How to Design for Sustainability Part 1 — A needs-based approach is essential

This is article three of four in a series of Design for Sustainability. Each can be read independently.

In part two of this article series I shared some important scientific research that can serve as a universal, operational and strategic definition of sustainability. The Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development establishes 8 foundational sustainability principles, stating that any society, business, product, service, system, policy or organization that strives to be sustainable must not contribute to develop, uphold or legitimize structures that systematically (no matter how (un)intentional or (un)conscious) (re)produces:

• Increased concentrations of GHGs or substances from the Earth´s Crust (such as heavy metals) in the biosphere.
• Increased concentrations of synthetic (man made — particularly non-biodegradable) substances in eco-systems of the biosphere.
• Physical degradation or alteration of eco-systems and habitats.
• Limitations of access to or degradation in quality of health in stakeholder community.
• Limitations of access to or undermining of widespread influence among actors in stakeholder community.
• Limitations of access to or degradation in quality of competence development and learning in stakeholder community.
• Limitations of access to or undermining of impartiality (fairness supporting equality and justice) in stakeholder community.
• Limitations of access to or undermining of ability to participate in processes of new meaning-making in stakeholder community.

In the previous article I also argued for the need for a set of operational criteria that can serve to define and prescribe good design in the context of a sustainability imperative. I proposed 8 commandments derived partially through a critical review of the relevancy of the 10 commandments from Dieter Rams. Here listed in order of importance:

1. Appropriate

2. Solution-oriented

3. Healthy

4. Honest

5. Adequate

6. Functional

7. Engaging

8. Desirable

In article four, I want to explore various tactics and approaches for how to work with making the design process and the design solutions oriented for sustainability. But before we go there, I want to use this article to expand on commandment 2 - to nuance it and emphasize its importance. This will also serve to emphasize the importance of commandment 1 and 5 and 6 while de-emphasizing the importance of commandment 8 somewhat.

So, let’s rehearse commandment 2 in a slightly expanded iteration: Good design should be solution-oriented so that it addresses a real problem and contributes to satisfy at least one fundamental human need long term — directly or indirectly — and do so in a way that does not produce side-effects that contributes to undermine the satisfaction of other fundamental needs. This should make the design purposeful, impactful and worthwhile.

There are a lot of concepts crammed in there that calls for proper definitions and some examples. Notably what it means for a design to be a satisfier of fundamental human needs. This criterion also presents a level of nuance and complexity that requires explanation. Such as why long term? — and why no side-effects? - So, let’s explore this criterion a bit deeper.

Good Design Solutions as Satisfiers of Fundamental Needs

In his 1991 book Human Scale Development the now diseased Chilean economist and thought leader Manfred A. Max-Neef introduces a very useful framework that communicates the connection between two brilliantly conceived concepts — satisfier and need. A satisfier is any solution (be it a behaviour, intervention, service, product, system or product-service-system) that satisfies at least one essential human need. In order to make this fully comprehendible and operational we need to first identify what qualifies as fundamental human needs. Max-Neef identifies the following needs as the real essential human needs — meaning that most other needs can be reduced to essentially be about one or more of these fundamental needs. They are:

• Subsistence
• Protection
• Understanding
• Participation
• Idleness
• Creation
• Identity
• Freedom

These can be expressed into 4 primary domains of existence:

• Being
• Doing
• Having
• Interacting

Collectively producing a matrix, that can be translated to this framework giving us a specified overview of examples of fundamental human needs:

Max-Neef further classifies different kinds of Satisfiers (solutions that meet the fundamental needs) as follows:

a) Violators — claim to be satisfying needs, yet in fact make it more difficult to satisfy one or more needs.

b) Pseudo Satisfiers — claim to be satisfying a need, yet in fact have little to no effect on really meeting that need at a fundamental level.

c) Inhibiting Satisfiers — those which over-satisfy a given need, which in turn seriously inhibits the possibility of satisfaction of other needs.

d) Singular Satisfiers — satisfy one particular need only. These are neutral with regard to the satisfaction of other needs.

e) Synergistic Satisfiers — satisfy a given need, while simultaneously contributing to the satisfaction of other needs.

