targeting sustainable products at a broad consumer group
TRANSCRIPT
Targeting Sustainable Products at a Broad Consumer Group
with Interaction Design
by Wiebke PoerschkeA thesis submitted to the Carnegie Mellon UniversitySchool of Design for the degree of Master of Designin Interaction Design
Wiebke Poerschke, Author Jodi Forlizzi, Advisor
© 2009 Wiebke Poerschke
2
Targeting Sustainable Products at a Broad Consumer Group
with Interaction Design
by Wiebke Poerschke
3
4
Wiebke Poerschke, Author Master’s Candidate in Interaction Design School of Design
Jodi Forlizzi, Advisor Associate Professor, School of Design,Associate Professor, Human-Computer Interaction Institute
5
6
Abstract
In today’s consumer world, products marketed as green, sustainable, or organic have
significantly increased in number. One can encounter products like sustainable
cleaning solutions, all-natural sneakers, and organic cosmetics in almost every store.
The novelty of sustainable products and the advantages they bring to consumers,
combined with the rapid increase of available products in this market segment, keep
a significant amount of people from aligning their growing environmental awareness
with informed purchase decisions. Why do sustainable products often not appeal to
the broader consumer mass? I argue that designers and marketers target sustainable
products to the consumer group of eco-aficionados, which has special goals and
interests compared to the broader consumer mass. While marketers understand how
to introduce and place a product into a market, they are not dealing with the needs
and desires of users. By contrast, designers can have a huge impact on how products
are made, enabling users to successfully accomplish their goals in an easy, and
pleasurable way. Since designers have such a significant impact on people’s lives, I
suggest that design and not marketing is the right field to approach the challenge of
pushing sustainability into mainstream. This means sustainable products first need to
be designed differently, before they can be marketed to a different consumer group.
In this essay, I argue that consumption behavior as it exists today cannot be changed,
and that designers have to find ways to change products and their design under the
constraints that are put onto them by today’s manufacturers. Therefore designers
must change their design approach to fit the worldview of the new conscious
consumer, but still work within the realm of consumer products. I use three design
frameworks to identify important factors that need to be considered when
redesigning traditional products towards sustainability. I show this by incorporating
product examples to illustrate how sustainability can work for the mainstream
market. Based on my analysis, I formulate design implications that can lead designers
to reform their approach towards sustainable design for a broad market.
7
8
1. Introduction and Motivation
In today’s consumer world, products marketed as green, sustainable, or organic have
significantly increased in number. One can encounter products like sustainable
cleaning solutions, all-natural sneakers, and organic cosmetics in almost every store.1
But what does it mean when a product is advertised as sustainable or green? What
are the advantages for the user? It is not easy to stay on top of the abundance of
offerings. Additionally, recent green-wash scandals of products falsely marketed as
sustainable further fuel the mistrust of consumers [chicacotribune.com 2008]. The
low familiarity of sustainable products and their advantages, combined with the rapid
increase of available products in this market segment, keeps a significant amount of
people from aligning their growing environmental awareness with informed
purchase decisions. Whereas in most cases the abundance of offerings makes the issue
more widely known, it does not necessarily lead to an increase of consumption, but
may instead lead to confusion.
Aside from all these issues, a big group of the US population is willing to invest
more in conscious choices, but there are other problems that keep them from doing
so. Many sustainable products are primarily targeted at the eco-savvy user [Ottman
2004, 20-31].2 This user is already tuned in to ecological issues and holds strong
environmental beliefs. He or she believes that it is possible to personally make a
difference in regards to environmental problems. Eco-savvy users, also called
conscious consumers, explicitly look for alternatives to conventional products. This
user group consists of about 10 percent of the US population. In comparison
another thirty percent of the population is classified as users that are willing to
engage in environmental activities from time to time, but only when it requires little
effort [Ottman 2004, 20-31]. A different report even says this group consists of fifty
percent of the US population [Bemporad and Baranowski 2007].
While sustainable products are at least as useful and usable as conventional products, I
9
1 Product examples include Simple Shoes, offering “eco sneaks” [simpleshoes.com], 7th Generation environmentally safe
household products [seventhgeneration.com], Origins Organics – USDA certified organic cosmetics [origins.com/
organics], and Pangea Organics using compostable packaging [pangeaorganics.com]
2 Ottman [2004, 20-31] defines the target group of green consumers as diverse and split up in several sub-groups. They
range from a fifteen percent core of educated, upscale individuals who say they are willing to pay a premium or forego
certain conveniences to ensure a cleaner environment, to thirty-seven percent of the public who are non-environmentalist,
characterized more by indifference than by anti-environmentalist leanings.
argue that a lot of them have shaped their desirability to satisfy the needs and wants
of the very narrow target audience of the eco-savvy user [Ottman 2004, 20-31].3
This limited targeting loses a significant mass of users that are unwilling to change
the way they consume. That leads to the question: What needs to change in the
design of sustainable products so they can be targeted to a broader consumer group?
Designers have a huge impact on the daily lives of people. They can enable users to
successfully accomplish their goals in an easy, and pleasurable way. Since designers
have such a significant impact on people’s lives, I suggest that design is the right field
to approach the problem of pushing sustainability into the mainstream. A very
important consideration is defining sustainability as a wicked problem. A wicked
problem is a societal problem, on whose definition or solution one cannot agree
[Rittel and Webber, 1973]. Wicked problems cannot be addressed with engineering
or science methods, because they cannot be solved with analytic methods and their
outcome is not measurable. Designers offer methods that are unique to design and
help to address wicked problems [Zimmerman, et al. 2007]. Margolin [2002, 96]
states, “given the force of this new culture of sustainability, the question arises as to
what role the design professions will play in it. Until now they have done little. […]
Designers have not been able to imagine a professional practice outside mainstream
consumer culture.” So far designers have only played in the realm of consumer
products and they suffer a lack of empowerment. According to Margolin, designers
mostly settle for small victories that ultimately depend on the willingness of
manufacturers to undertake some good in the form of a green product. Philippe
Starck is one prominent example of a designer who is frustrated with his lack of
empowerment as a designer [Tillmann 2008]. In a recent interview, he said that he is
going to quit being a designer because he sees only senselessness in designing
superfluous products. In this interview he renders all his past work as designing
things people don’t need, and things that have no impact on people’s lives. He
10
3 There’s evidence that companies explicitly target the environmentally conscious consumer as main audience. For example
the company Method Home targets eco-savvy consumers and mothers who want to avoid toxic products in their
household to keep their young children safe. [methodhome.com]. That matches the ten percent of the US population being
eco-savvy, which is mainly comprised of educated women, 30-44, with $30,000-plus household incomes. “They are
motivated by a desire to keep their loved ones free from harm and to make sure their children’s future is secure.” [Ottman
2004, 20-31].
believes people need to develop their own ethics and live by them.4 Starck’s
comment about ethics is in particular true for the design community. To adhere to
the new standards and make our lives meaningful and connected to our
environment, (interaction) designers have to rethink their ethics and change the way
they have been creating products until today.
