The World Has Changed. Furniture Must Change Too

For decades, much of the logic behind international furniture trade could be summed up in a single question: where can you manufacture well, at a lower cost?

The question remains valid. But it is no longer enough.

International buyers increasingly need to know where the wood comes from, how much risk lies in an overly concentrated supply chain, how a new tariff could affect import costs, what information will need to accompany a product, and whether a supplier is prepared to meet environmental requirements that did not even exist when many of today’s global supply chains were established.

The furniture industry has entered a period in which cost, design and quality remain fundamental, but now share the stage with geopolitics, supply security, traceability, environmental regulation, technology and adaptability.

This is not the end of globalization. It is a more complex – and far more strategic – form of globalization.

When furniture became a matter of national security

Few developments illustrate this change as clearly as what has happened in the United States.

In 2025, the US government used Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, a mechanism related to national security, to impose tariffs on wood products. The measures included an additional 25% tariff on certain upholstered furniture, kitchen cabinets and bathroom vanities.

A subsequent increase scheduled for January 2026 – to 30% for certain upholstered furniture and 50% for cabinets and vanities – was postponed for another year while the United States continues negotiations with trading partners. The 25% tariffs, however, remain in place.

The episode represents more than a change in tariffs.

When furniture and wood products become part of a formal national security debate, it becomes clear that trade is no longer being considered solely in terms of economic efficiency.

This transformation extends far beyond furniture. The World Trade Report 2026, published by the World Trade Organization (WTO), identifies growing government intervention, geopolitical tensions, digitalization, environmental concerns and increasingly complex global value chains among the forces putting pressure on the multilateral trading system developed over recent decades.

Interdependence, the WTO observes, is now also being viewed through the lens of security.

The cheapest supply chain may not be the safest

This changes one of the industry’s fundamental equations.

During the major expansion of global supply chains, companies pursued efficiency, specialization and lower costs. Concentrating production in certain countries was often a logical consequence of that strategy.

Today, concentration can also mean risk.

Geopolitical conflicts, tariffs, logistics bottlenecks, trade restrictions, regulatory changes and excessive dependence on suppliers have added new variables to decisions about where to manufacture and where to source.

The WTO itself notes that concerns over supply-chain concentration, technological rivalry and economic security are leading governments to seek ways to reduce certain external dependencies and control flows of technology and investment.

This does not mean global supply chains are disappearing. It means they are being reassessed.

For the furniture industry – characterized by bulky products, significant logistics costs and extensive use of natural raw materials – that reassessment may have particularly important consequences.

China remains at the center – but trade flows are shifting

China remains impossible to overlook in the global furniture industry. In the European Union, for example, it accounts for more than half of furniture imports originating outside the bloc, according to the European Commission.

The figures illustrate the scale of that presence. In 2025, the European category encompassing furniture, lighting, bedding, mattresses and prefabricated buildings alone accounted for € 21.3 billion in imports from China.

But the issue is no longer simply one of replacing China.

Vietnam, Mexico, Türkiye and other manufacturing hubs have gained relevance across different markets and product categories. Companies have begun combining suppliers, moving part of their production closer to consumer markets and diversifying sourcing locations.

The emerging model is therefore less about transferring production entirely from one country to another and more about diversifying risk.

Europe is changing the rules of entry

While the United States demonstrates how geopolitics can alter tariffs, Europe provides another example of transformation: market access is increasingly dependent on the information that accompanies a product.

Two acronyms deserve a permanent place in the vocabulary of the global furniture industry: EUDR and ESPR.

And they address different issues.

The first focuses particularly on the origin of certain raw materials. The second is establishing a new framework for the product itself.

EUDR: knowing where the wood comes from

The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) aims to prevent certain products placed on or exported from the European Union market from being associated with deforestation or forest degradation.

Wood is one of the seven commodities covered by the regulation, together with a range of derived products – including certain categories of furniture. Operators placing products covered by the regulation on the European market will need to demonstrate that they are not associated with recent deforestation or forest degradation and that they have been produced in accordance with the relevant legislation of the country of origin.

Following postponements and adjustments, implementation is scheduled for 30 December 2026 for large and medium-sized operators, and 30 June 2027 for most micro and small operators.

For the furniture industry, the message is significant: knowing the origin of wood is gradually moving beyond good environmental practice and becoming a concrete condition for access to certain markets.

