clarifying the role of design within the framework for strategic sustainable development fssd (outi...

8/8/2019 Clarifying the role of design within the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development FSSD (Outi Ugas, Cindy K

1/11

Clarifying the role of design withinthe Framework for Strategic

Sustainable Development FSSDOuti UgasHahmo Design, Finland

Cindy KohtalaAalto University, Department of Design, Finland

Despite advances in design-for-sustainability research and education, it is not always

evident that design practice is willing or able to integrate sustainability goals and prin-

ciples into design business strategies, nor to engage in wider systems thinking beyondthe agencyclient relationship. With the aid of a small survey conducted in Finland, this

study explores the knowledge and competence challenges and opportunities in driving

a design-for-sustainability competitive edge in local commercial design practice, espe-

cially when supported by a robust framework such as the Framework for Strategic Sus-

tainable Development (FSSD). One preliminary finding suggests there is a notable gap

between those designers that choose to operate socially/economically sustainably and

those environmentally/economically sustainably. Considering design as a way to inter-

act between human society and the ecosystem, not only the user and the pro-

duct/service system, would give design practitioners a stronger footing as business

globally moves more towards a people-planet-profit model of operating.

Any review of the discourse on design-for-sustainability, from the academic world to the trade media,

will reveal conflicting perspectives on what is to be achieved and how we as a profession should priori-

tize actions. One consequence has been the development of a plethora of frameworks, checklists, mani-

festos and principles. While these are necessary and beneficial, the message to the designer (as well as

design client) on how to best combat global challenges such as climate change and to fast-forward real,

positive change remains fragmented.

This paper addresses this problem by taking one widely used and tested framework, the Framework

for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD, SSD), as the basis for re-clarifying the role of sustainable

design for a generation of practicing designers in the field. (The FSSD has been developed in part by The

Natural Step1, a non-profit environmental education organization founded in Sweden, as well as an ongo-

ing research programme called Real Change.2

) The goal of this paper is therefore to gain an understand-ing of where design practitioners stand today: where gaps may or may not exist between design-for-

sustainability knowledge and competence in research and academia, and that in design practice. This pa-

per represents the groundwork phase of a research project intended to foster the competitiveness of Fin-

nish industry through enhanced design-for-sustainability understanding and strategic practice.

In the following sections we introduce our motivation for exploring this timely topic by describing

todays realm of design practice as well as the SSD framework itself. Subsequently, the empirical part of

the study, a small survey of Finnish designers, is described and the findings elaborated. Finally we pro-

pose some implications of the findings and conclusions.

1 http://www.naturalstep.org/2 http://www.realchange.nu/


2/11

Sustainability in Design: NOW!

2

MotivationAs is often stated, design is too frequently a significant part of the problem rather than the solution, espe-

cially in mainstream commercial practice that seems to be often characterized by short-term, myopic mo-

tives and objectives; open rather than closed-loop production systems; an avoidance of ethics discourse;

and an unquestioning of the current materialist consumption paradigm. Even when ethical questions rise

in importance, the apparent discord between commercial design and design-for-sustainability is con-

firmed in studies such as the most recent industry analysis conducted in the UK by the British Design

Council. In this study, almost 60% of those designers surveyed felt very or quite well equipped to advise

their clients on sustainable design, but only 18% of designers considered it as an important factor in win-

ning business (Design Council, 2010). This begs the question: what is the business case for sustainability

in design practice?

This question may be something of a non sequitur, as the business case for sustainability (in general as

well as in design) is well documented from money savings (through optimizing energy, material, and

chemical use, waste management, etc.) to risk reduction, to legislation compliance, to creating value that

matches customer expectations (e.g. Robrt, 2002; Hallstedt et al, 2010; White et al, 2008; WBCSD,

UNEP FI, 2010; Charter and Tischner, 2001). However, how can we drive this lesson home to current

practicing designers? Ehrenfeld, for one, attributes this gap between individual awareness of the need to

act and real, collaborative action to the failure to recognize that sustainability rests on a system muchlarger than the firm (Ehrenfeld, 2004: 142). Homer-Dixon would call this the ingenuity gap (Homer-

Dixon, 2000).

