What is Design for Sustainability? — Principles that define and give direction to good design for a thriving future on this planet
This is article two of four articles in a series on Design for Sustainability. Each can be read independently.
Everything in society is designed — more or less intentionally. We have created a world within a world, where we have become dependent on our designs for our comfort and daily success. Now the very survival of our species (and others) depends on how we design (for) the future.
Our evolved ability to imagine is one of the core traits that sets us as human beings apart from other animals. That we can think up possible future situations and constellations before they are materialized. This enables us to give form to the future. Whether the object of our creation be a small utility, a fashion item or a societal structure. The power of imagination is real and it is a super power that enables us to influence lives and future scenarios in an impactful way; big or small. Creativity is about putting imagination and craft to use to make something novel of value. Design is the process of doing so with specific intention and a sensibility for beauty.
If the craft of designing has any real merit and meaning in the world today surely we must use this ability and our resources to create better and more beautiful futures for more people and for future generations. We can not keep calling ourselves ”creatives” and then merely go about making half-hearted iterations of unnecessary objects of no real value for whatever shallow reason — such as following a trend or seeking peer recognition in our sub-culture. Surely real creativity is about more than that. It is not just about creating a statement, but making an impact. If you are a so called ”creative” you probably pride yourself on being in touch with trends. Being woke so to speak. If you are just remotely in touch with the significance of the times we are living through you know that our global moment and coming decades calls for just that. Calls for purpose driven and ethical design. Calls for us to use our creative powers to collectively make better realities for more living beings. Enter Design for Sustainability or DfS.
What is Design for Sustainability (DfS)?
It is a solution-oriented and purpose-driven sub-field in the intersection between sustainable development and design disciplines. It goes beyond so called eco-innovation, environmental friendliness or clean tech to encompass any kind of intentional design of products, services, systems or product-service-systems (collectively referred to as ”the design object” from here on), which through its conceptualization and function brings about a use value or facilitates a (behavioural or structural) change that promotes greater levels of sustainability. In addition, the production and use process of the design-object must also be sustainable throughout its life time. This means that when designing for sustainability one is not merely designing a product which use contributes to sustainability or facilitates a sustainability solution — one is at the same time designing the way that product comes about, is intended to be used and is intended to be recycled. This is done through considering the environmental footprint (inputs and outputs) related to the chosen materials, suppliers, logistics and production processes along the supply chain as well as the user experience (including end of use). All of this is part of a Life-Cycle-Assessment (LCA) and thus should be part of a design for sustainability.
Figure showing Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Flow Diagram from Cradle to Grave (CtGr) and Cradle to Cradle (CtC) — figure design credits; Ayesha S K Mohidin, M L Dennis Wong & Chee Ming Choo.
What is sustainability then?
OK, but how do we know whether our designs and our associated production processes are sustainable then? — for that we need an operational definition of sustainability that can be integrated into Design Thinking and innovation process.
Fortunately scientists within the fields of social science, sustainability science and design science have collaborated to develop an evidence-based approach to defining and operationalizing such a definition.
It turns out that the only way to define the full scope of a phenomenon as complex as sustainability across environmental and social domains is through a negative definition — meaning, what not to do in order to ensure sustainability. Why? — if we were to state all the actions and goals we would have to do and accomplish to be fully sustainable the list would literally never end — thus a positive definition would not be operational. This is one of the key reasons why the UN SDG´s does not work as a definition of sustainability. They are great in so far as they create engagement, effort and movement towards sustainability, but this framework consists of 17 arbitrary goals, that are definitely well meaning and worthwhile, but in no way sufficient to obtaining sustainability. In other words; they do not serve as a complete list of success criteria for reaching sustainability. They merely promote sustainable development to some degree. Contrarily when establishing a negative definition of sustainability through a scientific process of comparative research and deduction it turns out, that fundamentally there are only 8 ways in which we can be unsustainable. And only 5 ways in which we can be unsustainable with regards to social issues. Because in any sustainable society, organization, production-process or consumer experience people are not subject to structures that systematically inhibits or violates (directly or indirectly) stakeholder’s ability to respect, obtain access to or participate in processes of:
- Health
- Influence
- Competence
- Impartiality
- Meaning-making
These 5 social sustainability principles are part of the FSSD (Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development), which is a comprehensive evidence-based approach to systematically, systemically and strategically work with ensuring scientific sustainability. In addition the FSSD offers 3 environmental sustainability principles, stating that an environmentally sustainable business, society, product, service or socio-technical system does not have structures that systematically contribute to:
- Increased concentrations of GHGs or substances from the Earth´s Crust (such as heavy metals) in the biosphere.