ESPR: now the product itself comes into focus

The second transformation may be even less familiar to the Brazilian furniture industry.

The Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) establishes a new European framework for sustainability requirements applicable to products.

Furniture is among the priority product groups included in the European Commission’s first 2025–2030 working plan, alongside products such as steel, aluminum, textiles, and mattresses.

Its scope goes far beyond determining whether a product contains a particular material.

The ESPR provides a framework for requirements relating to aspects such as durability, circularity, repairability, resource efficiency, recycled content and sustainability information. One of the instruments provided for under the regulation is the Digital Product Passport – DPP.

For furniture, the European Commission currently indicates 2028 as the indicative date for adoption of the category-specific delegated act. Mattresses are scheduled for 2029.

There is an important distinction: this does not mean that every piece of furniture will automatically be required to carry a Digital Product Passport from 2028. Inclusion in the working plan begins the process of assessment and development of category-specific rules. The delegated act will determine the final requirements and the actual compliance timetable.

It is a technical distinction, but an essential one.

Furniture begins to acquire a digital identity

The concept of the DPP helps explain the direction in which European regulation is moving.

The passport will function as a structured set of digital information associated with a product. Depending on the specific rules established for each category, it may include information relevant to sustainability, composition, durability, repairability and traceability throughout the supply chain.

And this is no longer simply a regulatory concept.

In July 2026, the European Commission launched the Digital Product Passport Registry, an infrastructure designed to register the identifiers and metadata associated with digital product passports.

For furniture manufacturers planning to operate in Europe in the coming years, information technology is therefore moving closer to international trade.

The factory will still need to produce a good chair.

But it may also need to produce reliable information about that chair.

From tracing the tree to tracing the furniture

This is where EUDR and ESPR, although they are separate regulations, help reveal a broader transformation.

The first reinforces the importance of knowing and demonstrating the origin of certain raw materials. The second moves into the characteristics, performance and information associated with the product itself.

Taken together, they reveal a clear trend: the physical supply chain and the information chain are moving closer together.

For suppliers and manufacturers, this may require greater integration between purchasing, production, documentation, digital systems, product engineering and sustainability.

Traceability no longer ends at the forest. It is beginning to reach the furniture itself.

Brazil is already feeling the change

For Brazilian industry, this new global landscape is not an abstraction.

In 2025, Brazilian furniture and mattress exports reached US$ 889.1 million, a 2.3% reduction. The United States remained the leading destination, but its share fell from 29.6% of exports in 2024 to 22.5% in 2025.

The change became even more evident in 2026.

During the first half of the year, Brazilian furniture and mattress exports fell 5.3% to US$ 414,5 million. Sales to the United States dropped by approximately 40,6%, reducing the US share of Brazilian exports in the segment to 16,6%. At the same time, Brazilian furniture and mattress imports increased by 20,6%, with Chinese products accounting for a significant 58.4% share.

It is almost a snapshot of the new global landscape: tariffs in one market, redirected trade flows in another, and competitive pressure reaching the domestic market as well.

Where does Brazil fit into this new map?

The answer requires some caution.

The new international environment does not automatically give Brazil an advantage.

But it changes the relative value of some of the assets the country already possesses.

A large, planted forest base, domestic wood-based panel production, wood availability, established manufacturing capacity, forest certification and export experience may become increasingly valuable in a market concerned with supplier diversification, material origin and security of supply.

These assets, however, do not eliminate familiar challenges.

Industrial competitiveness, productivity, logistics costs, delivery times, product development, international commercial presence and the ability to comply with new documentary and digital requirements remain decisive.

The opportunity, therefore, is not simply to occupy the space left by another country.

It is to become a reliable alternative within a global supply chain seeking to reduce risk without sacrificing competitiveness.

The new price of competitiveness

Perhaps this is the most important transformation now under way.

Price still matters. Design still matters. Quality still matters.

But international buyers are beginning to ask additional questions.

Where does the wood come from? Can the supplier prove its origin? How much risk is associated with that logistics route? Could a tariff make the product uncompetitive? Can the manufacturer comply with new European regulations? Can its systems generate the required information? Is there sufficient scale? Is supply consistent? Are there alternatives if part of the chain is disrupted?

For decades, the furniture industry has refined its answer to one fundamental question:

How much does it cost to produce?

The new global landscape has added another:

How much does the risk cost?

Understanding the difference may prove just as important to the industry’s future as manufacturing a good piece of furniture.