15. Sustainability potential of Nordic PSS models

Over the past two decades, the sustainability potential of PSS has been at the forefront of business model development and scholarly debate. In fact, for some researchers, these sustainability benefits are now considered fundamental to the very definition of PSS (Sarasini et al., 2024). Originally, PSS was hypothesised to have the potential to reduce environmental impacts by up to 90% (Tukker, 2004b). However, the literature still lacks comprehensive evidence on the actual environmental impact reductions achieved through PSS implementation (ETC, n.d.). While recent studies affirm that PSS offers substantial potential for minimising overall environmental impact (Sarasini et al., 2024), they also highlight the complexities involved, including the risk of induced impacts and rebound effects, where unintended consequences may offset initial environmental gains (Kjaer et al., 2017).

The question is how we can ensure that PSS fulfils the overall sustainability potential and how we measure the actual impact of PSS, both positive and negative. Even though the concept of PSS has evolved over the past two decades, it doesn't remain easy to demonstrate and quantify the actual benefits of the business models. The most used method for assessing a product's environmental impact is Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). However, this method is primarily developed to assess “linear” products, i.e. from cradle to grave, making it challenging to calculate the benefits and unintended consequences of circular products and services, particularly PSS, as the core of these business models is the service and function of the product and not the product itself. It is necessary to consider which important assumptions and system boundaries should be included to make the calculation truly reflect the PSS model. Parameters such as capital goods, return rates, system losses, transport distances, and consumer behaviour are critical factors that might significantly impact the business model's actual environmental impact.

In this analysis of PSS's sustainability potential, we will first review the theoretical advantages, possible disadvantages, important parameters when evaluating PSS's environmental impact, and existing studies on the sustainability potential of the selected product categories. Secondly, findings regarding sustainability assessments from this project and the pilots will be presented. All of this will contribute to describing the archetype for a ‘sustainable PSS solution’.

15.1 Theoretical potentials of PSS

Circular business models aim to decouple economic growth from resource use, which is also the case with PSS (Kjaer et al., 2018). The core of PSS is to focus on selling services instead of products, which is expected to reduce the need for new products. The PSS concept embraces different business models, including renting and leasing, allowing multiple users to share a single product. This approach is believed to generate several incentives that support more sustainable consumption systems, such as encouraging the design of longer-lasting products (as companies benefit financially from increased durability), reducing the number of products needed to fulfil consumers’ needs, which reduces resource consumption and waste, and promoting sustainable consumer behaviour (Mont, 2002).

In recent years, research on PSS has largely focused on the business and economic drivers that support the shift to a service economy. However, most studies investigating the environmental potential of PSS are case-specific, offering valuable insights into the barriers and opportunities within certain product categories. Yet, this focus leaves gaps in understanding the broader, overarching environmental benefits that PSS could offer across industries and markets. More comprehensive research is needed to assess the full potential of PSS in driving sustainable consumption and production systems.

Although PSS is promising as a sustainable business model, its sustainability impact and contribution to transformative economic practices have yet to be demonstrated. Moro et al. (2020) identified 36 benefits of PSS through an extensive literature review, including nine environmental ones, such as reducing environmental impact and promoting greater product use. These environmental benefits can positively impact both providers and society. Annarelli et al. (2016) note that the most widely recognised advantage (reported in 62% of analysed publications) is the reduction of environmental impact. However, the specifics of how and when this occurs are poorly described. Ceschin (2013b) examines how economic factors can reduce material and energy consumption, encourage product reuse, and extend the active lifespan of products and materials. Similarly, Kuo et al. highlight how PSS can enhance service efficiency while minimising resource consumption and waste through repeated use and remanufacturing of products, materials, or components.

The primary environmental potential of PSS lies in meeting consumer needs with fewer new products. By implementing strategies such as repair, reuse, sharing, and product take-back programs, PSS providers can reduce the demand for virgin materials, decrease energy consumption, and generate less waste. These practices improve resource efficiency, reduce pollution, and lower greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to a more sustainable consumption model (Kjaer et al., 2018; Korhonen et al., 2018).

Figure 17: The overall environmental aim of PSS, the CE activities and enablers.
The model is developed by Norion; inspired by Kjaer et al., (2018), Tukker (2004a) and Korhonen et al. (2018) and adjusted with pilot findings.