- Increased concentrations of synthetic (man made) substances in eco-systems of the biosphere.
- Physical degradation or alteration of eco-systems and habitats.
Designing accordingly is designing sustainably. This is done by respecting these principles as boundary conditions and success criteria for the solution. Good design must be sustainable so that repeated use and scaling does not have unwanted negative counter-acting side-effects that threatens the possibility of ongoing use and subsequent positive intended effects over time. This obviously necessitates a long-term, systemic and holistic approach to design with an eye for generativity.
What is Good Design (for sustainability) then?
But sustainability alone will not ensure good design. Seasoned industrial designer and academic Dieter Rams offers a list of 10 commandments for good design — that it:
- Is innovative
- Makes a product useful
- Is aesthetic
- Makes a product understandable
- Is unobtrusive
- Is honest
- Is long-lasting
- Is thorough down to the last detail
- Is environmentally friendly
- Involves as little design as possible
This list is devised from an industrial design point of view. When we are talking about good design for sustainability at large this list has in my opinion some shortcomings. Notably it is missing social sustainability aspects and focusing too much on environmental friendliness. Friendliness in this regard is also vague and insufficient as a criteria. Often what is marked as friendly to the environment really is just less bad. This is not good. A parent hitting their kids 40 times a week instead of 50 is not friendly. It is less bad, but the issue is still big and unacceptable. Being environmentally friendly is no longer enough. We need at least real scientific sustainability as defined by the FSSD. Even better, really good design should move beyond that and strive to be regenerative — allowing for systems to continually regenerate ressources over time.
Most people probably associate good design with a design object that is aesthetic. This seems uncontroversial, but once again we are faced with a criteria that is too vague to be operational for sustainable design. Aesthetic can be many things and aesthetically pleasing is a matter of subjective taste. So that good design must be beautiful might be a better criteria then, but no. While that may initially seem like an appealing proposition, beauty may also be said to be superfluous — a “nice to have”, not a “need to have”. Like it is the case with aesthetic it too could be argued that beauty is a matter of subjective taste — at least to a large degree. There is an old debate about whether or not universal beauty is a valid phenomenon, but we are not going to pick up that mantle here. Instead I will simply propose that the quality of being desirable is much more relevant than beautiful when we are talking about good design for sustainability. On top of these I would add the quality of engaging — as a criteria this is much more measurable/determinable than aesthetic and it also works better as a universal criteria across material and immaterial design disciplines.
That good design is simple seems like a natural thing these days. But when it comes to DfS I would argue this is not always the case. The sustainability challenge is a huge and complex and often highly technical problem. As explained above we need to meet that problem with an adequate response and adequate solutions. We need to handle complexity as complexity without redutionism. (Over)simplification often leads to inadequate solutions that at best don´t solve the issue and at worst may have unintended spill over effects. Thus creating new issues and more complexity. That being said, of course we do not want to make solutions more complex than they need to be. Again, adequate and appropriate. Not necessarily simple. Simple when possible perhaps.
That a good design object should be long-lasting might initially sound like a very sustainable idea, especially if we are talking about industrial (material) design. But long lasting plastics that are not biodegradable is a big problem in the biosphere. A persistent issue. So more important than long lasting in my opinion is appropriateness. That the design is appropriate for the context. This leaves room for good design to be something that serves a specific role as a flexible platform for a period of time — a bridge to the future and a part of the sustainable transition of which certain constituent elements need not linger beyond a certain point.
When it comes to whether good design is unobtrusive I would argue, that some good design for sustainability needs to be obtrusive to serve as an intervention (adequate disturbance or nuisance) and change catalyst for the necessary transition. We need bold, radical, impactful and provocative design as well as sleek and efficient solutions. Dieter Rams also seems to fetishize novelty over purposefulness with his focus on innovation. Nothing wrong with innovation for sustainability, but innovation for the sake of innovation is meaningless. Innovation is and should be a means to an end, not the end in itself.
