Design for sustainability is concerned with developing less damaging ways of living and building better futures. We need to understand what is meant by better, how we assess this better, and the direction to be taken. Stuart Walker, Chair of Design for Sustainability at Lancaster University discusses and explains us significant contradictions in current approaches to design, the limitations and different future directions or exit needed to reach our goal of sustainability.

Economic growth and sustainability are two mutually exclusive goals. Economic growth is known for resource extraction, mass manufacturing and promotion of consumption. Which leads to environmental destruction, waste production and pollution. No wonder striving for sustainability is not giving us fruitful results. Consumption is painted in positive light constantly, as a hope for economy. This consumption and economy dependency system is fundamentally flawed. It is not only incapable of fulfilling people’s deepest needs and potential. It is grossly inequitable and recklessly destructive. On magnifying we can see, the aim of large corporations is to maximize profits not to care for the well-being of people and the planet. The key here is marketing, it is used to understand user preferences, their desires and link them to the commodities to be sold. It can also be used to create desires and craving, which never existed initially in consumers. Focus groups were used traditionally to learn about user’s attitudes, beliefs, desires and reactions. In recent times, it is done using data harvesting from the web, data mining existing information. This consumption focus system is spurred on by scientific research, technology dependent goods & services. Globalization, free trade and cheap energy aid in rapid expansion of such systems. Clearly, turning a blind eye to environmental standards and human rights. Also, highly diverse ways of life have collapsed in one principal direction, characterized by technology growth and acquisition, within a course of decades. The serious failing of “this Globalization of Hegemonic Uniformity” as termed by Bergoglio are now visible widely.

In looking for an exit(s) from this destructive course, two interrelated approaches come to the fore. Eco-modernism, the first exit, offers scientifically based technological solutions to our current dilemmas. This is the continuation and development of modernity, the period that saw science as the rational alternative to superstition which for many people included religion. It is closely associated with the philosophies of materialism and naturalism which philosopher John Grey has argued to be just another kind of faith, faith in the idea of human progress. Overtime science and technology have become mutually supporting and entangled leading to techno-scientific solutions which are being employed in all kinds of environmental concerns. These eco-technologies can make significant contributions but there is a need for caution. If regarded as the solutions to the environmental crisis and implemented without sensitivity to context, and when they serve to reinforce outdated values and priorities they can do more harm than good. Such technophilic approaches tend to only respond to external phenomena. They lead to new products, new sales, and support business growth. Like other products their production depends on the exploitation of the natural environment and destruction of habitats. The approach therefore has primarily extrinsic benefits and values and is therefore rather conventional in its thinking. Eco-modernism therefore tends to nourish rather than challenge our addiction to growth based economics. In its essentials then it is simply a continuation of our present course. This first exit can be linked to a mere pit shop for a green respray before returning to the main highway at a slightly slower speed.

Sustainable development, the second exit, usually understood in terms of interrelated environmental, social, and economic impacts of human activities has become a significant concern for governments and businesses all over the world. The so-called triple bottom line. In practice it includes technological improvements such as energy efficiency, and emissions reductions which can potentially also lead to socioeconomic benefits through new jobs and healthier environments. They include life cycle analysis, cradle to cradle analysis, natural step analysis process, product service systems (PSS), and the circular economy. It has also prompted nationally and internationally agreed targets and objectives such as the UN's sustainable development goals. Understandably, considerable efforts are being made yet deep contradictions remain so that despite these efforts, emissions continue to rise, species continue to disappear, and disparities between rich and poor remain extremely high, even in the wealthier nations. In our approaches to sustainable development therefore the values and benefits are primarily extrinsic in nature. Governments and business promote a form of sustainable development that includes economic growth which to a large extent is based on consumption but this is untenable on a finite planet. And the proponent of the triple bottom line, John Elkington has recently said that it hasn't worked because it hasn't been adopted in an integrated way. The different components have been separated out in practice and the economic factors always take precedence. Like eco-modernism therefore sustainable development is limited by its conventional thinking and vision. Sustainable development is more comprehensive than eco-modernism but it still falls short. A more fundamental approach is needed in outlook and values if we are to move away from our current ideas of what constitutes a good life. As Herman Daly suggests, a steady state economy and development without growth can be adopted. We also need to reduce our overall demand for consumption of goods and services. But such a suggestion is unlikely to be welcomed by either business or government. The second exit then can be understood as something of a detour, an alternative route but leading in the same direction.