The model in figure 17 presents the environmental perspectives of PSS, illustrating how different PSS models – product-oriented, use-oriented, and result-oriented – contribute to resource reduction and broader sustainability goals. Depending on the PSS model employed, specific PSS activity strategies are applied, directly influencing company and customer resource use and waste production, while also indirectly supporting wider environmental objectives such as mitigating climate change and reducing pollution.

Product-oriented models typically involve a lower degree of producer ownership and generally offer a more modest potential for environmental impact reduction. Their primary focus is on improving operational efficiency and, to some extent, extending product longevity. Key activities include using sustainable energy sources, sourcing high-quality products, and providing operational support and maintenance (represented by the lighter green boxes). While these strategies are effective, they are less impactful compared to more advanced approaches.

Some product-oriented models incorporate elements traditionally found in use-oriented models, such as product take-back management, design for durability, and product repair. When these strategies are adopted, product-oriented models move closer to enabling product longevity and can achieve more significant sustainability benefits.

As we move towards use-oriented models, the strategies become more advanced, incorporating both the elements of product-oriented models and additional approaches to achieve product longevity and intensified product usage. These models often involve product sharing, leasing, or renting, reducing the need for manufacturing new products, thereby minimising waste and resource use. Result-oriented models take this even further by substituting entire product systems with services, offering the greatest potential for dematerialisation and resource savings.

Overall, these strategies directly contribute to the reduction aims of decreasing resource use, waste, and new product production while indirectly supporting broader environmental goals such as reducing resource extraction, emissions, and pollution. However, to achieve the long-term goal of decoupling economic growth from the linear economy, it is crucial to ensure net resource reduction by reducing induced impacts, such as energy consumption, avoiding burden shifting, where environmental costs are transferred to another area, and mitigating rebound effects, which can occur when efficiency gains lead to increased consumption.

Each PSS model offers different levels of sustainability potential, and these potentials are maximised through the careful design and use of products, alongside effective management to avoid unintended consequences like rebound effects. The model demonstrates how PSS can be a powerful driver of sustainability and a key enabler of the circular economy when optimised for environmental and economic performance.

15.2 Ensuring the environmental benefits of PSS

While PSS holds potential for environmental progress, adopting these business models does not automatically guarantee significant environmental gains. A thorough evaluation of a PSS model’s environmental impact must consider not only the potential for avoided emissions but also any negative effects arising from the service’s operation, including rebound effects (Kjaer et al., 2018)

15.2.1 Induced impact directly related to PSS

PSS models provide systems where services can be purchased without affecting the quality of the desired function. Figure 18 illustrates a circular system example within a PSS, showing the process of product production, delivery, storage, distribution, return, preparation for the next use, and waste management. Compared to linear business models, PSS involves additional environmental considerations, particularly in terms of transportation, customer interaction, product return processes, and extending product lifespan.

Figure 18: Example of PSS business model.

Several factors influence the overall environmental performance of PSS models. Below are key considerations that can either enhance or hinder the environmental benefits of PSS:

Transportation: Transportation is often one of the largest contributors to CO₂e emissions in studies evaluating PSS models. This is particularly significant during the use phase, where products are delivered to consumers and later returned to the PSS provider. Additionally, emissions increase if users must travel to access the service. In some instances, transportation emissions alone can determine whether a PSS model has a lower environmental impact compared to traditional alternatives (Martin et al., 2021). Transportation emissions frequently surpass those associated with product repair and maintenance, including emissions from spare parts and product cleaning. This is also seen in the project pilots in section 6 and 8.
Return rate: The return rate of products in circular systems is critical to the model’s environmental performance, especially in low-value product-oriented PSS models, such as reusable to-go cups or e-commerce packaging services. Reusable products typically have higher environmental impacts during production than single-use products, meaning that any loss of products has significant environmental consequences, as it drives the need for additional production to maintain the system’s function. Findings from pilots in the packaging product category in section 6.