In this essay I argue that consumption behavior as it exists today cannot be changed,
and that designers have to find ways to change things under the constraints that are
put onto them by today’s manufacturers. Therefore designers must change their
design approach to fit the worldview of the new conscious consumer, but still work
within the realm of consumer products. I use three design frameworks to identify
important design factors that need to be considered when redesigning traditional
products towards sustainability. I show this by incorporating product examples to
illustrate how sustainability can work for the mainstream market. Based on my
analysis I formulate design implications that can lead designers to reform their
approach towards sustainable design.
2. Grounding Definitions
Since efforts towards sustainability have become a trend, products marketed as
sustainable seem to be everywhere. However, there is a lot of confusion around the
definition of sustainability. Currently there are a wide number of meanings
associated with the term, ranging from purely environmental sustainability to a
holistic all-life encompassing view. Also, a lot of the sustainable products are only
sustainable in certain criteria, so it is more valid to talk about “moving towards
sustainability” then about “fulfilled sustainability.” In this section I define
sustainability and show examples of existing sustainable products. Following this, I
relate sustainability to interaction design and show how interaction designers can
integrate it into their work.
2.1. Sustainability
“Sustainability is a characteristic of a process or state that can be maintained at a
certain level indefinitely” [2008energyforum.org, 2008]. In recent years, sustainability
11
4 Starck plans to stop designing in two years and find another profession that gives him more power to express himself. He
says that doesn't know yet what that will be [Tillmann 2008].
has become a term for defining the longevity of our society in regards to resource
management. The first official definition of sustainability regarding industrial
development was created by the World Commission on Environment and
Development [Brundtland Commission] in 1987. It defined sustainability as
“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs.” Sustainability is often associated with
a product being green, despite the fact that it actually means much more. Today
many products pollute our environment, encourage low wages, and pose a danger to
future generations and ourselves. A lot of materials used in product development
cannot be safely disposed of and will remain a hazard for a long time. Sustainable
product design is based on safe designs for our generation and future ones.
Figure 1. Fractal Tool developed by McDonough & Braungart [2002, 150] for planning sustainable products or systems.
McDonough and Braungart [2002, 14] define sustainability as designs that love “all
the children, of all species, for all time”, which I believe to be the simplest definition
of sustainability. In this statement, one can differentiate in three factors making up
the whole: economic, social, and ecological aspects [Figure 1]. According to
McDonough and Braungart [2002, 147-154], commercial companies today only see
their responsibility in providing shareholder value and increasing wealth and growth.
Sustainable business practices include economic stability as a crucial factor, but not at
the cost of environmental and social stability. The social aspect assesses components
12
such as if employees are earning a living wage, men and women are equitably paid
for the same work, and people are treating one another with respect [McDonough
and Braungart 2002, 156]. The environmental criteria assess if a product, its
production, and by-products are safe for today’s and tomorrow’s generations.
Additionally, it does not only mean thinking about humanity; the wellbeing of the
nature and other species also has to be considered [McDonough and Braungart
2002, 14].
There are several different theories of how a sustainable society can be achieved. A
prominent one is the creation of a new society where everyone only consumes what
is really needed and people live in small communities in a self-sustaining manner
[Wilk 2004, 6]. Another theory promotes the integration of cradle-to-cradle design
cycles into today’s manufacturing processes. Since there is evidence to suggest that
when societies collapse their members don’t go back to pre-existing ways of living
[Wilk 2004, 6], this essay is based on the second approach, assuming that our society
will continue to exist as a consumption-focused one. I elaborate on this in the
section “Can we change human behavior?”
The cradle-to-cradle design principle means that designers must rethink their
approach to their work. Today, products are designed only with their (often very
short) utilization period in mind, which is called cradle-to-grave design. Many
companies and designers do not see it as their duty to think beyond the usage of the
product; the disposal is usually the responsibility of the consumer. That is why the
majority of today’s products end up in landfills. Cradle-to-cradle design includes
viable disposal and after-life possibilities as part of the product design. Additionally,
products contain dangerous amalgams of substances that cannot be safely separated,
and in the end the product is toxic waste [McDonough and Braungart 2002, 56].
Cradle-to-cradle designs are supposed to eliminate waste and make it possible to
reuse all components of a product or to recycle them into the natural process
[McDonough and Braungart 2002, 93]. One example is the use of biodegradable
materials. Rohner [climatex.com], a Swiss textile mill, produces biodegradable
fabrics, and Pangea Organics [pangeaorganics.com] only uses biodegradable
packaging for their products. The packaging is infused with flower seeds, which can
simply be tossed on a compost pile or a flowerbed.
13
2.2. Sustainable products today
Recently, the concept of sustainability has developed into a major trend. Products
branded as sustainable, eco, or green are popping up on nearly every market.
Industries where sustainable products seem to have success are household and
personal care products. Since these product groups are fairly inexpensive, purchased
regularly, and essential for all consumers, they are a great starting point for bringing
sustainability into people’s lives. The question of safety and health is prominent in
this area, so products having fewer (or no) toxic ingredients have a good chance of
being considered as an alternative choice to regular products. Household products
also do not have a big impact on social image, but they are supposed to do their job
without causing harm. The natural smell and feel of personal products is considered
an important product quality and people associate “natural” and “green” with these
features.
More complex issues arise when bringing sustainability into fashion and technology.
Since these products are influenced by trends and are highly socially visible, it is a lot
more difficult to create products that are attractive in this market sector. Here
sustainability has to go beyond offering a benefit in “being better for all of us,” but
also to be desirable. Sustainable products have to be able to compete with traditional
products, because being “good” unfortunately doesn’t count much with consumers –
for example, the 26 year-old who wants to show off his or her professional success
with high-quality, fancy clothing and a hip car.
There is definitely an eco-fashion movement pursued by consumers with a high
income. This is just a niche market, since the products are only available to a small,
exclusive group [shopequita.com; veja.fr]. Materials like Tencel that combine the
demand for fashionability and environmental qualities unfortunately do not seem to
have penetrated the traditional market very deeply. One source mentioned Levi’s as
one manufacturer that uses Tencel in its products [Fuad-Luke 2002, 125]; however,
there are currently no products available using Tencel in the online store. Instead
Levi’s offers a limited “eco-jeans” line, which uses a certain percentage of recycled
and organic cotton in its fabric [levis.com].
14
2.3. Interaction Design and Sustainability
Interaction designers create products and services that help, guide, and empower
people. They explore the dialogue between products and people and contexts.
Although interaction design deals with the making of physical artifacts, it is mainly
concerned with enabling quality interactions between different groups such as users,
customers, partners and their services [McDonald 2001, 44-50].