The guiding telos for business development in the 21st century has already shifted. What used to be the innovation imperative is now the sustainability imperative. And this is not merely a trend. Nor simply a megatrend. It is the conditions that frames our lives forever. And for at least the coming 100–200 years it will be the main driver of business development. Why? — if nothing else, then because there is roughly a 100 year delay in break down of GHGs in the atmosphere and every year so far we have been emitting more than the previous — we have not broken that curve yet.
So coming back from that little detour. There is much to critique about the Dieter Rams list. Let me jump to my conclusion (so far). I have managed to condense the list to 8 commandments that I believe are necessary, sufficient and appropriate when it comes to defining what is good design in our time. I propose that good design for sustainability (obviously) in addition to being sustainable (as defined within the FSSD) should be:
Appropriate — so that it is relevant and truly valuable to the time, for the users and stakeholders and their culture and so that it does not create new additional problems or unwanted effects through its production or use. And that is is being made available to those who need it. And that it supports local empowerment and resourcefulness.
Solution-Oriented— so that it actually contributes to solving real problems and/or satisfies at least one fundamental human need, thus being purposeful and worthwhile and well intentioned.
Healthy — so that at least the design does no harm to life and living beings and especially not those who produce and use the design. But even better, it should promote good health and help create conditions condicive to thriving life. This is also known as salutogenic design and it is key to good DfS.
Honest — so that it has a transparent integrity and coherence between what it claims to be and what it actually is; ensuring that the design is true to its purpose, user friendly and understandable. Promoting traceability and connection while contributing to enlighten the user rather than mislead.
Adequate — so that it actually gets all the way to being a fitting solution, not just well intentioned. That it is a balanced and sufficient answer to a question worth solving. So that is has a impact significant enough to make a difference that makes a difference.
Functional — so that its structure and mechanics (material or immaterial) facilitates its purpose. So that it works as intended in an effective way. So that it makes a difference, that makes a difference.
Engaging — so that more users actually feel that is is appealing and meaningful to use the design and that they feel motivated to co-create the design through use and feedback loops. So that users are compelled to take ownership of it, make it work as well as it can and help realize and scale the impact potential of the design object.
Desirable — so that more users are drawn to the design object and so that the design-object can scale and reach greater impact while through its intended and appropriate use already bringing about a more desirable and thus valuable reality.
It can be debated weather desirable should be last, because after all, if it is not desirable while bother at all, right? — I guess I place it here as a counterbalance to many years of designers catering to peoples desires — even creating desires that does not correspond to real needs. I believe DfS needs to be appropriate, solitions-oriented, adequate and healthy first and foremost. Some of the solutions to the sustainability crisis might not actually be that desirable or desirable at all. They till may be necessary. Given where we are.
This list of design principles for good design is possibly not sufficient, but I am ready to defend that these design commandments are, if not necessary, then at least a meaningful and timely contribution to a serious conception of good design for sustainability.
How to Design Sustainably
There are a lot of ways to go about DfS. In fact there are a range of relevant sub-fields and design disciplines that serve as tactics for DfS. A selection of these tactics will be explored in the coming post next week.
For now — take a moment to consider:
- How are you and your organization working with designing for sustainability?
- What criteria for good design do you subscribe to and what principles/methods do you use to ensure sustainability in your products and processes?
- Do you even have an operational definition of sustainability and good design in your organization?
I am curious to know your answers to these questions, so please throw me a comment or message. If you do not even have an operational definition of sustainability or good design in your organization hopefully this article was inspirational to you and helpful in arguing why you need it in the 21st century.
I am currently working on methods and concepts that integrates Design Thinking (along the double diamond process of divergence and convergence) with the scientific sustainability principles of the FSSD and various tactics of DfS.
If you are interested in learning more about how to work with these approaches appropriately and if you want to cultivate them in your design and/or change praxis to benefit your purpose you are welcome to contact me via:
mikkel@consult-pilgaard.com
Also you may want to pay attention to the courses offered on an ongoing basis through my partnering educational institutions. Right now, you can enrol on this short online course offered together with the KAOSPILOT school of enterprising leadership and design:
