Designing behavioural change.
‘A third of Americans don’t believe climate change is affecting their communities, and they reject technological and government investment to fight global warming, warns Frog Design founder Hartmut Esslinger. A swath of citizens “reject the efficacy of masks and vaccines to avert COVID-19…
They believe that Trump won the 2020 election” and they dismiss gun violence. He adds: Some “TV networks and social media companies exist . . . on the basis of lying and distributing lies to the American public. Design cannot solve any of this . . . Darwin may.”’
I enjoyed reading that article because the one thing I stand behind is that design can, and design has, and will continue to save the world. Thanks to my friend Heather Crank for sharing it.
Things do move a bit slow, and it starts with revamping the education system — most countries do not have a robust design if any at all, curriculum, at best it’s graphic design — Government reform and investing in futuristic thinking is needed.
“The World Development Report 2016 mentioned that employers are looking for professionals who work well in teams, who can solve problems, think critically and know how to present their work to others. However, in many countries, education systems do not even offer basic information, literature, and arithmetic at competitive levels. More than half of 15-year-olds are functionally illiterate in middle-income countries such as Albania, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Peru.” — Digital Technologies in the Public Sector — Integrating Digital Transformation
Collectively, we must think and act on different assumptions, different, new, updated information. Information changes, that’s the default of science and technology, art and design. I often think about the financial loss on waste, as a brand and marketing judging member of the PAC Global Awards, packaging is important to me. Throwing away packages is in some sense is throwing away design, because sustainability is low in most packaging designs. If companies care about money and bottom lines, and I believe they do…then questions to ask would be centred around the financial incentives in sustainable packaging solutions. Biodegradability is always the paramount aim, but packaging is complicated and usually requires complex solutions, there are companies exploring these things, but the roadblocks are endless.
Oil and plastic, for instance, are embedded in everything we have, and there is great controversy around that subject, but even the protestors and anti-corporation folks do not realize that they too benefit from oil and plastic. None of that will change until a holistic alternative primary source is identified. The ability to protest itself is a benefit.
Government and policies are one roadblock, reform requires a mindset change, societal behavioural changes, but in order to gain that the solutions have to be ready and presented; sustainable solutions with financial opportunities on a societal level. Notwithstanding the financial value of the present methods of oil and plastic is to the government. Scaling is another roadblock, we can develop solutions for some places, but then how do we apply these solutions and methods on a global scale? We are also using fossil fuel to explore these solutions, not a lot of people are aware of this, but if it’s any consolation, using fossil fuel as a means to better solutions means that eventually, that solution will replace fossil fuel.
It would be nice to simply use plant-based materials to make our utensils and drive on biofuel and whatnot, but so far none of those things have been proven to be scalable. Solar and wind energy is as far as we got, and not without a lot of challenges, some places are not 100% sustainable. None of this still solves all our packaging problems, we need to reframe how we look at packaging and plastic, at least until we find sustainable and biodegradable solutions. Let’s face it, not everywhere can have a recycling plant, at the moment, and reusing can mean for some places, gathering tons of bottles to no end.
The notion that less is more is a good principle, but not always applicable when taken out of context. The more we create for needs there will be more, the statement then in the context of waste is contradictory.
Let’s focus on repurposing for now, what can we do with what’s already here? We definitely need to change our behavior, how we shop and how we dispose of waste.
I love a lot of brands, I asked a question, how much does waste cost brands? Well, brands lose millions when packages are thrown away.
Nicole Bassett, Co-Founder, The Renewal Workshop writes, ‘For many companies, whether by business culture, no options, or “this is how it has always been done.” Waste — product that is made, but is unsellable — costs brands money and damages the environment. This is such a well-documented and understood business risk that it is accepted and accounted for as a foregone conclusion. It doesn’t have to be. A shift to a circular model for apparel and home goods transforms products that previously were a financial loss into new profit.
“We’ve found that 1–3 percent of a brand’s total production is wasted,” says Jeff Denby, co-founder of the Renewal Workshop. “At 100 million units per year for a big brand, the scale of 1–3 percent waste becomes huge. And, the larger the brand is, the more complicated their business operations, means that rate can increase to as high as 5 percent.”’ — Greenbiz.com
Brands lose money to waste because of quite a few things inclusive of manufacturing processes, primary materials, damaged goods, returns, consumer waste and it goes on. One of the major problems I would have to say, is on the consumer side, not that the consumer does anything deliberately, but there has never really been a solution designed for the consumer once they have used the product. What do they do with the waste?
Some companies with plastic products have started to have recycling solutions and have a new approach to collecting their waste, they have even started producing their containers with less plastic. It’s not a 100% solution, but we take our wins. Other innovative companies that are quickly becoming well-known brands have created partnerships with big brands to not only collect waste from consumers or receive the waste but also reuse and distribute it back to the consumer. Companies such Loop and Terraccyle.
Matthew Banton, BK global head of innovation and sustainability says ‘“Burger King’s pilot with Loop launches later this year in New York, Portland, Ore., and Tokyo. They hope to get 100 uses out of their reusable containers, aiming to make the program cost the same as its current packaging expenditures once scaled to the brand’s 7,000 U.S. restaurants” “Once the sturdier packages break down from repeated use, they’ll be sent back to TerraCycle to be transformed into things like park benches and play structures.”
“But Loop isn’t the only company creating streamlined, closed-loop recycling systems for QSRs. In Seattle, Starbucks partnered with Ridwell and Go Box on its Borrow a Cup program in five stores earlier this year. Consumers pay a $1 deposit for a reusable cup, which can either be sanitized onsite or picked up at consumers’ homes by Ridwell.”’ — Adweek.com
“Loop is on a mission to Eliminate the Idea of Waste® in an approachable way that is accessible to all.” — loopstore.com
“TerraCycle offers a range of national, easy-to-use recycling platforms allowing everyone to #RecycleEverything, as well as Loop” — terracycle.com
In conclusion
I think a sustainable financial incentive is a solution to waste. Some people and companies have also found opportunities in waste management. How we think about the environment and the things we do can’t always be centred around recycling, instead, as we move forward, we must focus on designing in better ways focused on safe degrading materials or reusable systems.
Waste is a complicated topic, and a process if not more. It’s embedded in every aspect of our lives, a result of our needs, wants, and functions. A circular economy is a great way, recycling isn’t always the answer, some things need to be degraded, reusing can pile up. There is also the actual running of the business and keeping people employed while trying to be climate-conscious.
For this reason, I extended my perspective beyond visual appeal, although an important part of packaging design, form always follows function. I became a fan of companies like Loop , Terraccyle and of course PAC Global.
Packaging must be aligned to the brand intent, this will induce a different approach to how waste is managed.
Interesting reads: recommercenews.com
Visit PAC Global for information and courses on packaging solutions. Additionally have a look at the 2021 nominees for the PAC Global Awards.