Capital goods/operation of the system: Capital goods (e.g., machinery, vehicles, tools) and the overall system operation in PSS models can result in higher environmental impacts compared to traditional business models (Kjaer et al., 2017). This is due to the systems needing additional services and products, such as machinery for washing, energy for IT-systems to operate the system. Eg., when having a system where the PSS provider rent out cups for to-go drink, the provider needs an IT-system to keep track on the cups and when and if these are returned. This might include having an IT-system or additional electronic equipment. Furthermore, the provider also needs to wash the products, and therefore also need washing equipment. All of these products and systems can induce the impact on the overall system. This includes not only the traditional definition of capital goods but also the additional products and services required to operate the system, such as electronic devices and IT infrastructure.
Utility and substitution rate: Utility and substitution rates are crucial factors when comparing PSS to other business models, as they indicate the extent to which the service reduces the need for traditional products. A higher utility rate means more effective product use, while a higher substitution rate shows how well the service replaces the need for new products.
Production: PSS models often rely on high-quality products designed for longevity, which can reduce the need for frequent replacements (Sarasini et al., 2024). However, this may result in increased environmental impact during production due to the use of more refined raw materials and complex manufacturing processes compared to traditional products.
Product longevity: In theory, PSS products are designed for longer lifespans through durability, repair, and reuse. However, the actual lifespan depends on how consumers interact with the service (Sarasini et al., 2024). Consumer indifference, loss of responsibility for products, and various types of obsolescence (e.g., technological or psychological) can reduce product longevity. Although intensified use may lead to better product utilisation, it could also result in shorter lifespans due to wear and tear (Sierra-Fontalvo et al., 2024).

Rebound effects

The rebound effects of PSS models – both direct and indirect – are not widely examined (Alfarisi et al., 2022) and are difficult to investigate due to their strong dependence on consumer behaviour and perception of value. Rebound effects occur when behavioural or systemic responses reduce the positive environmental gains of PSS (Font Vivanco et al., 2016).

For instance, when products are offered at lower prices through sharing or reuse systems, this affordability can lead to an increase in user consumption that outweighs the intended environmental benefits. A key example is car-sharing. While it reduces the need for individual car ownership, it may unintentionally result in increased car usage as more people gain affordable access to cars. The critical question is whether this expanded access primarily reduces the demand for new vehicle production or, instead, displaces the use of public transport, cycling, or walking (ETC, n.d.).

Rebound effects in PSS are influenced by triggers, which mediate changes in consumption, and drivers, which moderate the extent and conditions of those changes. Table 7 illustrates categories of rebound effects and examples of specific triggers.

Table 7: Examples of triggers and drivers for rebound effects.
Inspiration from Guzzo & Pigosso (2024), Andrew et al. (2024), and Kjaer et al. (2024).

Category	Example of trigger and drivers	Example of Rebound Effects (RE) and Secondary Benefits (SB)
Economic/financial	Price, profit, income	Reduced use costs can lead to extended use or new investments (RE)
Consumer choices	Preferences, motivation	Convenience in service can lead to the need of additional products and service (RE)
Company choices	Productivity, re-investment	Increase in revenue can lead to reinvestment in more efficient PSS solutions (SB)
Socio-cultural	Cultural acceptance, status	Moral licensing from sustainable activity can lead to consumers indulging in other consumption (RE) Consumers may feel less responsibility toward the products leading to a shorter product lifetime. (RE)
Physical constraints	Time, space, access	Time saved can lead to extended use of service (RE) Space saved by using more efficient or compact products and services might free up room for additional consumption.
Goods and services	Substitution, utility	Monitoring of use leading to enhanced performance and management of service (SB)
Other	Information, skills

When examining rebound effects, it is important to distinguish between direct and indirect impacts.

Direct rebound effects arise as an immediate response to the introduction of a PSS model, such as when a car-sharing platform makes driving more affordable and accessible, leading to more frequent use of cars (Font Vivanco et al., 2016).
Indirect rebound effects, on the other hand, are related to broader systemic impacts. For example, if a PSS model results in cost savings for businesses, those savings could be reinvested in additional products, potentially increasing resource use. Similarly, if consumers save money by using a PSS service, they may redirect those savings toward increased consumption of other goods, counteracting the intended environmental benefits (Guzzo & Pigosso, 2024).

The successful implementation of PSS can drive more sustainable behaviours or trigger rebound effects and other induced impacts that significantly reduce the overall sustainability potential. Understanding the scale and impact of these potential consequences is crucial. By identifying the triggers and drivers of rebound effects, businesses can mitigate negative impacts and prevent unnecessary rebound responses.

15.2.1 Reducing unintended consequences

Induced impacts and rebound effects are difficult to predict, but Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) can help evaluate the potential negative consequences and identify ways to mitigate them (Kjaer et al., 2018). Originally designed for linear products, LCAs must be adapted to capture the possible benefits and unintended consequences of PSS models. Key questions to address include the study’s purpose, reference systems, functional units, processes and subsystems included in the system boundaries, and key assumptions related to the use phase, where much of PSS’s environmental impact occurs:

Substitution of traditional systems

Does the PSS's sustainability potential depend on its ability to substitute another specific product system? For example, a car-sharing system could substitute individual car ownership, or a reuse system could substitute new products.