Bridging the GapA recent report commissioned by the Finnish Ministry for Employment and the Economy by Provoke

Design Ltd described how the design field globally is changing: less focus on product design; more con-

centration on service design, open innovation and social innovation; and designers more as experts in

perspectives and methods rather than creating new forms (Aminoff et al, 2010: 13).3

The report authors

interviewed numerous professionals from various fields in Finland to gauge how and if domestic design-

ers and businesses have made this transition, by comparing their perspectives to Valtonens design roles

(Aminoff et al, 2010: 13, 15-16; Valtonen, 2005, 2007) and the NextD SenseMaking Framework of De-

sign 1.04.04

(Aminoff et al, 2010: 14-16). The interviewees described the current role of Finnish design

as belonging in D1.0 (Traditional design) and 2.0 (Product/service design), where the former is based

in craft or arts (i.e. aesthetics) and the latter multi-professional groups in user-oriented product or service

development (Aminoff et al, 2010: 16, 28). Transition to D3.0 (Organizational transformation design),

where design opens up to any strategic problem-solving situation playing a role in synthesis, visualization

and brainstorming, is regarded as imminent due to globalization and international competition, the current

recession, as well as climate change, but these new roles were regarded as rare in Finland and change

possibly occurring too slowly (Aminoff et al, 2010: 16, 49). The final level is D4.0 (Social transforma-

tion design), which focuses on larger societal issues and more extensive open innovation models

(Aminoff et al, 2010: 16).

What is notable about this report is the absence of focus on explicitly ethical, environmental and eco-

logical issues and pressures. The decline of product orientation and the driver of climate change affectingthe role of design are mentioned without indicating how or if dematerialized, ecologically-oriented prac-

tices are directly acknowledged as being potentially strategic. The promotion of user-oriented approaches

and social innovation may address environmental impact indirectly, but the focus remains on organiza-

tional problem solving while ignoring societal problem choice. This will be discussed further in this paper

with regard to the findings from the survey.

The report did acknowledge the increasing role of networks and new types of multidisciplinary co-

operation (Aminoff et al, 2010: 24, 47). However, even if an individual designer or design agency makes

an explicit commitment to incorporate sustainability principles in strategic practice, and begins to build

an active network of stakeholders including clients to this aim, creating a shared vision with robust

understanding of the complex scientific knowledge entailed is daunting. It leads to the need for systems

3 It is noteworthy that the word for design in the Nordic languages including Finnish (muotoilu) can be translated as form-

giving.4 http://nextd.org/


3/11

Outi Ugas, Cindy Kohtala Clarifying the role of design within the Framework for Stra-

tegic Sustainable Development FSSD

3

thinking at a macro-scale. Dealing with complex, non-linear problems such as climate change mitigation,

especially in interdisciplinary collaboration, needs a framework (Hallstedt et al, 2010; Archer et al, 2009;

Hukkinen, 2008). This framework can be emergent, developed in a collaborative, iterative process (e.g.

Wiesmann et al, 2008), but this in turn needs the corresponding supporting procedure and time commit-

ment. Using the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development, on the other hand, brings in the sci-

entific knowledge through defined sustainability principles (system conditions, see below) that design-

ers often lack, providing the necessary limits and a systematic analytical procedure within which ideascan be freely explored. Designers are then better able to see the larger system and their potential creative

role within it. We will return to this issue later in this paper; the next section presents the Framework for

Strategic Sustainable Development.

Framework for Strategic SustainableDevelopmentThe Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development has been developed to facilitate understanding

about complex systems and to find a generally applicable principled definition of sustainability (Robrt etal. 2002, Hallstedt et al, 2010). It first defines a generic five-level framework for planning in complex

systems (see Table 1), which was developed from logical deduction (Hallstedt et al, 2010, Robrt et al,

2002). The generic planning framework can also be used for a neutral study of any intentional human

system, for example economic processes, eco-labelling systems, cultural phenomena and various pro-

duct/service systems (BTH, 2008: 24). FSSD encourages us to find sufficient understanding of thesystem

(1) to be able to arrive at a robust principled definition ofsuccess (2) in the task we are working on in a

strategic (3) way, performing the right actions (4) and selecting appropriate tools (5) for monitoring, co-

ordination and decision-making. (BTH, 2008)

Table 1: Five level planning framework for strategic sustainable development (FSSD).