A true satisfier then is a solution that satisfies one or more of the fundamental human needs. When operationalizing this framework in the context of DfS it becomes clear that the kinds of solutions we should be striving to design are synergistic satisfiers. Why; because the sustainability crisis is an entangled systemic meta-crisis. Solving that calls for synergistic solutions that work systemically in compounding ways creating reinforcing feedback loops of desired effects. We need progress at a developmental rate that scales and exceeds the exponential negative developments we are faced with in the world today. Incremental linear silo-solutions simply will not be impactful enough in time when designing for sustainability.

When working with needs and satisfiers I find it helpful to distinguish between needs and desires. We all have both needs and desires. Initially it may seem a little difficult to separate the two, but they are quite different in one very important way; satisfying your real fundamental needs actually makes you healthier mentally and physically — thus making you feel better long term. Contrarily merely satisfying your desires might make you feel pretty good or even really good short term, while on a long-term scale tends to make you feel miserable, existentially confused and is likely to make your mental and physical health worse over time. It is important to state that I am not on a moral campaign here banning desires, even though the Buddhists do make a good case for craving being the root of existential suffering, thus should be limited. There is in my view nothing wrong with the act of desiring. It can be a powerful driving force; for both good and bad behaviour/creations. What I am saying is that we can desire all kinds of unnecessary and random things that are not truly good(s). What we should be desiring then are the kinds of goods that satisfies our fundamental needs. Similarly what we should be designing if we want to design sustainably are the kinds of solutions that satisfies fundamental needs rather than random unnecessary desires.

Unfortunately, the majority of businesses seem to be in the business of merely satisfying desires while perpetuating unnecessary consumption by creating more random desires through marketing and commercial campaigns that exploit the weaknesses and biases of the human mind. In fact many companies now spend more money and ressources on marketing than they do on R&D and production of the product itself. I do not want to mention any company names here, but let’s just take the fashion industry (including cosmetics) as an example. This really is an industry that at large constantly is trying to create desires by convincing you that you need to look and signal differently than you do. This desire to look different has its deep psychological roots in your fear of being excluded socially or not being attractive enough to find a mate. Not being good enough as you are. In that way, the fashion industry prays on your insecurity and lack of self-esteem as it works to confuse your priorities making you think they have the solution to your deepest longings. The desire one might develop for a certain fashion item may be so strong that one confuses it for something one really needs, but it will most likely turn out to not be a good satisfier of one’s fundamental needs, though it may make one feel some satisfaction briefly after acquiring said fashion item. In the end of the transaction, you are left with a dent in your wallet and a persistent emptiness in your soul. In that way, many of the things we are convinced that we need really are just constructed desires brought about by manipulating marketing campaigns that manages to link the object of desire to our fundamental need to participate and be accepted socially or our need for affection and love from another human being. Again, I want to make it clear — I am using the fashion industry as an example here. I have nothing against the craft of designing and manufacturing good and functional clothing, accessories or skincare. I like to dress up, look sharp, signal my identity and feel at home in my clothing just as much as the next person. And most of us do need clothing for protection from the elements or for complying with laws and norms as we move through public space. Meanwhile aesthetically pleasing clothing contributes to more beauty in the world, which certainly does not hurt. Heck fashion items may even be a weak satisfier of our fundamental need for identity, by serving as identity symbols/signals. And there probably are examples of good intentioned quality fashion out there that may get close to being fully sustainable. But there is a vast difference between nice to have and need to have at a psychological and biological level and that is the point that is important here. Therefore, I think it is rather uncontroversial to say that most of the fashion and cosmetics consumed in the world today does not in fact satisfy fundamental human needs in a substantial way. Most of it is part of a distorted system of overconsumption and profit maximization exploiting a confused consumer society rife with stress, anxiety and self-esteem issues.