The growing awareness of massive changes in our living environment that endanger
the continuity of our species and all others should challenge interaction designers to
become more aware of the impact the products they design have on the
environment. But where is interaction design positioned? What kind of role does
sustainability play in interaction design? Is it not the responsibility of the product or
industrial designer to understand sustainability issues and apply this knowledge to his
or her work?
Every designer can use sustainable materials in his or her designs. Even if the
interaction designer is not the one making the material or manufacturing decision,
he or she can still exert influence on industrial designers and manufacturers to get
them to make conscious decisions about the materials used. Since interaction
designers often create mostly digital products, there have been arguments that
sustainable interaction design is not a real discipline. This argument is based on
reasoning that without creating any physical artifacts there also cannot be anything
unsustainable to the interaction designer’s work. Additionally, interaction designers
are involved in a much broader set of projects than just the building of digital
products5; even the production of those does not necessarily mean that there are not
any physical byproducts. In the case of software, it usually comes on a CD or DVD,
with a manual, and extensive packaging. Also, digital products can only run on
physical devices, which in turn use energy. Hence, even the work of an interaction
designer who solely concentrates on digital projects still involves physical
components [Blevis 2007, 508]. Aside from environmental issues such as packaging
and energy use, there are economic and ecological factors within interaction design
projects. A lot of those factors can be put in questions such as the ones McDonough
15
5 Interaction design is concerned with enabling quality interactions between different groups such as users, customers,
partners and their services. Often, interaction designers deal with the making of physical artifacts. They are involved in
projects ranging from designing toothbrushes, games, chairs, over web sites, software, and digital interfaces, to designing the
emergency room procedure, and restaurant ambience.
and Braungart [2002, 150-153] propose: Can I make or provide my product or
service at a profit? Do employees earn a living wage? Are men and women equitably
paid for the same work? Is it fair to expose workers or customers to toxins in the
workplace or in the products? Interaction designers can hardly target all or even
most of those concerns. If a product makes a profit, it is usually the decision of
someone else (product manager, marketing, etc), and also the wages being paid to
workers assembling the final product is not in reach of an interaction designer’s
decision. I concentrate on the issues the interaction designer can have the most
influence on. Blevis [2007, 508] argues that even an interaction designer working on
digital products has the responsibility to think about the impact of her or his designs.
He suggests that the methods for interaction design should “integrate a concern for
potential effects on the environment, and for the sustainability of the behaviors
induced by designed interactions” [Blevis 2007, 506]. Those are not necessarily only
environmental concerns, but also social ones. One example Blevis [2007, 506]
mentions is the design of computer games and their effects on obesity. Certainly for
integrating sustainability concerns into interaction design the methods and
approaches currently must be altered and extended by any means. According to
Blevis [2007, 506], the integration of sustainability concerns existing design methods
and also the creation of new design methods for interaction designers. This should be
a main goal for sustainable interaction design. Blevis [2007, 503] suggests several
attributes for interaction designers to assess their projects in regards to sustainability:
disposal, salvage, recycling, remanufacturing for reuse, reuse as is, achieving longevity
of use, sharing for maximal use, achieving heirloom status, and finding wholesome
alternatives to use.
In addition to being aware of sustainability concerns while designing products,
interaction designers can act in the role of design consultants. They can work with
stores, manufacturers and other companies to redesign their service processes towards
being more sustainable. For example, they could work with manufacturers and show
them how to use locally available materials, or redesign their manufacturing and
shipping processes to adhere to sustainability principles. They can educate and help
companies to switch their corporate cultures towards sustainability. They can
influence others and promote organizational change. The non-profit The Designers
Accord is a good example of an organization that is trying to “create positive
environmental and social impact” [designersaccord.com]. It is a “coalition of
16
designers, educators, researchers, engineers, business consultants, and corporations.”
The Designers Accord worked out a list of guidelines for design firm adopters,
corporate adopters, and educational institution adopters. Point two of the guidelines
for design firms encourages the knowledge transfer from designer to clients: “Initiate
a dialogue about environmental impact and sustainable alternatives with each and
every client. Rework client contracts to favor environmentally responsible design
and work processes. Provide strategic and material alternatives for sustainable
design” [designersaccord.com].
Consequently, even though it looks at first as if there are not many ways for
interaction designers to take part in the sustainable design discussion, the above
section clearly shows that interaction designers have many ways to approach the
subject; that acting in the role of the designer and as well as the sustainable design
advocate. In the next section, I discuss how interaction designers can advance their
work towards sustainability. I introduce three frameworks that help the interaction
designer to better understand how products are used, which then enables him to
approach the product (re-)design from a sustainable design perspective.
3. Frameworks
Products cater to people’s self-identity and influence how they see their status within
their social environment. Walker [2002, 6] makes the case that designers serving the
market of mass production leads to a uniformity of products, which makes it hard for
consumers to decide what to buy. He argues for the creation of a material culture
that is “consistent and beneficial to personal and well-being, environmental
stewardship and economic stability.” We need to find the balance between “local and
global, create designs that suit modern, technological and economically developed
societies” [Walker 2002, 6]. For successfully developing sustainable products as Walker
[2002, 6] mentions them, designers need to know what makes traditional products a
market success and sustainable ones in the same product category not.
To assess when and why products are bought and how they impact people’s lives, I
suggest converging methods from three frameworks: the Product Ecology
framework, the 4-Pleasures framework, and the Useful Usable & Desirable (UUD)
framework. The Product Ecology is a framework developed to evaluate products in
their social environment and to introduce new products in people’s lives to see if
17
change results. The 4-Pleasures framework gives a structured way to approach the
issue of pleasure in products. Whereas the Product Ecology framework offers a more
holistic approach to assessing the impact products have on their social environment,
the 4-Pleasures framework concentrates mainly on the person-to-product pleasure
aspect. It assesses factors such as product form, material, color, sound, and
interactions. The UUD framework helps designers to understand how desirability
influences user behavior aside from the usability and usefulness of a product.
I use factors of all three frameworks in this essay, because I believe that aside from
analyzing the overall impact of products, it is crucial to understand how desirability
and pleasure differ between traditional and sustainable products. I restrict the analysis
to immediately apparent factors of the product and I make estimations based on
company and publicly available information. For fully utilizing all aspects of the
above-mentioned frameworks, longer-term research is needed, where the product
use can be monitored over a period of time. This would go beyond the scope of this
essay; I primarily look at how to apply characteristics of traditional products that
influence purchasing behavior to sustainable products.
3.1. Product Ecology
The Product Ecology is a framework to analyze “how systems are socially and
culturally situated among people” [Forlizzi, 2008]. This theoretical framework has
been developed by Forlizzi [2008, 1] with the goal of being utilized by design
researchers to understand how products induce social behavior and how different
factors of the product dynamically influence the product’s utilization and social role.
The framework doesn’t suggest any concrete research methods, but rather supports
designers in choosing the appropriate method for individual research situations
[Forlizzi 2008, 12]. The Product Ecology framework helps structuring design
activities and research.