Source: Hallstedt et al, 2010: 705

Levels of generic planning

framework

Planning for success of organization X within society within

the biosphere

1. System Organization X, within society with stakeholders, laws, etc., within

nature with its natural laws, basic resources, etc.

2. Success Compliance with the organization Xs vision within constraints set

by principles for global socio-ecological sustainability.

3. Strategic guidelines With each investment decision, (i) strive to strengthen organization

Xs platform for coming investments that are likely for progress

towards its vision and compliance with sustainability principles. In

doing so, strike a reasonable balance between (ii) advancement

speed and direction and (iii) being economic including concerns for

return on investment.

4. Actions Implementation of individual investment decisions in line with the

strategic guidelines.

5. Tools Environmental management systems, eco-design tools, indicators,

life-cycle assessments, investment calculus, etc.

Backcasting from principles of sustainabilityAccording to The Natural Step and the FSSD, the definition of sustainability in strategic planning has to

be science-based, necessary for sustainability, sufficient for sustainability, general, concrete and prefer-

ably distinct(Robrt et al, 2004). The four sustainability principles (or system conditions) have been de-

termined through a scientific consensus process (Baxter et al, 2009) and comprise the following:


4/11


4

In the sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically increasing

I. concentrations of substances extracted from the Earths crust

II. concentrations of substances produced by society

III. degradation by physical means

and, in that society

IV. people are not subject to conditions that systematically undermine their capacity to meet their

needs.

The fourth principle is defined in more detail by Max-Neefs definition of nine fundamental human

needs: Subsistence, Protection, Participation, Leisure, Affection, Understanding, Creation, Identity and

Freedom (Max-Neef in Baxter et al, 2009). These are parallel to the user/customer needs that todays de-

sign practitioner typically wants to meet.

The core in actual strategic planning in this framework is the method of using backcasting from the

desired sustainable destination in the future in order to determine the appropriate strategies to reach that

destination. One widely used way to implement this is the ABCD5

approach developed by The Natural

Step. This process ties the 5-level planning framework, backcasting from sustainability principles, and

four system conditions together in a strategic planning tool which is easy to understand and implement.(Baxter et al, 2009)

Sustainability principles and designAs we saw in Valtonens review of industrial design history in Finland (Valtonen, 2007, also as described

in Aminoff et al, 2010: 13, 15-16), it can be argued that meeting peoples needs has been the core qualifi-

cation of good industrial design in Finland up to now. Indeed, todays typical industrial design case

focuses especially on the fourth principle about human needs (see the four principles above). There is a

wide selection of methods, tools, software and design philosophies that delve deep into the exploration of

needs: for instance human-computer interaction studies, product ergonomics and usability design, acces-

sibility and participatory design methods (e.g. Mattelmki, 2006; Sanders, 2006). However, Robert Ver-

ganti makes the crucial point that even user-centred innovation is not sustainable; it has in fact helped

conduct us into an unsustainable world. The reason is sustainability is notembedded in the anthropologyof our existing culture, society, and economy. (Verganti, 2010)

This is neither to underplay the role of eco-design strategies, which surely address the first three

sustainability principles regarding what we do to nature through human activity. However, in eco-design

we are still left standing with the one-sided approach: eco-design and eco-efficiency strategies concen-

trate on clean production, but as Park and Tahara point out (2008), they cannot combat the rebound effect

in consumption patterns. Park and Tahara attempt to mitigate this negative tendency by suggesting a

method that combines identification of environmental impacts of a product, what they term producer-

based eco-efficiency (PBEE), with qualitative considerations from the consumer preferences and the hu-

man needs perspective, i.e. consumer-based eco-efficiency (CBEE), to gain a truer picture of product

value and product cost. (Park and Tahara, 2008)

In fact, through Stahels Five Pillars of Sustainability (Stahel, 2001: 152) through to the HannoverPrinciples of Design for Sustainability (William McDonough Architects, 1992), it is apparent that the

early stages of design-for-sustainability have been able to form a strategic way to see the interdependency

between design and sustainability. The sustainable systems perspective is thereby nested deep in design

thinking, and much effort has been put into clarifying the design philosophy of a sustainable world. How-

ever, one suspects that this has had little or no impact on design business-as-usual. We will return to this

issue in the Conclusions.

