Cited by 155Sustainable Supply Chain ManagementService and Product InnovationSustainable Design and Development

Product-service systems for office furniture: barriers and opportunities on the European market

Open access
Besch, Katrin·2005·Journal of Cleaner Production

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.12.003

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The most common reason office furniture is not suitable for provider-ownership contracts is that ever-changing design preferences reduce possibilities for reuse.

    “The most common reason for this is that ever-changing design preferences reduce possibilities for reuse (Besch, 2005;Krystofik et al., 2018;Öhgren et al., 2019;Pieroni et al., 2021).”

    From Implementation and management of a circular public procurement contract for furniture (2023) · cites this paper as Besch, 2005

    Section 5.3.1 (page not provided) says changing design and fashion can make furniture unsuitable for renting again after several years, supporting the claim that design preferences limit reuse. But it calls this one barrier among several; neither that section nor the Conclusion (page not provided) identifies it as the most common reason. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Research generally holds that office furniture is not suitable for a contract where the provider keeps ownership of the furniture, such as leasing or providing a function for the furniture.

    “Research generally holds that office furniture is not suitable for a contract where the provider keeps ownership of the furniture, such as leasing or providing a function for the furniture (Besch, 2005;Krystofik et al., 2018;Öhgren et al., 2019).”

    From Implementation and management of a circular public procurement contract for furniture (2023) · cites this paper as Besch, 2005

    The Conclusion and Recommendations (section 7; page not provided) identifies long use periods and resistance to renting as barriers, supporting the claim that provider-owned arrangements face difficulties. But it says the evidence does not give an absolutely clear picture of practical applicability, while the PSS Scenario (section 3; page not provided) describes potential benefits of provider ownership. The source therefore does not support the categorical claim that office furniture is unsuitable for such contracts. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Circular economy and product-service systems are indicated as promising approaches to improve the furniture sector.

    “CE and PSS are indicated as promising approaches to this end [34,38,39].”
  • Additional services could help improve the attractiveness of the PSS scenario to lock in customers (AR A and B).

    “Additional services could help improve the attractiveness of the PSS scenario to lock in customers (AR A and B-see Tables 1 and 3) [39]”
  • Long usage time and technical simplicity of office furniture is a common barrier (AR A and B).

    “Long usage time and technical simplicity of office furniture (AR A and B) [39]”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Tischner, U., Verkuijl, M. with Tukker, A. (2002a): SusProNet Report -First Draft Report of PSS Review. Available from: Econcept, Cologne, Germany; TNO-STB, Delft, the Netherlands, or www.suspronet.org

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Besch, K.
Affiliations
Lund University (SE)
Corresponding author
Besch, Katrin
Venue
Journal of Cleaner Production
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-08
Volume
13
Issue
10-11
Pages
1083-1094
ISSN
0959-6526 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2132443893
Cited by
155
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 1
FWCI
4.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cleaner Production (publishedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications Student Papers (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Sustainable Supply Chain Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Service and Product Innovation
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Sustainable Design and Development
Keywords
product-service systems, office furniture, implementation barriers, business models, environmental benefits, furniture waste, emission reduction, European market, scenario development

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review