18
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the Product Ecology [Forlizzi 2008, 13].
Mainly, the Product Ecology enables designers to understand the situations that
surround product use and to articulate the context of product use. The relationship
between individuals and their environment is a dynamic one that is influenced by
products [Figure 2]. Each instance of a product has its own ecology, which depends
on the subjective and individual perspective of the people using the product [Forlizzi
2008, 13]. All factors in the Product Ecology, such as (but not limited to) context,
environment, and cultural background of users are dynamic; they influence each
other, and are interconnected. To fully understand how products influence social
behavior, a crucial factor of the Product Ecology is the introduction of a prototype
during the research. That makes it possible to see and understand differences in
products with similar utilization scenarios but distinctive characteristics. The Product
Ecology offers categories for assessing these product characteristics and their context.
The ecology of a product is built of a product’s functional, aesthetic, symbolic,
emotional, and social aspects [Forlizzi 2007, 7-15]. These five aspects have great
impact on a product’s perceived usefulness, usability, and desirability and influence
the social role of a product. I am utilizing an ecological construct to assess the role of
products in social situations and how changing product characteristics can
dynamically impact a product’s social context and importance.
19
Since the Product Ecology does not come with its own methods, but merely helps
in choosing appropriate research steps, the framework can be easily used in
combination with other methods and frameworks. While the Product Ecology is
very useful in broadening the view on social context and functions of a product
within its environment, I suggest utilizing other frameworks to analyze individual
product use and factors influencing it.
3.2. 4 Pleasures Framework
Understanding the person-product relationship is crucial as a designer in order to
make changes to existing products or designing new ones. Pleasure in context of
products plays an important role in how people perceive and identify themselves
with things. According to Jordan [2002, 12-15], pleasure in product use can be
distinguished in four different categories: physio-, psycho-, ideo-, and socio-pleasure.
Physio-pleasure is pleasure absorbed by any of the sensory organs. Psycho-pleasure is
concerned with emotional and cognitive reactions. Whereas ideo-pleasure plays into
to satisfying personal needs, and socio-pleasure is received from interaction with the
social environment [Jordan 2002, 12-15].
Figure 3. The four Pleasures in Product Use
The following aspects are crucial for perceived pleasures with products: color, form,
material, interaction, and sound. In general, all sensory experiences influence how a
product is perceived. Colors are very important in products, but their interpretation
depends on the cultural and personal background of the consumer. In Western
culture Ferrari red is associated with high speed, whereas a black car can mean
20
wealth and dignity, but also grief and death because of the color black’s connection
to funeral hearses. Looking at baby clothes, blue is associated with a boy, and pink, a
girl [Jordan 2002, 89-92]. Aside from color, materials have a big influence on the
product character. Often plastics communicate cheapness and mass production,
whereas metals and wood are considered noble materials. In the case of beverages,
the material of the container greatly influences perception. Alcohol is mostly sold in
glass bottles, because holding a glass bottle feels better than a plastic one [Jordan
2002, 103-104]. Additionally “materials are often used to add associated status to a
product.” Often products come in different versions, varying according to luxury
levels. Form very often is used as a metaphor. For example cars often have a friendly
(economy and family cars) or a mean (sports and racing cars) look, depending on
their audience. Form also depends on practical and emotional factors, and of course
sensorial benefits.
In many cases, it may be difficult or even contradictory for a sustainable product to
satisfy ideo and socio-pleasures. Imagine a consumer who is environmentally
conscious and gets ideo-pleasure out of purchasing sustainable products. It makes her
feel good about herself; she believes she is contributing to a better environment. But
our shopper also has the need to represent a highly sophisticated lifestyle to her
friends, colleagues and family, but often products in the sustainable range don’t fit
her perception of high-end quality. From her point of view a lot of the offered
sustainable products convey a “treehugger” image. Here the ideo-pleasure she gets
from purchasing sustainable products is opposite to the socio-pleasure she strives for.
She often goes for satisfying her socio-needs and forgoes her ideo-needs. This leads
to guilt, which is outweighed by her unwillingness to sacrifice her lifestyle. With this
dilemma she perfectly fits into the fifty percent of the American population who is
willing to buy more consciously, but without it involving a huge effort or a change
of lifestyle.
The pleasure framework can be used to analyze the kinds of pleasures people
associate with the products they own and purchase, and to which product attributes
their pleasures can be contributed. Whereas the Product Ecology offers a framework
for researching the social use of products, the 4-Pleasures framework greatly helps to
understand individual product features that influence purchasing decisions. The two
frameworks combined make it possible to research products and their use at a micro-
21
(individual use and product features) and macro- (social use and product
environment) level.
3.3. Usefulness, usability, and desirability of products
Looking at what makes products function well and attractive, I want to mention a
fundamental concept of interaction design: the empowerment of the user to
accomplish her or his goals in the most fitting way. Sanders [1992] was one of the
first to suggest that products need to be useful, usable, and desirable to fully account
for and satisfy the user’s needs [Figure 3]. She stated a “useful product is one that
people need and will use. A usable product is one they can use or learn to use. A
desirable product is one they want.” [Sanders 1992, 49-54]. Sanders [1992, 54] also
suggested incorporating user-centered research throughout the entire development
process as the only way to ensure the development of products that have these three
attributes. It is in the designer’s hands to balance the three factors. Only then will the
designer be able to fully satisfy the audience’s needs. Striving to create useful, useable,
and desirable products is important for all product development, sustainable or not.
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of the Useful, Usable, and Desirable framework [Sanders 1999, 2].
Whereas products may be usable and useful– they might end up not being used
because it is boring or simply not enjoyable to utilize them. One good example for
the significance of pleasure and beauty in products is made by Norman [2005] in
Emotional Design. Norman [2005, 17-18] gives a synopsis of research findings about
attractive versus non-attractive Automated Teller Machines (ATM) interfaces. “[…]
in the early 1990s, two Japanese researchers, Masaaki Kurosu and Kaori Kashimura
[…] studied different layouts of controls for ATMs […] All versions of the ATMs
22
were identical in function, the numbers of buttons, and how they operated, but some
had the buttons and screens arranged attractively, the others unattractively. Surprise!
The Japanese found that the attractive ones were perceived to be easier to use.” It
clearly shows how important pleasure is in combination with usefulness and
usability. If the factors of sustainable product design are addressed in the same way as
traditional product design, sustainable products should be designed and evaluated like
all products. Whereas usability and usefulness can be easily tested, factors such as
desirability, beauty, and pleasure are highly subjective. Nevertheless, I believe that
products need to satisfy the needs of a diverse user group, that means designers
cannot simply address the pleasure needs of sustainability-focused users but have to
address the needs of everyone. To target more than the ten percent of eco-
aficionados, designers must “make sure products do not lack in quality, style or cost
too much. If we can show consumers that they do not have to compromise on
quality, taste or price, we can have everyone purchasing green” [Wigder 2008]. To
fully understand desirability, pleasure, and beauty in products, designers can combine
methods from the 4-Pleasures framework and the UUD framework. Sanders [1992,
50] argues that desirability makes us buy “Products that are useful and usable, but not
desirable, are the ones we don’t choose to purchase.”