5 Note that this is not the same ABCD framework that is presented in the IDEO BSR manual (see White et al, 2008).


5/11



5

SurveyIn order to acquire qualitative data on Finnish designers guiding principles and their thoughts on sustain-

ability, we distributed a survey to CSR- and Design-for-All-oriented mailing lists of designers as well as

certain interest groups in Facebook, on a web-based survey platform. As the aim at this point was to es-

tablish an initial understanding, to perform only a rough statistical analysis of qualitative data, the selec-

tion of respondents was from among sustainability-oriented professionals, not all the designers in Finland.

The title of the survey was Professionals of the creative branches and responsibility. The survey ques-

tions and response options are given below.

1. How strongly do these principles and definitions guide your own work?

(Financial productivity, Aiming at well-being, Materiality,6

Solution-based, Intuition, Ecology, Ex-

perimentation, Sustainable development, Accessibility, Ethics, Promoting human rights, Energy and

material saving, Respecting future generations)

2. What in your opinion is the opposite of the following terms?

(Materiality,7

Sustainability/Durability,8

Responsibility, Creativity, Experimentation, Functionality,

Sustainable development, Accessibility)

3.1. Which of the following diagrams best describes sustainable development and responsibility?(See Figure 1.)

3.2 What terms would you place in the diagram at A, B, C (and D)? (See Figure 1.)

4. Evaluate the results of your own work, for example, a project you have recently finished. How

much impact did you have on realizing the following principles?(Taking into account the end user, Accessibility, Marketability, Experience-offering, Financial pro-

ductivity, Ethics, Trendiness, Material choices, Respect for human rights, Ecology, Energy-saving)

5. Respondent personal information (age, gender, profession, education)

Figure 1: Mental models of sustainable development and responsibility (survey options)

6 This could also be translated as Materialistic-ness.7 This could also be translated as Materialistic-ness.8 Note that the Finnish word kestyys can be translated alternatively as sustainability or durability.


6/11


6

Survey results

RespondentsOut of the 40 surveys started, 31 were completed, and 29 also replied to the questions about the respond-

ents personal data. Of these, 61% of the respondents were women, 39% men. The age distribution was

rather well balanced, with both 25-34 and 35-44 being the most typical age.

Table 2: The age distribution

Age Count %

25 34 10 32 %

35 44 10 32 %

45 54 7 23 %

55 64 4 13 %

The professions of the respondents varied from designers, architects and art directors to researchers, en-

trepreneurs and leading specialists. As the variety of professions was so great, and the survey itself was

directed at professionals of creative branches, there was no typical profession. A total of 89% of the

respondents have a polytechnic or university degree, including four postgraduate degrees.

Question 1: Guiding principles and definitionsThe respondents were given principles and definitions in randomized order to evaluate how strongly they

guide their work. The horizontal scale was given in words which were then converted into a linear nu-

meric scale for analysis. The comparison of averages and standard deviations shows that the respondents

agree the most on the high value of ethics (standard deviation 0.75) and accessibility (0.72), as well as the

medium impact of financial productivity (0.76).

Figure 2: How strongly do these principles and definitions guide your own work? (Aver-ages)


7/11



7

Question 2: The dimensions of guiding principlesTo explore the dimensions of terms frequently used in design and sustainability discourse the respondents

were asked to name the opposites of these terms, as we consider it important to be able to agree on both

ends of an axis when evaluating in terms of, for example, sustainable development. The responses to this

question show a great variety between these dimensions. The following figure illustrates some of the

terms and opposites placed in tag clouds (the font size increases linearly according to the frequency of the

word).

Figure 3: Opposites of the guiding principles and terms

Question 3: Diagrams and terms to describe sustainability

The question on diagrams was answered by 31 respondents, and 22 of these also suggested the missingterms. Half of the respondents chose option 1, the cycle (see Figure 1), but what is remarkable is that the

terms freely given for the phases of the cycle were unique there were no similar cycles.