Support systems and processes

Does the PSS depend on support systems and additional processes that could influence the environmental outcomes? For instance, extra transport for returns, maintenance services, or extra processes (e.g. cleaning or servicing of products for leasing/renting/sharing)

Increased demand

Is there a risk that the PSS will increase the demand for the service by making it more convenient, accessible, or socially appealing, leading to higher consumption? (e.g. if the PSS increases convenience, access, social status and/or helps the user save time and money)

Spillover effects

Could cost savings from the PSS lead to increased demand for other products or services, offsetting environmental benefits? (e.g. if the PSS help the provider and/or customer save money)

LCA is conducted through four iterative phases: a) goal and scope, b) inventory assessment, c) impact assessment, d) interpretation) (ISO, 2006a, 2006b). In the context of PSS, the first phase – defining the goal and scope – is especially important for accurately assessing the system’s environmental impacts.

During this phase, decisions are made regarding system boundaries, reference scenarios, functional units, and key assumptions, all of which are crucial for evaluating the specific characteristics of PSS models (Kjaer et al., 2017). Important steps and considerations include:

Scope and reference system

The first step is to clearly define the purpose and desired outcomes of the study. This helps determine whether the goal is to optimise a PSS, compare it with other alternatives, or evaluate the consequences of its implementation. Once the scope is defined, the reference system is established. The reference system represents the modelled scenario that meets the functional unit’s requirements and is essential for making meaningful comparisons.

Functional unit (FU)

The functional unit (FU) defines the function of the system being assessed and quantifies the services provided. It serves as the basis for comparison between different systems. While the FU for traditional products can be narrowly defined, the FU for PSS must encompass all system elements, including consumer behaviour and alternative ways of providing the service. At a minimum, the FU should describe the measurable function, including quantity (how much?), duration (for how long?), and, if relevant, location (where?).

Calculating the reference flow in circular flows

When calculating the reference flow of products in a circular system (as PSS), one must consider the Number of Uses (NU) of the products (the number of times a product can or will be used before it is discarded as waste) and the Loss Rate (LR) (meaning the percentage of products that are not returned to the system) and relate these to the number of usages expressed by the functional unit (FU). If NU and LR are known, the reference flow can be calculated by using the following formula:

RF=(FU/NU) + (FU/NU)*LR*(NU-1)

FU = the number of usages needed to fulfil the functional unit, LR = the loss rate per usage, NU = total number of uses before discard, this can include different reasons for discharging the products, e.g., the technical lifespan or if products are only used for a specific amount of time, regardless of technical lifespan. Developed by Louise Laumann Kjær, 2024.

The formula assumes that the products lost in the system (either by not being returned, because of breakage, or not being used anymore because of other factors) are sent to waste management and are substituted by new products to retain the function of the system.

Consider a circular system of reusable cups. The functional unit includes a quantity of 1000 servings (FU=1000), e.g. corresponding to 50 servings over 20 occasions. The cups are thus to be used 20 times (NU=20) before they are discarded. Without any losses in the system, the reference flow for the cups would be 50 cups (1000/20). However, only 90% is returned for every use, resulting in a loss rate (LR) of 0.1 (10%) per recirculation. Since the 50 cups are recirculated 19 times (NU-1), the number of extra cups that must be added to the reference flow is (FU/NU)*LR*(NU-1) = 50*0.1*(20-1) = 95 cups. The reference flow is the total number of cups needed to be produced, and waste managed is 50+95=145 cups.

System boundaries

Setting the system boundaries involves identifying and including all relevant processes affected by the PSS. This ensures that the analysis captures the full environmental impact. Special attention should be paid to the use phase, as well as potential rebound effects, to provide a comprehensive assessment.

Data collection

PSS models often involve complex systems with multiple products, making access to primary data challenging. Unlike LCAs for traditional linear products, primary data from production processes may be less critical. Instead, collecting primary data for the use phase is vital, as rebound effects and other impacts typically occur during this period. Both quantitative and qualitative user data are important to build accurate assumptions.