In a traditional neoclassical economic (you may want to read this article) market logic one would not distinguish between a need and a desire, one would simply say that if there is a willingness to pay for a product there is a market need and thus an entrepreneurial opportunity to capitalize on that by scaling the desire for the product. This is of course a very shallow definition of a need and one that only works in the abstract for market analysis. A market need in the logic of traditional neoclassical economics then is very different from the fundamental human needs as proposed by Max-Neef. This does not mean that designing products, services, systems and strategies that adresses fundamental human needs is not good business or limited to NGOs or public sector organizations. It is in fact good business practice and it only strengtens the value proposition, brand image and competitive advantage of a company — as elaborated on by acclaimed economist Michael E. Porter through his theory of Creating Shared Value (representing an ethical and value creation paradigm move from CSR to CSV). I would even argue we need to move beyond that paradigm to a CSV 2.0 — Creating Systems Value. We will explore what that means in a future article.

UBI as a Case of Policy Design that can Act as a Synergistic Satisfier to Real Fundamental Needs

A good example of a synergistic satisfier promoting social sustainability could be the design of the policy innovation and economic distribution policy known as UBI (Universal Basic Income), which is what it sounds like. A state (or rather tax) financed monthly pay check for all (which could be offered with or without certain conditions/demands) instead of the various kinds of welfare redistribution as we know it today. This policy is designed to solve for a future where there will be less work (due to e.g. automation) to share among more people (due to population increase) leading to higher unemployment, lacking incomes and higher levels of inequality and social segregation. Simultaneously it would likely bring down administrative costs and transaction costs related to less bureaucracy in the economic welfare system. The design and implementation of such a system should ideally be coupled with a tax-reform that moves taxes away from income and onto consumption coupled with a differentiated tax system, where companies that employ more people relative to revenue are taxed relatively less than companies employing fewer people relative to revenue. UBI then holds the promise of potentially being able to contribute effectively to synergistically satisfy the fundamental human needs of subsistence, protection, participation, identity, freedom, leisure and creation while it would set people free to be more human and less machine. Critiques of UBI is based on speculations that people would become unproductive, lazy, isolated and altogether disengaged from responsibilities to society making citizenship as we know it a thing of the past. This critique is based on two assumptions; namely a) that productivity and creativity of most people are only motivated by money and status in the job market/workplace and b) that the only way to be a valuable citizen is through performing a job — that professional work is the only real value creation in society. This is obviously a narrow-minded falsity. There are so many more ways to work and contribute to society and create value than having a job — e.g. through care, art and volunteer work driven by intrinsic motivation to contribute from a source of having surplus time, energy, ideas and competence to share. That is a whole different economy. People are inherently creative, social and moral creatures so by giving people more time and freedom coupled with less worries and insecurity it is much more likely that people would find new ressources and creative ways to contribute to their communities, take responsibility to form their lives and their surroundings and engage more caringly in their relationships. And it is reasonable to assume that by setting people free in such a way that would unleash a whole wave of entrepreneurship — because humans are meaning-making and meaning-seeking and want to use their creative skills to contribute to shared value in society. So it is not an in-build aspect of UBI that it would restrict people from working or being entrepreneurial. On the contrary. Work and entrepreneurship should continually be encouraged. So, UBI might give rise to a new generation of businesses that would be locally rooted, but with a global outlook and at their core the businesses models would be designed for sustainability. Utopian? — maybe, but why not? — business as usual surely is not a solution for the future, so regardless it is inevitable that we soon will be faced with the challange of having to redesign the job market, tax system, welfare system, workplace culture and conception of a successful life. So we may as well do that in the simplest way we can as soon as possible. There already have been case studies of UBI being implemented on a trial basis in certain communities and more are on the way. At an aggregate the overall conclusions are at the moment indecisive about the long term effects of such a policy. Probably because the success of any policy is contingent upon the context and the quality of the implementation process. Implemented in the right way in the right context (and scale) it is likely that society at large would benefit from such a system and that the government would paradoxically save money by eliminating costly bureaucracy of the current system. Either way it will surely play out differently in different national cultures and societal structures. For now, it serves as an example of a solution to real social sustainability challenges that could contribute effectively to synergistically satisfy numerous fundamental human needs. And it also serves as an example of the many complexities associated with designing real solutions to real sustainability challenges — especially in the socio-economic intersection. We will not succeed with doing so without the willingness to experiment, take changes, risk failing and a strong commitment to constantly make better iterations and improve tomorrow. Some solutions work in some contexts while in certain others they do not serve as solutions. There is always going to be limits to the extent to which we can predict the effects of our designs, but one thing is certain; designing solutions and making them work for people and planet in real life is increasingly urgent.

