Rachel Houghton, Managing Director, Business Moves Group
Increasingly, financial and environmental reporting are becoming intertwined, and often, one can’t happen without impacting the other. ESG under updated European Sustainability Reporting Standards and UK Sustainability Reporting Standards, operational efficiency, streamlining waste reduction – these all have significant financial consequences.
But amid these targets, one area is being overlooked – office furniture. In the EU, 80-90% of all used office furniture is incinerated or sent to landfill. Furniture made from virgin resources can contribute significantly to the carbon footprint of a commercial office building, accounting on average for 30% over its lifecycle.
New research from Business Moves Group (BMG), based on a survey of facilities and office management professionals across the UK, reveals a pattern of inefficiency that carries real financial consequences.
With approximately 20% of furniture management budgets spent on storage alone, unused assets sitting in warehouses for over eight months on average, and 40% considered to be reusable, there is clear inefficiency.
The gap between what organisations have and what they can refurbish, reuse, and redeploy represents waste: of time, resources, and inevitably, money.
The perception gap
The problem is not just what organisations are doing wrong, but how few of them realise what they are wasting. In BMG’s report, a striking 86% of respondents describe their furniture management as very or somewhat sustainable.
At the same time, 50% admit to using furniture disposal as general waste as a routine method, and to defaulting to the cheapest option, regardless of environmental or long-term financial consequences.
The gap between perceived and actual sustainable performance is a risk. Where sustainability commitments are made publicly, discrepancies between stated policy and operational practice create reputational exposure. Where ESG metrics are being reported, data gaps around asset disposal could undermine reporting credibility.
The cost of doing nothing
The case for better furniture management is straightforward. Storage fees accumulate across months and years. Disposal charges apply when assets leave. New purchases are made to replace items that could have been redeployed. This cycle is avoidable with the right method.
Reuse, redistribution, and resale need to be at the forefront. For a multinational insurance company, this method resulted in £238,000 saved through the reuse and redistribution of assets, along with 88,960 kgCO2e of carbon avoidance. For a British telecommunications operator, the resale of unused furniture items generated £104,060.
How to make changes
The research identifies a clear appetite for change. Nearly nine in ten facilities management professionals believe furniture management should include sustainability requirements, and over half would welcome external support in building a procurement and disposal policy. The challenge is translating that appetite into action.
Organisations need to understand what they have, and where. Without a furniture inventory, businesses cannot make clear decisions about reuse, redistribution or disposal. A full audit, properly tagged and maintained digitally, gives teams the data they need to challenge storage costs, evaluate procurement decisions, and track progress against targets.
A formal policy can build on an inventory by defining a hierarchy of outcomes for end-of-life assets: reuse first, then refurbishment, then donation, then recycling. Landfill should not be the default. In many cases, assets that appear surplus to requirements in one location can serve another. A well-maintained chair, for example, can be reupholstered and its life extended by five years or more, at a fraction of the cost of a replacement.
Ongoing governance is essential. Currently, almost six in ten organisations do not review their furniture management practices on at least an annual basis. Finance directors who have pushed for regular review of travel policy, supply chain spend or energy costs would find the same discipline applied to furniture asset management yields measurable returns.
An efficiency opportunity
Organisations are paying to store assets they could use, disposing of items they could sell or donate, and buying replacements they may not need. With furniture management budgets rising in more than half of businesses surveyed, now is the perfect time to review whether that spend is being directed well.
Better information, clearer policy, and a consistent hierarchy that recovers value from assets separates strong furniture management from costly inaction. For finance leaders, furniture management is a clear example of an area where improved governance pays for itself.
