). “Eco-design practice towards sustainable furniture: A review,” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1108(1), article 012059. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1108/1/012059

Ševčíková, R., and Knošková, L. (2021). “Sustainable design in the furniture industry,” in: Proceedings of the 21^st International Joint Conference Central and Eastern Europe in the Changing Business Environment, Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 20-21. https://doi.org/10.18267/pr.2021.krn.4816.20

Seyajah, N., Cheng, K., and Bateman, R. (2014). “Development of sustainable design index for office furniture design and its CAD-based implementation,” in: Proceedings of the ASME 2014 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC/CIE 2014), Vol. 46353, American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), pp. V004T06A060. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2014-35642

Seyajah, N., Cheng, K., and Bateman, R. (2016). “To research the assessment and sustainable design of office furniture from a design perspective,” Asian Journal of Scientific Research 9(4), 188-197. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajsr.2016.188.197

Shukla, P., and Joshi, M. (2020). “Social, environmental and economic impact of promoting bamboo furniture industry in India,” J. Bamboo and Rattan 19(2), 27-37.

Smith, P. M., Haas, M. P., and Luppold, W. G. (1995). “An analysis of tropical hardwood product importation and consumption in the United States,” Forest Products Journal 45(4), 31-37.

Sriyanto, P., Pujotomo, D., and Hartini, S. (2019). “A prototype decision support system for sustainability performance measurement in furniture industry,” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 598(1), article 012094. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/598/1/012094

Statista (2024). “2024 Furniture: Market data & analysis,” Statista. Available at: https://www.statista.com/download/MTcyOTE3NTI2MCMjMzczODM1OCMjNTU0OTAjIzEjI251bGwjI1N0dWR5 (Accessed May 1, 2025).

Suandi, M. E. M., Amlus, M. H., Hemdi, A. R., Rahim, S. Z. A., Ghazali, M. F., and Rahim, N. L. (2022). “A review on sustainability characteristics development for wooden furniture design,” Sustainability 14(14), article 8748. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148748

Sukmawati, M., and Setiawan, A. D. (2022). “A conceptual model of green supplier selection in the manufacturing industry using AHP and TOPSIS methods,” in: Proceedings of the 2022 7^th International Conference on Business and Industrial Research (ICBIR), IEEE, pp. 659-664. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBIR54589.2022.9786388

Šūmakaris, P., Kovaite, K., and Korsakienė, R. (2023). “An integrated approach to evaluating eco-innovation strategies from the perspective of strategic green transformation: A case of the Lithuanian furniture industry,” Sustainability 15(11), article 8971. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118971

Susanty, A., Sari, D. P., Rinawati, D. I. I., Purwaningsih, R., and Sjawie, F. H. (2019). “Policy making for GSCM implementation in the wooden furniture industry: A DEMATEL and system dynamics approach,” Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 30(5), 925-944. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-11-2018-0193

Sustainability (n.d.). “Journal statistics,” MDPI Sustainability. (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/stats), Accessed May 1, 2025.

Sverdrup, H., and Svensson, M. G. E. “Defining sustainability,” Developing Principles and Models for Sustainable Forestry in Sweden, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2002. 21-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9888-0

The Shiv (2024). “Vietnam furniture manufacturing: Everything you need to know,” (https://the-shiv.com/vietnam-furniture-manufacturing/), Accessed 2024).

Thecka, S. (2014). “Transforming fragmented industry into sustainable businesses with SMAC technologies,” in: Proceedings of the 2014 IST-Africa Conference, IEEE, pp. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISTAFRICA.2014.6880615

Tremmel, M., Gerdtham, U.-G., Nilsson, P., and Saha, S. (2017). “Economic burden of obesity: A systematic literature review,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14(4), article 435. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14040435

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2024). “Industries at a glance: Furniture and related product manufacturing: NAICS 337,” (https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag337.htm), (Accessed 2024).

United Nations (n.d.). “The 17 goals,” United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs: Sustainable Development. Available at: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (Accessed 2025).

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2015). Paris Agreement, UNFCCC, Paris, France. Available at: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf (Accessed 2015).

Upadhyay, A., Alhuzaimi, W., Shukla, V., and Nur, S. (2020). “The influence of ethical practice on sustainable supplier selection in the furniture industry,” in: Ramanathan, U., and Ramanathan, R. (eds.), Sustainable Supply Chains: Strategies, Issues, and Models, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 273-290. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48876-5_9

Utama, D. M., Ardiyanti, N., and Putri, A. A. (2022). “A new hybrid method for manufacturing sustainability performance assessment: A case study in furniture industry,” Production & Manufacturing Research 10(1), 760-783. https://doi.org/10.1080/21693277.2022.2141366

Vachon, S., and Klassen, R. D. (2007). “Green supply chain practices and the selection of environmental technologies,” International Journal of Production Research 45(18-19), 4357-4379. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540701440303