The shift from an anthropocentric position (the human-centered design approach) to a biocentric position (the life-oriented design approach) — without loosing our humanity

OK, then you might say — isn’t this framework a bit human-centric? — focusing on human needs only when we are talking about good design for sustainability in general. Shouldn’t design for sustainability be thought of equally as being about the needs of certain animal populations or plant species in certain eco-systems? — Sure, but let’s face it; most if not all design is to some degree motivated by human needs or desires and are intended for human beings — directly or indirectly. Us wanting the ocean eco-system to be healthy and brimming with life is not only a desire we have on behalf of the eco-system itself. Maybe it should be, but it is also (and in most cases primarely) because most of us would like to be able to benefit from the services or functions (either directly/experientially or indirectly by capitalizing on them) of such eco-systems through e.g. commercial fishing, recreational fishing, diving experiences, beach chilling and swimming — when looking at our motivation to design for preserving and healing the ocean eco-systems and clean our beaches. Broadly speaking we as a society want the fish and whales and chorals to thrive because we want them to be there for us — even if some of us may also want them to be there independent of us.

So, while we can certainly think of the genius of life as a kind of evolutionary design process by the forces of creation (whether our worldview is religious or not), the discipline of design that we are talking about in this article is a human construction for human beings. The kind of designs that we need to do in The Age of The Anthropocene are designs interacting synergistically in the intersection of social, economic and natural systems and thus somehow always already is human motivated. But that does not mean it needs to be human-centric. In fact I argue that to succesfully design for sustainability we need to embrace a more holisitc and systemic view of life and move beyond the anthroprocentric world view to a bio-centric world view as we expand our circles of concern through time and space to include and embrace future generations and other living beings. We need to design from a more humble position of serving all life rather than exploit living beings as natural ressources there to serve our needs and wants. We need to evolve our human-centered design practice to become a life-oriented design practice. Thanks to individualism, capitalism, reductionism and post-modernism we have become so good at asking the question; “how does this design serve the individual?” — this question is no longer good enough. In fact, it never has been. We need to learn to ask the question; “how does my design serve life at large?” — when practiced this is (as Gregory Bateson would put it) “a difference that makes a difference”.

The Planet Earth will prevail and persist in some form or another for quite a while regardless of how we as the human civilization chooses to co-shape our future reality in a relationship with nature. Whether life will prevail and what form of life will persist is another topic. The sustainability crisis in the age of the Anhtropocene is NOT just about human beings. This is a great misunderstanding. The human race and human behaviour is the main factor determining the path that the Earth system will take. Currently that is a path towards a grave catastrophe of epic proportions. Mass migrations, rising see water levels, wars, water scarcity, desertification and more frequent and more varied and more severe weather disasters are inevitable and a best case scenario at this point. We are on a direction where we are flirting with reaching a tipping point for The Earth System where we might end up ind a “Hot-House Scenario” where no life (except perhaps some bacteria) can live. A total reset of the evolutionary process — back to the beginning. And no, from there it is not a given that complex life and human beings will rise ones again. If so, it will take eons. So, we are actually putting all life on Earth in danger. Sustainbility is not just about us. So, when we are designing for sustainability we are designing for us. But we are not only designing for us. We are designing for life. This means that we are designing for mutually beneficial relationships. For thriving communities. For healthy ecosystems. Across time, borders, generations and species.