So the third exit, we need to take a different direction altogether. One that does not simply continue to create variations on a familiar theme. We must recognize that consumerism and its impacts are all related to our ideas of development which is interpreted primarily in terms of material benefits, this is worldly or external development. And it is this that is destroying the planet and our quality of life. For a lasting change that is willingly sought we have to address something deeper in ourselves. Therefore, the road to recovery is not simply about outer development and extrinsic benefits but also inner development and intrinsic rewards. A change of values and priorities, a change of heart if you like.

Spiritual and philosophical traditions down the ages tell us that inner development, personal flourishing and a creation of a meaningful life are cultivated through moderation, humility, compassion, our relationships, our treatment of other people, other species and the natural environment. In turn leading to Inner development. When our priorities are informed by self-transcending values our actions in the world take on an altered tone and emphasis leading to qualitatively different solutions. Inner and outer become mutually informing and unified, breaking down the distinction between the subjective and objective facts and values. A more holistic approach emerges, one in which we see ourselves as integral to the world. This differs from our current view where we see ourselves as separate from the world and regard it as merely a resource to be controlled and bend to our will.

This unified understanding recognizes the importance of non-rational ways of thinking such as intuition and imagination, as well as human experience and traditional knowledge. These are associated with right brain thinking and with questions of ultimate purpose notions of virtue and creativity.

In the wealthier countries the idea of sufficiency flies in the face of the dominating themes of culture. Which are about innovation, progress, advancement, bigger, faster, better and more. Sufficiency means avoiding success and extravagance in design, moderating consumption, and developing a sense of self-discipline.  This helps reduce outer signs of status difference and social position which are commonly expressed through prestige designs. In turn this is related to our sense of contentment and happiness.

Localization supports local businesses, utilizes local resources, and uses local goods and services to furnish one's needs. All these accord with sustainability because shipping and packaging are reduced and locally made products are more likely to be repaired. It also promotes local capacity building and resourcefulness and a sense of local identity. And it promotes trusts because local reputation becomes important. Making, maintaining and repairing context appropriate products promotes product longevity and supports creativity. This reinforces one's sense of identity and achievement. Such practices can be deeply satisfying, pleasurable, even meditative and they have benefits in terms of health and well-being.

In modern times community has become eroded and society has become increasingly atomized. This can result in isolation, loneliness, unhappiness and depression. In addition, town centers have been devastated initially by out of town males and later by online shopping. Consequently, there is a need to reimagine town centers so they are geared more towards cultural, social, and recreational activities as well as essential services. Rebuilding community can enhance a sense of place and belonging. And community centered solutions that are developed by local people perhaps with the support of the central government have a better chance of success.

There's a need to rethink the purpose of business and its role in society. Various models are possible but they have to be founded on a genuine commitment to environmental care, community and the common good. Initiatives like corporate social responsibility and environmental social governance programs have proved ineffective because they are disconnected from the core purpose and activities of the business. Cooperative business models for example can be commercially successful while also helping ensure a fairer distribution of wealth by capping the differential between the highest and lowest paid workers.

Government programs for regional economic development generally support new technologies, innovation, business growth and incentives aimed at attracting large companies from elsewhere. Such policies tend to reinforce top-down solutions. Research shows that rather than economic growth, what matters most to the public are, their health and general well-being, their relationships at home and at work, and in the community. As Timson argues for locally developed, locally led initiatives that are facilitated by government. He calls this upside down government. Governments can also put in measures to reduce inequalities through progressive taxes because social inequity is fundamental to sustainability.

Design has an important role to play in developing creative work that contributes to a meaningful way of life, and goes beyond basic needs. Practical utility and worldly pleasures. Design that has depth and is of lasting significance requires holistic development that integrates inner self with outer expression. Moderate restrained design helps avoid the psychological obsolescence associated with extravagant fashions. Designs from good quality materials that can be repaired and upgraded help ensure product longevity. But there is also a need not to design, a need to recognize we design and produce too much. Governments can also play a role here to regulate against too much innovation and production. Designers can also contribute at the community level in supporting local initiatives with their specialized skills and knowledge.

Consequently, the third exit for design is rooted in inner development and driven by quite different values and priorities. It rejects the agendas that deliberately foster social division, dissatisfaction, and feeling of vanity. And it questions innovation for its own sake which results in overproduction, rising resources, energy use, pollution, waste, and the destruction of the natural environment. Instead it is a form of design that values sufficiency, localization, making and maintaining the things we already have and developing initiatives and services that help rebuild a sense of community. These directions can be facilitated through more cooperative business models and through government policies that support positive change at the local level. All these areas help define a more integrative and substantive role for design in shaping a more meaningful material culture and a more sustainable future.

This brings us to the end of our ArchiNet talk. If you'd like to read more about the topics covered here, Stuart Walker’s most recent published book is “Design realities” and his next book which will be published in December is called “Design & Spirituality” both published by Rotledge.