For the April issue of viewpoint magazine, we are focusing on sustainability and the environment. And I would wager that if you asked designers to name the issue most important to them, sustainability would probably be at the top.

So why does it feel like environmental issues in the industry have fallen down the list of priorities?

There was a time when the commercial furniture industry spoke about the environment with the same seriousness it brought to ergonomics or engineering, though some would argue (and I would agree) that some sustainability efforts were more marketing than substance. Still the industry was talking about it. Sustainability was an organizing principle. It showed up in product development meetings, factory investments and the way companies described their place in the world.

Somewhere along the way, the volume dropped, though not entirely. The industry still produces environmental product declarations. Manufacturers still talk about circularity. Materials teams still look for lower-impact inputs. But compared with the urgency that defined the late 1990s and early 2000s, the environmental conversation feels quieter, almost like background noise competing with louder topics such as hybrid work, neurodiversity, supply chain disruption and artificial intelligence.

The change is understandable. Businesses respond to the pressures directly in front of them, and the past several years have offered no shortage of those. A pandemic reshaped workplaces. Demand swung sharply and then corrected. Inflation and tariffs reshaped global sourcing. Dealers restructured. Manufacturers consolidated. Leadership teams had plenty to manage without trying to carry the full weight of climate responsibility. But that doesn’t mean the industry can afford to let environmental concerns slide.

The commercial interiors sector sits at a consequential intersection of manufacturing, materials and real estate. Furniture may represent a small percentage of a building’s carbon footprint compared with its operational energy, but it carries something just as important: agency. Unlike concrete or steel embedded in a building structure, furniture changes frequently. It is specified, replaced and reconfigured constantly. Every one of those decisions carries environmental consequences.

That reality once pushed the industry toward leadership. The industry was a world-wide leader when it came to the environment. Companies invested heavily in life-cycle assessment. They pioneered environmental transparency long before many adjacent industries were comfortable publishing the environmental impacts of their products. Some manufacturers redesigned factories to eliminate waste streams entirely. Others pushed suppliers to rethink coatings, adhesives and foam chemistry. All of those efforts are important and worth celebrating.

And those efforts helped establish the commercial furniture industry as one of the more environmentally progressive corners of manufacturing. The danger today is complacency.

When sustainability becomes routine, it risks becoming invisible. A product team that assumes environmental performance is “handled” may stop asking the harder questions. A marketing department may lean on certifications earned years ago rather than pursuing the next level of performance. Meanwhile, the broader climate challenge is not standing still.

Buildings account for a substantial portion of global carbon emissions. Many corporate clients are measuring Scope 3 emissions, which include the products they purchase. Investors are scrutinizing environmental disclosures. Designers increasingly ask not only whether a product is recyclable, but whether it should exist in its current material form at all. In other words, the expectations are rising again.

For the office furniture industry, that shift should feel familiar. It has been here before. When sustainability first moved from the fringe to the center of the conversation, many manufacturers discovered that environmental performance and good design were not in conflict. Reducing materials often improved aesthetics. Eliminating toxic inputs made workplaces healthier.

I was somewhat shocked to learn recently that the industry is still using parts containing PFAS. As someone who lives in a community that was poisoned by PFAS from a local manufacturer, I was disturbed by our continued PFAS use. While much has been done to remove PFAS from fabrics, the “forever chemical” is still used in motors, electronics and lubricants in the industry, including in lift mechanisms in chairs. While BIFMA is working to help ween the industry from PFAS, including in any part that comes into contact with humans, it is proving difficult since most component makers in the industry also supply automotive, which doesn’t give us much power when pushing for PFAS removal. Still, we need to do better and demand all PFAS be removed from our products.

After all, environmental thinking sharpened innovation in the industry.

Re-engaging that mindset now would serve the industry well, particularly as it tries to define the next chapter of the workplace. If offices are becoming destinations rather than default locations, the furniture inside them should reflect long-term thinking. Products designed for durability, repairability and material recovery fit naturally within that narrative.

Our reputation is at stake, especially with designers. Younger designers and specifiers tend to view environmental responsibility as baseline behavior, not a premium feature. Companies that cannot clearly explain the environmental profile of their products increasingly find themselves at a disadvantage during specification.

Refocusing on sustainability does not require starting from scratch. The infrastructure already exists. Environmental product declarations, material health documentation and take-back programs provide a foundation. What is needed now is renewed ambition.

That might mean setting more aggressive carbon-reduction targets across manufacturing operations. It might mean investing in materials research that reduces dependence on petrochemicals. It might mean designing product platforms specifically for refurbishment and second life rather than treating those outcomes as afterthoughts.

The commercial furniture sector helped shape the early playbook for sustainable product development. That leadership role is still available, but it requires attention. The industry has spent the past several years responding to disruption. That work was necessary. Now the opportunity is to ask a broader question about what kind of manufacturing sector it wants to be in the decades ahead.

The answer should include the environment, not as a side conversation, but as one of the central design challenges of the industry’s future.