Figure 4: Which of the following diagrams best describes sustainable development and

responsibility?

Of the 22 models with terms we made an overall analysis using the SSD generic planning framework9

.We also looked for the common ways to describe sustainability, such as cradle-to-cradle and triple bot-

tom line. What is notable in these models is the variety of the responses: there were no similar responses

among the 22 models.

9 Questions that we used for the evaluation based on the 5-level generic planning network for sustainability:

1. Is it a value neutral description of some process / strategy?

2. Does it include an evaluation perspective?

3. Does it include an overall model (dynamic or static) of some system?4. If it is strategic, does it include some definition of sustainability?

5. Does it deal with decision-making and choices at the "actions" level?6. Is it some recognized strategy/toolset?


8/11


8

Figure 5: Analysis of diagrams with terms

Question 4: The professionals impact on realizing principlesThe results of this question are clear and prove that user-oriented design practice has empowered the de-

signer to meet the end users and customers' needs. What is remarkable here (or alarming) sits in the bot-

tom bars of this top 10: the same selection of designers that have a big positive impact on meeting peo-

ples needs have only a little or no impact on realizing the principles of ecology and energy-saving in the

results of their own work. This makes most evident the gap between the 4th sustainability principle and

the other three.

Figure 6: How much impact did you have on realizing the following principles?

Statistical experimentsAlthough the material was qualitative and rather small, we conducted several statistical experiments. The

results of this section cannot be considered statistically reliable (as the survey itself was qualitative), but

they may indicate new directions to study further.

The respondents were divided into two groups based on the responses in Q4: those with a dynamic

cycle model (options 1 and 2) and those with a static/systemic model of sustainability (other options). The

comparison of the averages and standard deviations of the responses between these groups show a sig-

nificant difference in the options Respecting human rights and Respecting future generations: the

averages of the respondents that had chosen a dynamic diagram were above average (of all respondents),

while those who chose a static/systemic model put much less value on these two principles.


9/11



9

Another difference can be found in the evaluation of ones own impact in realizing the principles:

those who chose a dynamic diagram felt much more strongly that they can promote human rights. Those

who chose a systemic diagram consider their impact on material choices much higher than average.

Comments

Six respondents gave open comments on the survey, and most of these were positive. One interestingsuggestion was to develop this kind of survey further to make a sustainability barometer of Finnish de-

sign. One critical comment concerned question 4 about diagrams: The diagram/term question was quite

irrelevant. Good design always includes personal insight and intuition. By voting we get nothing but poor

design.

Conclusions and implicationsWhen the selected group of designers and creative professionals in this survey were asked to choose the

best way to describe sustainability, only six gave a commonly known diagram with terms. The respond-

ents seemed to have a strong will to analyze the world of production, creativity and sustainability as awhole and include all the important terms in the diagram. For the development of FSSD this is promising,

for it shows that designers have a true intention to combine sustainability with aspects of learning and

creativity. The variety of sustainability models given in the survey shows the creative nature of design

and designers. It also implies that there are both system/structure and process/cycle oriented thinkers

among designers.

As noted previously, however, there seems to be a tendency for design practitioners (at least in Fin-

land) to concentrate on only one or two sustainability pillars: if focus is placed heavily on ecological

issues (the first three system conditions in the FSSD), designers may consider that the users needs are

neglected, and they may even regard environmental impacts as the responsibility of someone else. On the

other hand, a material resource perspective (i.e. addressing the first three system conditions) does not

always consider the psycho-social aspects of sustainable consumption and production, as previously men-

tioned, and in the worst case, the socio-ethical side of design-for-sustainability may be regarded as be-

longing to the political realm, as in Fair Trade models, or human needs the responsibility of another

party. With the risk of resorting to stereotypes, the statistical experiments on the survey data have pro-

vided inspiration to study further the interdependencies between designers mindset, practical work pro-

cesses, and understanding of both sustainable consumption patterns and the industrial ecosystem and its

risks.