Sanders [1992, 54] also emphasizes that user differences are a crucial factor to keep
in mind while researching and designing. In the concept section I analyze three
different products, all from the product category “shoes,” but I show that the user
groups of all three products are crucially different.
3.4. Converging of methods
The three different frameworks allow the designer to approach the design problem
holistically. Both the UUD and Product Ecology framework talk about combining
different methods and approaches to design. Whereas the Product Ecology
framework helps to see the product in its social environment and the impact it has,
UUD helps to focus on the product-user relationship and to fulfill the user’s needs
for a useful, usable, and desirable product. UUD suggests converging operations and
a few methods. I suggest, for thoroughly addressing the desirability factor,
understanding the pleasure factors of a product is crucial. Therefore I propose a
combination of Product Ecology, 4-Pleasures, and UUD framework. The converging
23
of operations from the three frameworks can be used as a holistic approach to design
research in developing sustainable products.
4. Important Concepts
In this section, I analyze important concepts that build the foundation for changing
the attributes of products towards more sustainable ones. Our society is based firmly
on consumption, which influences the way products are marketed and the reasons
why products are purchased. In order to be successful, sustainable design has to fit
our society’s consumption patterns. To better illustrate these concepts I show product
examples, why these products appeal to certain consumer groups, and how they can
be changed to better fit a sustainable market model. I use three products from the
shoe category as examples. I analyze shoes from the brands PUMA, Simple Shoes,
and Veja. The three shoe companies are all manufacturing shoes for every-day use,
but the products are inherently different, and target different consumer groups. I
explore product features and look at their sustainability approaches in more depth.
My estimations of the designer’s judgment may sometimes be wrong, however, it is a
start to analyze product function and ecology.
Aside from looking at these three examples, I show existing sustainable products and
their market penetration. A very important factor in designing sustainable products is
to understand what makes people buy certain products over others. Here the three
frameworks can be utilized to understand the mechanisms behind people’s
purchasing decisions. I hope to show that sustainable products cannot only be
targeted at eco-savvy users, but that it is possible to broaden the target group
significantly by adjusting product attributes. I will show that it is possible to do so
without having the average consumer sacrifice his or her current lifestyle.
4.1. Can we change human behavior?
One interesting question about sustainable products is whether products or human
consumption patterns could or should change. Should we be striving for a society
where everyone just consumes what is necessary? In this future society, over-
consumption would be eliminated, and people would be living in small, self-
sustaining communities. This vision is very popular with one group of people
promoting sustainability. However, I believe that it is not possible to shift our society
24
to a “non-consumerism focused society.” Television advertisement plays fully into
the “needs” of our consumption-oriented society [Discovery Visa Card] and the US
economy depends on its population to buy – more than seventy percent of the
country’s gross domestic product (GDP) depends on the consumption of the US
population [Spiegel.de]. Such a society cannot be rapidly shifted away from
consumption.
Moreover, it is obvious that when highly developed societies fell apart in the past,
people did not go back to an earlier form of living. It is highly unlikely that our
society turns backwards and all the achievements and bonds developed through
globalization are erased, and people start living in small, self-sustaining communities
again. Additionally, studies show that once achieved living standards are hard to forgo
for a lower standard. People compare what they had and what others have to set a
standard they want to achieve for their own living. Going back to lower
consumption habits causes depression and social anxiety, amongst other problems
[Wilk 2004, 22-24]. I suggest that instead we work with the societal patterns that
currently exist, and slowly introduce change to the products we manufacture,
consume, and their disposal. We should aim for getting people to consume
differently, but not necessarily less.
Methods used today to get people to buy more consciously are mostly focused on
appealing morally to consumers, but guilting people into actions only works for so
long. People will only change consumption habits if it offers a surplus for them (i.e.
financial savings or a higher comfort level) or if it offers the same amenities as the
old product and they don’t have to change their lifestyle. Wilk’s [2004] analysis of
consumption supports this argument. Wilk [2004, 18] traces consumption back to its
earliest meaning in the English language: “destruction by fire,” where something
useful is turned into waste. According to Wilk [2004, 18-24], purchasing is not
consumption as long as we keep the goods we buy. Most people don’t even use what
they buy and keep, which leads Wilk [2004, 27-29] to the conclusion that it is not
the consumer that can change, but our products have to change.
25
4.2. Factors influencing product selection
The BBMG Conscious Consumer Report [Bemporad and Baranowski 2007, 4]
shows that only ten percent of the US consumer market is made up by eco- and
sustainable buyers, while fifty percent of the population is willing to consume more
consciously, but obviously there are some obstacles keeping it from doing so [Figure
3, the conscious consumers consists of the aspirational and practical groups].
Figure 5. US consumer profiles [Bemporad and Baranowski 2007, 4].
While I do not negate factors like product accessibility and the perceived and actual
cost-benefit ratio playing significant roles in influencing consumer choices, I see an
opportunity to adjust the product characteristics of environmentally-friendly
products to target a broader consumer audience. I believe that sustainable products
convey the wrong product attributes to appeal to a broader consumer group.
Another crucial factor hindering the purchase of sustainable products is that
consumers are not willing to make an additional effort going beyond their typical
purchasing behavior. Why does behaving more responsibly involve more effort? Why
do people have to change their lifestyle to adapt more conscious consumption
habits? A person’s relationship to a product forms his or her identity and it cannot be
expected that everyone migrates to the group of eco-aficionados. Each person’s
purchasing decisions are influenced by different needs that they want to satisfy with
different purchases. I argue that a variety of social groups with distinct shopping
26
habits have to be supported in buying sustainable products in a way that fits each
person’s personality and consumption habits.
An example of a company targeting different consumer groups in the realm of
conventional products is PUMA. It aims at a broad market and tries to serve the
needs of different consumer profiles. PUMA’s brand statement is “iconic brand that
resonates across a broadening spectrum of consumers. By maintaining a connection
with our core values of inclusiveness, innovative design, sophistication, and
individuality, PUMA will consistently set the bar to be the most desirable sport
lifestyle brand in the world.” PUMA describes itself as being a “multicategory
sportlifestyle company.” Besides targeting the urban every-day sneaker-wearer,
PUMA also offers specialized sports equipment, like running shoes. PUMA products
are made of durable, high quality materials, which are intended to last a long time.
Typical materials used are leather, latex, rubber, and nylon. PUMA shoes can be
considered a high-end sneaker with a price point between $50 and $150
[shoes.com]. PUMA shoes are very accessible. The company’s products are
distributed in more than 130 countries, and PUMA also has its own concept stores
in 67 countries [puma.com].