Important use parameters

Various factors in the use phase can significantly influence the PSS’s environmental performance. Assumptions regarding product usage, user behaviour, and other parameters must be carefully quantified through surveys, field studies, focus groups, or literature reviews. As the assessment progresses and new insights emerge, the reference flows and system boundaries may need to be revisited to ensure the most accurate representation of the system’s environmental impact.

15.2.2 Sustainability potential within the different industries

The investigation of the ten product categories in this project shows significant variation in the actual emissions and reduction potential of PSS models. Assumptions and system boundaries significantly impact the overall results of the studies. Table 8. provides an overview of the different studies, results, and potential consequences for each category.

Table 8: Overview of different studies, results, and potential consequences for each product category.

Product group	Description of PSS examples	Environmental impact	Overall examples of possible negative impacts
Transportation	Cars and ride sharing system	30% increase – 50% reduction in kgCO₂e per person using the system (Zheng et al., 2019)	Customers often do not take proper care of shared products, which can lead to a significantly reduced lifespan—particularly evident with items like e-scooters. In shared transport systems, such as car-sharing platforms, additional environmental impacts may arise if users have to drive extra distances to pick up passengers, leading to increased overall transport usage.
	Smart bike system	30–62% reduction in kgCO₂e per year (Bonilla‐Alicea et al., 2020)
	Shared dockless standing e-scooter system	20% increase in gCO₂e per passenger km (Moreau et al., 2020)
	Bicycle sharing systems	25–50% reduction in kgCO₂e per user per year (Zheng et al., 2019)
Packaging	Reusable food container	24–64% reduction in kgCO₂e if reused 1–100 times	When customers do not return the packaging, the PSS provider must buy more products
Machinery and Tools	Tool rental of electric chainsaw (B2C)	25% increase in kgCO₂e (Martin et al., 2021)	Additional user transportation is the main reason for increased emissions.
Appliances and Furniture	Laundromat in residential building	1.8% reduction in kgCO2 per year (Amasawa et al., 2018)	Pay-per-wash models may encourage customers to overload washing machines to maximize value, potentially leading to technical issues and reduced equipment lifespan. In the case of furniture, offering it as a service does not necessarily result in customers owning fewer pieces or keeping them for a longer period. Moreover, the furniture market already has a well-established second-hand segment, making it challenging to sell furniture as a service.
	Shared laundromats	26% reduction in CO₂ per kg of laundry (Klint & Peters, 2021)
	Pay per use washing machine	16.4% reduction in kgCO₂e per year (Bressanelli et al., 2022)
Products for Children	Rental of prams	25% reduction in tons CO2e/number prams/children year (Kerdlap et al., 2021b)	Inappropriate costumer behaviour such as overusing the system, additional consumption of other products, and improper handling of products. Emotional attachment and desire to retain the products. Costumers’ perception of hygiene concern can cause over cleaning and therefore more use of water and chemicals
Products for Children	Cloth diapers as a service	30–70% reduction in kgCO2e (Hoffmann et al., 2020)
Textiles	Library for clothing (T-shirts)	40% reduction – 10% increase in kgCO₂e per use (Zamani et al., 2017)	Recent experience and studies find that companies providing PSS for textiles face unexpected financial consequences and slow return on their investments. Additionally, inappropriate costumer behaviour is also identified as a possible negative impact for textiles.
	Library for clothing (Jeans)	50% reduction – 1% increase in kgCO₂e per use (Zamani et al., 2017)
	Apparel as a service (Formal dress)	43% reduction in kgCO₂e (Monticelli & Costamagna, 2023)
Seasonal and Special Occasions	Peer-to-peer shared access of boats	63% reduction in kgCO₂e (Warmington-Lundström & Laurenti, 2020)	Availability and affordance of products may lead to extended product need and use.
Electrical equipment and IT solutions	Rental service of digital cameras	150% increase in CO₂e through consequential LCA (Sai et al., 2023)	Difficult to rent out used electronics, as it is difficult to estimate the device life span. Increased energy use and transportation. Users might not take good care of the device.
Buildings	PSS on an office building	27% reduced environmental score than conventional building (Smidt Dreijer et al., 2013)

15.3 Environmental performance of the pilot projects

During the project, 16 pilot projects were conducted to analyse various elements of PSS models. In six of these pilots, the focus was on assessing the environmental performance of the models. As part of this analysis, three Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs)

The LCAs have been modelled in SimaPro using the Ecoinvent 3.0 database and the ReCiPe 2016 Midtpoint (H) or Environmental Footprint (3.0) impact assessment method. Two assessments followed the consequential approach, and three followed the attributional approach.