In Hallstedt et als study (2010) on company decision-making in product development, the authors

note that the majority of companies worldwide have not yet moved towards implementation of sustaina-

bility into their business, despite increasing awareness of benefits and knowledge how to do so. Accord-

ing to both the literature review and the survey results, we can also conclude that for Finnish design and

design-oriented businesses, sustainability as a key strategy is still not integrated into the core business,

due to the systemic, operational, and mindset barriers as described above. In short, there is a gap between

understanding the sustainable system and the strategy. The vulnerable area seems to lie in the fact that

present design practice and even design-for-sustainability itself lack a unified definition of sustainabilityincluding both ecological and human principles. Increasing designers shared understanding of the role of

design at the Success level of Strategic Sustainable Development (see Table 1) will show us the business

case for sustainability in design practice.

In conclusion, we propose the following characteristics of a successful sustainability framework for de-

signers.

1) The framework includes a dynamic way to see the industrial as well as creative processes and cycles.

Existing benchmark examples include the AssessBridgeCreateDiffuse model from IDEO (White et al,

2008); Backcasting from sustainability principles and the ABCD planning process of The Natural Step;

and Cradle to Cradle (McDonough and Braungart, 2002; see also Cuginotti et al, 2008).

2) The framework does not threaten the end user. The fourth system condition for a designer is con-

sidered as the first one.3) The framework shares the characteristics of success in a sustainable society. This will offer safe limits

and dimensions to creativity broad enough, easy to remember and inspiring.


10/11


10

Bibliography

Aminoff, C., Hnninen, T., Kmrinen, M. and Loiske, J. (2010) The Changed Role of Design [Online], Ministry of

Employment and the Economy, Available: http://www.tem.fi/files/26881/The_Changed_Role_of_Design.pdf

[9 July 2010].

Archer, A-M., Fei, R. and Petzel, R. (2009) Collaboration for Sustainability in a Networked World, Masters thesis,Blekinge Institute of Technology, School of Engineering, Karlsrona, Sweden.

Baxter, K., Boisvert, A., Lindberg, C., Mackrael, K. (2009) US Sustainability Primer Step by Natural Step, The

Natural Step US / The Natural Step Canada.

BTH (2008) Guide to the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development, Karlsrona, Sweden: Blekinge Institute

of Technology.

Charter, M. and Tischner, U. (2001) Sustainable Solutions: Developing Products and Services for the Future, Shef-

field, UK: Greenleaf Publishing.

Cuginotti, A., Miller, K.M. and van der Pluijm, F. (2008)Design and Decision Making: Backcasting Using Princi-

ples to Implement Cradle-to-Cradle, Masters Thesis, School of Engineering, Blekinge Institute of Technol-

ogy, Karlskrona, Sweden.

Desprs, C., Brais, N. and Avellan, S. (2004) Collaborative planning for retrofitting suburbs: transdisciplinarity and

intersubjectivity in action, Futures vol. 36, pp. 471486.

Design Council (2010) Design Industry Insights 2010: Comments & Conversations on the Business of Design in the

UK [Online], Available: http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-work/Insight/Research/Design-Industry-Research-2010/ [20 May 2010].

Ehrenfeld, J.R. (2004) Searching for Sustainability: No Quick Fix, Reflections vol. 5, no. 8, pp. 137-149.

Hallstedt, S., Ny, H., Robrt, K.-H., and Broman, G. (2010) An approach to assessing sustainability integration in

strategic decision systems for product development,Journal of Cleaner Production vol. 18, pp. 703712.

Homer-Dixon, T. (2000) The Ingenuity Gap: Facing the Economic, Environmental, and Other Challenges of an In-

creasingly Complex and Unpredictable Future, New York: Knopf.

Hukkinen, J. (2008) Sustainable Networks: Cognitive tools for expert collaboration in social-ecological systems,

London, New York: Routledge.

Korhonen, J. (2004) Industrial Ecology in the Strategic Sustainable Development Model: strategic applications of

industrial ecology,Journal Of Cleaner Production, vol. 12, pp. 809-823.

Mattelmki, T. (2006).Design probes, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Art and Design Helsinki, Finland.