Figure 6. PUMA Roma PF US Ext Womens [puma.com].
27
PUMA shoes symbolize trendiness, hipness, modernity, “inclusiveness, innovative
design, sophistication and individuality” [puma.com] by using colorful designs, and
high-quality materials.. PUMA seduces consumers with the implication that
purchasing PUMA products will lead to hipness, which is especially desirable for
many adolescents and young adults. Thinking about my own adolescent years, I
remember how sought after PUMA sneakers were, and how cool you felt owning a
pair--the fact that the shoes are not affordable to everyone made them even more
desirable. Socio pleasure is very important to adolescents. Their own self-identity is
still developing, and adolescents are greatly influenced by their peers and trends.
PUMA contributes to self-image and the image people want to convey to others,
which makes PUMA shoes important to social interactions.
PUMA has had a huge market success in different age groups and is considered one
of the leading sports and leisure clothing brands [puma.com]. I have personally
observed PUMA products in all age groups, ranging from toddlers to the elderly–
more consumer range is almost impossible. By offering a wide selection and new
collections on a frequent basis, PUMA products define trends for the leisure clothing
industry. PUMA is considered a traditional brand for which sustainability is not an
essential part of the brand. However, looking at the company’s website in more
depth shows that PUMA has made efforts in the area of corporate responsibility. The
following information is mainly from PUMA’s sustainability report from 2005/2006.
The report mostly analyses the working conditions of PUMA’s 350 contracted
production sites in fifty countries. It looks at energy consumption, waste production
and its management during the manufacturing process. Among other things it states
that apart from some high performance all offered models are solvent-free. PUMA
also experimented in developing a shoe that only uses adhesives on water basis, but
there is no evidence today that this model actually went into production.
Greenpeace Netherlands states that PUMA regards “[…] the use of chemicals and
their impact on the environment […] definitely one of the most progressive
companies in the sports industry. PUMA was among the first to produce PVC-free
products, showing that substitution is possible and thus setting a clear example that
other brands not only could, but also should follow. We understand that it is not easy
to fully control all suppliers, but the PUMA auditing system is certainly a good
approach to be sustainable. Nonetheless, we feel PUMA could do more to raise the
28
standards in production sites in Asia.” [Puma 2006, 61]. I believe PUMA has made a
good start but it has been two years since the company’s last sustainability report, and
there is no evident progress or any news on their website [puma.com].
4.3. Where do sustainable products exist and what is their market penetration?
In my research, I found several books and websites listing sustainable and eco-
friendly products. However, many of these products fulfilled one or maybe two of
the three factors of sustainability. Either the items were designed with environmental
concerns in mind or had some kind of social responsibility integrated. The book
“eco-Design, the sourcebook” mostly lists products made from reused and recycled
materials, and designer products with high aesthetic qualities, which are merely
energy-efficient in one way or another. [Fuad-Luke 2002] One example is the Box
chair by Enzo Mari made of metal and polypropylene. None of the materials used
can be called eco-friendly. But the chair is listed as environmentally friendly based
on the fact that the materials are more lightweight than others, which leads to less
energy consumption when transporting the chair [Fuad-Luke 2002, 32 & 295].
Figure 7. Box Chair by Enzo Mari [Retromodern.com].
Another example includes wooden chairs made of responsibly-harvested wood, but
there is no information provided about the glues used, manufacturing methods, or
working conditions of employees. A good example of eco-friendly design is Tencel
fashion garments. The fabric is made of natural cellulose that is harvested from
managed forests, manufactured in a closed-loop clean cycle, and is compostable. At
the same time, the fabric is versatile, offering “a wide choice of surface finishings and
weaves” [Fuad-Luke 2002, 125].
29
Based on my research, I conclude that there are scarcely any products that fulfill all
criteria for being deemed fully sustainable; in the remainder of this essay I
concentrate on environmental and social sustainability as the main product criteria.
Whereas PUMA markets hip and trendy shoes, Simple Shoes strives for
environmental (and economical) sustainability. Simple Shoes aspire to create shoes
“that you can live in” compared to all “the over-built, over-hyped products out
there” [simpleshoes.com]. They try to offer products that are 100 percent sustainable
and acknowledge “the production process is as important as the reasons for why they
manufacture them the way they are” [simpleshoes.com]. Simple Shoes products can
be classified as casual and down-to-earth. They brand themselves as “the nice little
shoe company getting in touch with its inner hippie” [simpleshoes.com]. In addition
to selling from their own website, Simple Shoes are sold on different online shoe
stores, such as shoes.com. Besides being available at smaller, local shoe stores (e.g.
Little’s in Pittsburgh), they can be purchased at several outdoor stores (REI, The
Walking Company), and are available in selected retail locations of Nordstrom and
Urban Outfitters. The price point differs greatly between the individual shoes. Flip-
flops are available starting at twenty dollars, whereas winter boots can be up to $120
[shoes.com]. Simple Shoes strives for using natural, organic, and recycled materials.
In regards to ethical and social standards, the company obeys all applicable laws and
restrictions, but does not focus as much on social sustainability.
Simple Shoes is part of the Deckers Outdoor Corporation6. Deckers holds several brands
aside from Simple Shoes, including Ugg and Teva. Each Deckers brand targets
different demographic groups. Deckers “strives to be a premier lifestyle marketer that
builds niche brands in global market leaders” [deckers.com]. As a part of a larger
corporation, Simple Shoes is a sub-brand targeted at a niche market.
30
6 Deckers acquired Simple Shoes in 1993
Figure 8. Simple Shoes Women's made of organic cotton, renewable materials, and post-consumer recycling paper [simpleshoes.com].
Instead of going for a stylish, trendy, and polished look, a lot of Simple Shoes’
products openly reveal what they are made of: hemp, cotton, reused car tires, bamboo
and other similar materials. The eco-sneak line, shown in Figure 7, has a handcrafted,
rough look.
The intended user-group for the Simple Shoes brand are the eco-conscious buyers,
who like to align their ideo- and socio pleasures. This group wants to show off that
they are purchasing “green” items. Simple Shoes successfully target the eco-
conscious consumer, but fail to do so for the broader consumer market. They work
successfully as a niche product, but to target a broader market, substantial features of
the product would have to change. While the first product was the Eco-sneaks
product line, nowadays Simple Shoes pushes more into mainstream with statements
like “If you can’t see yourself in these, get a longer mirror” [simpleshoes.com] and
new product lines [Figure 11]. This fits with Deckers’ mission statement to bring
brands targeting niche markets into mainstream. But once the eco-friendly trend is
over, will Simple Shoes be of interest for consumers other than the ten percent who
are environmentally aware?
The third example, the shoe company Veja, seems to have some things in common
with Simple Shoes and PUMA. Veja is a sustainable shoe company, striving not only
for environmental and economical sustainability, but also social sustainability
[veja.com]. Whereas Simple Shoes clearly targets the small percentage of
environmentally-aware consumers, Veja combines fashion with sustainability.