So, DfS is about creating solutions that allow human civilization to thrive into the future in a way where as many people as possible can comfortably co-exist with as many other thriving species as possible. A living, diverse and dynamic planet is the kind of planet we as humans want to live on because life thrives through abundance and we are life. A living thriving world of abundance is in itself beautiful, meaningful and worthwhile. In the end, we know deep down that we too are simply animals with an internal eco-system tightly connected to the external eco-systems. If you take a moment to step outside and take it all in I bet that you too (just like me) recognize that you are “just” an animal in love with the nature that gave birth to you - and all things that you love in your life. So, let’s create solutions that promote life on Earth. Let´s evolve our scope beyond an anthropocentric world view. Let´s evolve our practice beyond the human-centered approach.

Summing it up

OK then, let's bring it back around and try to land on a plateau from where we can leap to the fourth article when ready. Good design solutions for sustainability contributes to satisfy at least one fundamental human need and its ongoing use does not present side-effects that undermine the satisfaction of other fundamental needs of the user(s) or stakeholders. Thus, a good design solution is a long-term solution to real problems that does net good (preferably in synergistic compounding systemic ways) rather than simply less bad.

As Gunter Pauli, the inspiring impact entrepreneur and author of The Blue Economy, says: “…less bad is still bad — we must strive to do good!…”

It really is that simple. Anything less simply is not worthwhile or justifiable at this point. Knowing what we know. This article series is all about raising the ambitions for good design and making sustainable design graspable and operational.

In the upcoming and final article of this series we will explore some of the most prominent approaches to DfS. For now take a moment to consider:

• To what extent am I aware of the difference between real fundamental human needs and mere desires in my decisions as a consumer?
• To what extent am I aware of the difference between real fundamental human needs and mere desires in my design practice?
• How would a shift to a proper needs-based approach to design change my practice and products?

I am always working on methods and concepts that integrates the design practices, systems thinking, ecological economics and sustainability science. Always with the aim of contributing tp evidence-based strategic sustainable development as systemic change across sectors.

If you are interested in learning more about how I work or how you can work with these approaches appropriately to the benefit of your purpose (and stakeholders), you are welcome to contact me via:

mikkel@consult-pilgaard.com

I am happy to help you or your organization to level up your design and/or change skills to address the sustainability challenges of the 21st century. Related to dialogic organizational development and strategic sustainable development I offer process leadership, training, lecturing, strategic advice and coaching of both individuals and teams — for leaders and none leaders alike.

Also, you may want to pay attention to the courses offered on an ongoing basis through my partnering educational institutions. Right now, you can enroll on this opcoming short online course on Design for Sustainability offered together with the KAOSPILOT school of enterprising leadership and meaningful design:

Design for Sustainability - Kaospilot

Sources:

Ceschin, Fabrizio & Idil Gaziulusoy. 2020. ”Design for Sustainability; A Multi-level Framework from Products to Socio-technical Systems”. London (UK) & New York (US): Routledge.

Max-Neef, Manfred A., Antonio Elizalde & Martin Hopenhayn. 1991. “Development and Human Needs.” In Human Scale Development: Conception, Application and Further Reflections, 13–47. New York (US) and London (UK): The Apex Press.

Pauli, Günther. 2017. The Blue Economy 3.0: The Marriage of Science, Innovation and Entrepreneurship Creates a New Business Model that Transforms Society. XLibris.

Porter, Michael E. & Mark R. Kramer. 2011. “Creating Shared Value”. Harvard Business Review. January-February Issue: 1–17.

Robért, Karl-Henrik, Göran Broman et al.. 2019. ”The Sustainability Handbook, Second Edition”. Lund, Studentlitteratur AB.