McDonough, W. and Braungart, M. (2002) Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, New York, NY:

North Point Press.

Park, P. and Tahara, K. (2008) Quantifying producer and consumer-based eco-efficiencies for the identification of

key ecodesign issues,Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 16, pp. 95-104.

Robrt, K.-H. (2002) The Natural Step Story: Seeding a Quiet Revolution, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers.

Robrt, K.-H., Schmidt-Bleek, B., Aloisi de Larderel, J., Basile, G., Jansen, J.L., Kuehr, R., Price Thomas, P., Su-

zuki, M., Hawken, P. & Wackernagel, M. (2002) Strategic sustainable development selection, design and

synergies of applied tools,Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 197214.

Robrt, K.-H., Broman, G., Waldron D. and others (2004) Strategic Leadership Towards Sustainability, Karlskrona,

Sweden: Blekinge Tekniska Hgskola.

Sanders, E. B.-N. (2006) Scaffolds for Building Everyday Creativity, in Frascara, J. (ed.) Design for Effective

Communications: Creating Contexts for Clarity and Meaning,New York, NY: Allworth Press.

Stahel, W. R. (2001) Sustainability and services, in Charter, M. and Tischner, U. (eds.), Sustainable Solutions: De-

veloping products and services for the future,Sheffield: Greenleaf, pp. 151164.

Valtonen, A. (2005) Six Decades and Six Different Roles for the Industrial Designer [Online], Available:

http://designresearch.uiah.fi/img/publib/sixdecdesandsixroles.pdf [22 March 2008].

Valtonen, A. (2007)Redefining Industrial Design: Changes in the Design Practice in Finland, Doctoral Dissertation,

University of Art and Design Helsinki, Finland.

Verganti, R. (2010) User-centered innovation is not sustainable [Online], Harvard Business Review Blog, Friday 19

March, Available: http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/03/user-centered_innovation_is_no.html [11 July 2010].

WBCSD, UNEP FI (2010) Translating Environmental, Social and Governance Factors into Sustainable Business

Value: Key insights for companies and investors [Online], World Business Council for Sustainable Develop-

ment and UNEP Finance Initiative, Available:

http://www.wbcsd.org/includes/getTarget.asp?type=d&id=MzgzMDg [11 July 2010].

White, C., Stewart, E., Howes, T. and Adams, B. (2008)Aligned for Sustainable Design: An A-B-C-D Approach to

Making Better Products [Online], Business for Social Responsibility and IDEO, Available:

http://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_Sustainable_Design_Report_0508.pdf [11 July 2010].

Wiesmann, U., Hirsch Hadorn, G., Hoffmann-Riem, H., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher, W., Joye, D., Pohl, C. and

Zemp, E. (eds.) (2008) Enhancing Transdisciplinary Research: A Synthesis in Fifteen Propositions, in

Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research, Dordrecht: Springer.

William McDonough Architects (1992) The Hannover Principles: Design for Sustainability [Online], Available:

http://www.mcdonough.com/principles.pdf [13 July 2010].


11/11



11

About the authorsOuti Ugas (b. 1977, Finland) is an industrial designer and sustainability advisor with a wide experience in Design for

All as well as entrepreneurship and business coaching. She is also a masters student of cognitive science in the Uni-

versity of Jyvskyl, Finland. In her research she focuses on the mental models of sustainability in design and in-

dustrial processes. She is actively working on the Finnish translation and localization of FSSD and the Natural Step

tools.

Contact details: Outi Ugas, Hahmo Design Ltd, Kruunuvuorenkatu 5 A, 00160 Helsinki, Finland. [email protected]

Cindy Kohtala (b. 1968, Canada) is a design-for-sustainability researcher and educator focusing especially on scen-

ario-building and visioning processes to support sustainable innovation and drive more sustainable lifestyles. She is a

doctoral student in Aalto Universitys Department of Design in Helsinki, Finland. Her research focus is on the future

of the design profession and the nature of professional design competence in co-configurative networks, in the face of

emerging self-design/self-production trends, as well as in the building of a sustainable society.

Contact details: [email protected]

clarifying the role of design within the framework for strategic sustainable development fssd (outi...

Documents