Launched in 2005, Veja sneakers are made from organic latex and cotton. Veja’s
mission is summarized on its website: use ecological inputs, use fair trade cotton and
31
latex, and respect workers’ dignity [veja.com]. Using latex from wild latex trees in
Amazonia is the company’s approach to counteract deforestation. Veja supports fair
trade by buying from local cotton farmers, and a French social association, which
helps employ local workers, and handles storage and deliveries. One of the
company’s collections incorporates only organic leather, which has been tanned with
organic tannins [Figure 9].
Figure 9. Veja Taua made of organic leather [veja.fr].
Veja shoes can be bought in four European countries, and in the US, Canada, Hong
Kong, and Japan. In the US, Vega shoes are only available in boutiques in New York,
Los Angeles and Pittsburgh and online.
Compared to Simple Shoes and PUMA, Veja shoes do not fit the stereotype of eco
style, instead their shoes have similar aesthetics to other stylish sneakers, yet while
striving for sustainability. Veja has been featured on two of the most prominent
“eco-news” websites, Treehugger and Inhabitant. Inhabitant says that Veja “makes
cool, green style and enviro-responsibility seem totally within reach and accessible
for all” [inhabitat.com 2005]. A post by Treehugger, a website for sustainability news,
has comments posted by users, which support my analysis of Veja and Simple Shoes
[treehugger.com]:
“[…] They are actually really cool looking! Hip and urban! I am a total treehugger,
yet I don't want to wear dirt colored hippy duds. These rock!”
“beautiful. […] previously i had even ordered Simple’s ‘green toe’ shoes, which
were huge, clunky, awkward, and uncomfortable. not to mention, looked
incredibly out of place with everything else i own. and although not perfect,
these shoes are a great start to making truly marketable ‘treehugger’ footwear”
32
Veja shows that it is possible to combine fashion with sustainability and reach out for
a broad consumer group.
4.4. Product comparison, traditional vs. sustainable
In a comparison of PUMA, Simple Shoes and Veja according to the Product
Ecology, there is only one overlap between the three shoes: the functional aspect. All
three products are mainly for every-day, casual use [Figure 10].
Figure 10. Puma, Simple Shoes, and Veja characteristics’ comparison.
Whereas PUMA products target a broad consumer group by setting trends, Simple
Shoes’ business strategy is solely built on marketing the environmental aspects of
their products. I do not imply that Simple Shoes has the wrong brand strategy; in
fact they are right on target for eco-conscious consumers, and have started pushing
into the mainstream with their environmental product message. However, the
company’s main target is still the group of eco-aficionados, which makes Simple
Shoes a niche product. Only Veja balances the ideo- and socio-pleasure of conscious
consumers. Simple Shoes proves that as soon as sustainable aspirations come into
play, designers and marketers seem to solely build the product message on sustainable
aspects but all other consumer needs are forgone. Designers often assume that they
33
are only designing for the niche market of eco-aficionados, and the broader
consumer group is not targeted at all.
Figure 11. Simple Women's Carat, Certified Suede [simpleshoes.com].
Since Simple Shoes is a sub-brand intended to specifically target the market of eco-
aficionados, big companies such as PUMA already targeting a broader consumer
group have to adapt to bring sustainability to the mainstream. Veja has the right
concept, but is too small to have a major impact. It should be used as a role model of
how to achieve sustainability, while still being fashionable. When researching the
social impact shoes like Simple Shoes and PUMA sneakers have, one will find a lot
of differences. I assume that PUMA shoes are bought for trendiness, quality, and
aesthetics, whereas Simple Shoes are mostly worn by people wanting to make an
environmental statement. Veja can be introduced as a trendy, but sustainable
alternative. I suspect that this would change the social meaning of sneakers in both
target groups. Going back to the comments posted on Treehugger, I believe that
sneakers like Veja could easily help move sustainability into the mainstream, while
being fashionable. If companies like PUMA were to integrate sustainability into their
products, they could reach not only the trendy consumer, but also the trendy and
environmentally conscious consumer. That means keeping the looks of these
products as well as production and delivery methods. Ways to achieve that can be the
complete elimination of solvents, and using water-based adhesives in all the products.
The company could experiment with more recycled materials, try new materials
that either go completely into the manufacturing of new products or are
compostable, and create closed-loop production processes. PUMA is a great
company to showcase that sustainability can be cool. It has the right market size to
introduce sustainability into mainstream consumption.
34
Figure 12. Shared qualities of the three brands.
Looking at [Figure 11] it is obvious that Veja combines PUMA’s fashionability with
Simple Shoe’s environmental responsibility. Veja also goes a step further than Simple
Shoes by adding ethical concerns and social responsibility to its mission statement.
The results of using the different frameworks to analyze the three shoe brands make
evident the differences between the individual and social product use. PUMA
satisfies socio- and ideo-pleasures based on trendiness, aesthetics, and high-quality
materials. But if the consumer’s pleasures are based on environmental or social
concerns, PUMA is not able to satisfy these. PUMA products are definitely useful,
usable, and desirable for the same reasons as mentioned above, but again, the
company is not desirable from a sustainable point of view. Popular sneakers, such as
the ones PUMA produces, are important to preadolescents and young adults to help
them form their social and self-image and to fit in. However, these shoes do not play
any role for the conscious or enlightened consumer. Simple Shoes satisfies the socio-
and ideo-pleasures of the eco-conscious consumer, but not the ones of conscious
consumers that are interested in trendy and aesthetically pleasing products. They are
definitely useful and usable, but they only satisfy the pleasures and desires of the ten
percent eco-aware buyers. Simple Shoes are very simply put, not desirable for
consumers looking for a modern, hip, and trendy shoe. Veja products on the other
hand are useful, usable and desirable to both groups, since they combine
35
sustainability concerns with trendiness. However, since Veja is mostly sold in small
niche stores, and not widely available, the company does not reach a broad consumer
group [see Figure 13].
If PUMA were to operate in a similar manner as Veja, sustainability could truly make
a big step towards entering mainstream consumerism [Figure 13]. Veja’s processes are
not completely comparable to PUMA’s, because Veja operates in a much smaller
scale than PUMA, which means it needs fewer resources. However, Veja is the right
model to copy, and while I acknowledge that transforming a traditional business to a
sustainable one without sacrificing product characteristics and quality is a challenge,
Veja’s model shows that it is possible to target the conscious consumer group
without turning their socio-image around.
36
Figure 13. Comparison of today’s and future outreach of sustainable brands based on the manufacturing and retail methods of large companies such as PUMA.
37
5. Design Implications
Designers have to keep in mind that not all users are interested in sustainability or
like the associations with “treehuggers.” As research showed, users are not willing to
go out of their way to buy more socially conscious products, but if sustainability is
offered in traditional consumed products, they are more than willing to do so.