Verganti, R., Dell’Era, C., and Swan, K. S. (2021). “Design thinking: Critical analysis and future evolution,” Journal of Product Innovation Management 38(6), 603-622. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12610

Vicente, J., Frazão, R., and da Silva, F. M. (2018). “Sustainable product design and the wood furniture sector,” in: Advances in Ergonomics in Design: Proceedings of the AHFE 2017 International Conference on Ergonomics in Design, July 17-21, 2017, Los Angeles, California, USA, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 762-772. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60582-1_76

Vignote, S., Martínez-Rojas, I., Pérez-Fernández, S., Rejas, M., Sánchez, J., Martínez, K., and Vignote-Hernández, S. (2016). “Strategic planning for community sustainability in model forests: Case study of the Yoro model forest, Honduras,” Maderas: Ciencia y Tecnología 18(2), 325-336. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-221X2016005000030

Vo, C. T. M., and Le, B. T. M. (2024). “The solutions to enhance the demand for using sustainable materials in interior design in Ho Chi Minh City,” in: Proceedings of the 8^th International Conference on Sustainable Urban Development, Springer, Singapore, pp. 241-253. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-8003-1_14

VOSviewer (2023). VOSviewer (Version 1.6.20) [Computer software], Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands, (https://www.vosviewer.com/).

Vrublevska, O. (2024). “The EU’s sustainable product initiative: Enhancing the readiness of the furniture business in Ukraine,” Studia Europejskie – Studies in European Affairs 28(1), 225-246.

Vuong, Q. H. (2022). “Perception of environment sustainability, lifestyle, green purchasing behavior, and eco-innovation,” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1121(1), article 012003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1121/1/012003

Wiśniewska-Sałek, A. (2021). “Managing a sustainable supply chain – Statistical analysis of natural resources in the furniture industry,” Management Systems in Production Engineering 29(3), 227-234. https://doi.org/10.2478/mspe-2021-0028

Wuelser, G., Pohl, C., and Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2012). “Structuring complexity for tailoring research contributions to sustainable development: A framework,” Sustainability Science 7(1), 81-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0143-3

Xiao, Y., and Watson, M. (2019). “Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review,” Journal of Planning Education and Research 39(1), 93-112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X1772397

Xiong, X., Li, R., and Bai, H. (2021). “Research status and development trend of intelligent furniture in China,” Journal of Forestry Engineering 1, 21-28. https://doi.org/10.13360/j.issn.2096-1359.202003002

Xiong, X., Yue, X., Dong, W., and Xu, Z. (2022). “Current status and system construction of used-furniture recycling in China,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 29(55), 82729-82739. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23532-5

Yang, D. (2023). “Design for environmentally sustainable furniture systems – The knowledge and know-how of furniture life cycle design and furniture sustainable product-service system design,” The Design Journal 26(3), 503-514. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2023.2178717

Yang, D., and Vezzoli, C. (2024). “Designing environmentally sustainable furniture products: Furniture-specific life cycle design guidelines and a toolkit to promote environmental performance,” Sustainability 16(7), article 2628. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072628

Yang, L., and Shao, N. (2019). Sustainability Strategies in IKEA with the Focus on Production and Suppliers, Master’s Thesis, Linnaeus University, Sweden, (https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-85636).

Yeğin, T., and Ikram, M. (2022). “Performance evaluation of green furniture brands in the marketing 4.0 period: An integrated MCDM approach,” Sustainability 14(17), article 10644. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710644

Zhang, J. (2020). “An overview of One Belt and One Road initiative and the sustainable development concept,” in: Proceedings of the 4^th International Symposium on Business Corporation and Development in South-East and South Asia under B&R Initiative (ISBCD 2019), Atlantis Press, pp. 34-38. https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.200708.007

Zhang, X., Xu, W., Li, R., Zhou, J., and Luo, Z. (2024). “Study on sustainable lightweight design of airport waiting chair frame structure based on ANSYS Workbench,” Sustainability 16(13), article 5350. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135350

Zhou, T., Xu, Y., Zhang, A., Zhou, L., Zhang, Q., Ji, Z., and Xu, W. (2022). “Global research status of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A bibliometric analysis,” EFORT Open Reviews 7(12), 808-816. https://doi.org/.1530/EOR-21-0065

Zuo, J., and Zhao, Z. Y. (2014). “Green building research – Current status and future agenda: A review,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30, 271-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.10.021

Zurlo, F., and Nunes, V. dos G. A. (2016). “Design and the furniture industry in Brazil,” in: SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology, Vol. 34, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 55-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23141-9_6

Zutshi, A., Creed, A., Holmes, M., and Brain, J. (2016). “Reflections of environmental management implementation in furniture,” International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 44(8), 840-859. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-10-2015-0154

Article submitted: September 24, 2025; Peer review completed: November 30, 2025; Revised version received: December 5, 2025; Accepted: January 12, 2026; Published: January 26, 2026.

DOI: 10.15376/biores.21.1.Kucuk