were conducted and three climate calculation tools were developed to evaluate the environmental impacts. The key difference between these approaches lies in the scope of the environmental impact categories considered. The LCAs included a broad range of impact categories, whereas the climate calculation tools focused exclusively on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

In the three LCAs, all relevant environmental impact categories were assessed, but two of the cases prioritised GHG emissions as the main metric for comparison. On the other hand, the climate calculation tools were focused solely on GHG emissions, primarily using Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) as the foundation for their analysis. Although GHG emissions are the most common metric for comparing products, focusing solely on GHG emissions may overlook significant impacts in other areas, such as land use and resource depletion, which are also relevant in both PSS and traditional product models.

The PSS models evaluated in these pilots spanned multiple sectors, including tools (section 7.4), reusable packaging for e-commerce (Section 6.2), takeaway cups (Section 6.1), freight packaging (Section 6.3), and furniture (Section 8.2). Each product group’s environmental performance is discussed in detail within its respective chapter, providing insights into the performance of PSS models in those sectors and the potential for further resource efficiency and sustainability gains

Table 9 summarises the results, showing both best-case and worst-case scenarios across various parameters, which contributed to the overall climate impact. Detailed assumptions for these scenarios can be found in annex 2.

Table 9: Overview of impact reductions from different pilot companies.

Pilot	Climate impact (CO2e)	Description
Rolling scaffolding	Same emissions – 45% reduction	The baseline for the calculations was set at 15 years of rolling scaffolding usage with a utility rate twice as high as in the traditional ownership model. To explore both the best- and worst-case scenarios for tool sharing, different utility rates and transportation distances were assessed. The findings indicate that increasing the utility of the scaffolding significantly enhances its potential for emission reduction. However, this is only achievable if transport emissions are also minimised. Additionally, higher usage rates could potentially reduce the product’s lifespan, so this trade-off needs to be managed carefully.
Reusable to-go cup	12% increase – 92% reduction	The assessment was based on 13,036 servings of hot beverages in to-go cups, equivalent to 36 servings per day over the course of one year (365 days). Both the return rate and the number of uses were evaluated in best- and worst-case scenarios, revealing that while both factors significantly affect the system’s overall environmental impact, the return rate is the most critical variable. The analysis showed that if only 60% of the cups are returned, emissions would increase by 12%. However, if 98% of the cups are returned, emissions would decrease by 92%, highlighting the importance of optimising return rates to maximise environmental benefits.
Reusable packaging for e-commerce	60% increase – 50% reduction	The assessment focused on 1 m² of packaging used to contain and protect dry goods during transportation and storage for a single delivery. Both soft and hard case packaging types were evaluated. The results showed that cardboard boxes require fewer reuse cycles compared to reusable bags for e-commerce packaging. In this scenario, introducing 100 new products and reusing 200 demonstrated that cardboard boxes could reduce emissions by 50%, whereas reusable bags increased emissions by 60%. This increase is primarily due to the heavier and more durable materials used in reusable bags compared to single-use paper bags, which contribute to higher initial production emissions.
Reusable freight packaging for construction modules	6% increase – 46% reduction	The assessment focused on covers for 4,000 modules for storage or transportation twice a year over a period of one to two years in Sweden and Norway, amounting to 16,000 total uses. The results showed that when reusable materials are introduced, they are typically made from stronger and heavier materials, resulting in higher production emissions compared to single-use alternatives. As a result, these reusable materials must be used a certain number of times before their overall CO₂e emissions are lower than those of single-use materials. The key takeaway is that the environmental benefit of reusable materials depends heavily on achieving a sufficient number of reuse cycles.
Reuse of furniture	12–64% reduction	The assessment focused on a bundle of clean, functional, neutral-looking furniture – comprising sleeping, seating, and dining elements – designed to serve 100 people over a six-month period in Malmö and Lund. The reference flow was based on meeting the functional needs of 100 individuals (primarily students). Three scenarios were selected as reference points, informed by on-site interviews with Swedish exchange students. This assessment highlights the critical role of user surveys in evaluating the environmental performance of PSS models, as they provide valuable insights into how well the PSS solutions actually substitute for traditional alternatives. These user insights are essential for accurately determining the environmental impact and the effectiveness of the PSS.

15. Sustain­abi­lity potential of Nordic PSS models