Hence, to target sustainability at the fifty percent of conscious consumers in the US,
traditional products have to change gradually, without influencing product quality. To
do so, we need to assess qualities that make people buy the existing traditional
product, and then introduce sustainable criteria to these without changing the
product characteristics that are crucial for the consumer’s purchasing decision and
product use.
Eco-chic as a trend won’t last forever; it is definitely possible that designers will lose
users if they solely build the product strategy on this trend. But since sustainable
products have emerged into a major trend during the last couple of years, I see this
as a chance for designers to push sustainable design further. Now is the time for
designers to change sustainability into something that lasts on the market. It is the
right time to bring mass-consumer products and sustainability together to become
the product standard. I believe that creating sustainable products for the wider
market won’t necessarily target the niche group of eco-aficionados anymore.
However, this does not have to be a problem, because brands like Simple Shoes
targeting niche consumer groups will always exist. Right now it is more important
to serve the bigger group of conscious consumers.
Converging methods enables designers to get a holistic understanding of the product
and its environment. Social relationships are crucial for product use. Utilizing the
Product Ecology and 4-Pleasures framework, combined with the UUD framework
to compare products in the same category, designers can analyze what needs to be
done to bring sustainable products to the larger market. The results of my product
analysis show that it is possible to use the three frameworks as a means to discover
necessary product characteristics that need to be included in the design of sustainable
products, to appeal to a large consumer group. An important basis for these
frameworks is that designers developing products for today’s society understand how
people select products and know what makes traditional products a market success. It
is crucial for the designer to understand his or her target group.
38
For developing sustainable products that succeed on the larger market, designers
need to analyze what makes traditional products a success by utilizing the three
frameworks to get a holistic overview of product use. That includes social and
individual use of the product, functional aspects, and symbolic meaning. This process
will help the designer to understand how the used materials, colors, sounds, and
form of the product influence the product use. Using the Product Ecology
framework to introduce a sustainable product alternative will enable the designer to
understand how that changes product-user and social relationships. Based on that, a
final product can be developed which encompasses the attributes users’ value in the
traditional product and sustainability concerns.
To achieve this, it may require changing the manufacturing methods, product
materials, or introducing new incentives to purchase a particular product. It is
important to slowly introduce change, like switching from leather to organic leather,
from traditional glues to water-based glues, and finding new feedback cycles. New
policies such as a take-back policy of old products which then can be recycled in
new ones can function as an incentive for consumers to stay brand loyal, and also
save money in the manufacturing process.
A lot of the points made in this essay concern industrial and product design, but also
interaction design, since the aim to fulfill user needs is ingrained into the practice of
interaction design. Interaction design methods and frameworks, such as the Product
Ecology and 4-Pleasures frameworks, are applicable to all kinds of design practices.
Independent of designers researching the individual product-user relationship based
on methods from the 4-Pleasures and UUD frameworks, or if they are concerned
with the social impact of products utilizing the Product Ecology framework, both
relationship levels can be greatly influenced by interaction design. I suggest designers
combine methodologies from the three frameworks to analyze and understand
products and then introduce change into traditional products towards sustainability.
39
6. Concluding Thoughts
There are a lot of different reasons why sustainability has not penetrated the
mainstream product market yet. The problem of pushing sustainability into the
broader market is multi-facetted. Often it means using alternative materials, which
makes products look different from traditional ones, or the products are simply not
visible enough. Also, if sustainability is only offered as the main value in a product, or
it manifests itself in higher prices, both lead to the consumer having to buy outside
his or her socio- or ideo-pleasure area, and that in turn keeps him or her from
buying. The most prominent issue for designers is that they have targeted only ten
percent of the market today. I believe designers take the wrong turn by assuming that
sustainability manifests itself as a certain “eco-look” and in that way only target a
small user group. To reach a wider span of the population, they have to keep in mind
that most people will not go out of their way to be a better consumer; they still want
all the benefits a traditional product has to offer. It is no excuse to say the average
consumer is not interested in sustainability or that sustainable products cannot appeal
to everyone. If we can convert traditional products into sustainable ones by keeping
the product quality and target groups the same, it is possible to bring sustainability
into the mainstream.
Designers have to understand products and their use holistically. To do so, they can
use the three frameworks to approach design research and product design. This will
enable designers to fully understand the benefits people reap from using the
researched product and the role the product plays in people’s social lives. Finally, it
will facilitate the introduction of sustainability into the product without changing
existing benefits and the product’s social meaning negatively, but rather maintain or
advance product qualities and meaning.
40
Bibliography
Baranowski Mitch, and Raphael Bemporad. 2007. Conscious Consumers Are
Changing the Rules of Marketing. Are You Ready? Highlights from the BBMG
Conscious Consumer Report. BBMG: http://www.bbmg.com/ [accessed March,
2008].
Blevis, Eli. 2007. Sustainable interaction design: invention & disposal, renewal &
reuse. New York: ACM Press, 507. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1240624.1240705
[accessed January, 2008].
Braungart Michael, and William McDonough. 2002. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking
the Way We Make Things. New York: North Point Press.
Breitbard.com. 2008. “Philippe Starck tells magazine design is dead”. http://
www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080327175559.tvacjlyi [accessed April, 2008].
Brundtland Commission. 1987. 42/187. Report of the World Commission on
Environment and Development. http://www.un-documents.net/a42r187.htm
[accessed December, 2008].
Chicago Tribune. 2008. Green stores, green products, green celebrities.
chicagotribune.com [accessed March, 2008].
Deckers Outdoor Corporation. Our Company. 2008. http://www.deckers.com/
about/about_deckers.aspx [accessed November, 2008].
The Designers Accord. 2008.
http://www.designersaccord.org [accessed May, 2008].
Discovery Visa Card. 2008. http://www.abc.com [accessed September, 2008].
Doan, Abigail. 2008. Sustainable Style: Veja’s 2008 Volley Collection. http://
www.inhabitat.com/2008/03/23/sustainable-style-vejas-2008-volley-collection/
[accessed November, 2008].
Equita. 2008. http://www.shopequita.com [accessed October, 2008].
Forlizzi, Jodi. 2007. Product Ecologies: Understanding the Context of Use
Surrounding Products. PhD diss., Carnegie Mellon University.
41
Forlizzi, Jodi. 2008. The Product Ecology: Understanding Social Product Use and
Supporting Design Culture. International Journal of Design 2, no 1 [April, 2008].
http://www.ijdesign.org/ojs/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/220/136 [accessed
November, 2008].
Fuad-Luke. Alastair. 2002. Eco Design – The Sourcebook. London: Thames &
Hudson Ltd.
Jordan, Patrick W. 2002. Designing Pleasurable Products. CRC.
McDonald, Nico. 2001. Action, interaction, reaction. Blueprint: Architecture, Design
and Contemporary Culture, August 2001 N186, 44-50.
Margolin, Victor. 2002. Design for a sustainable world, Politics for the Artificial:
Essays on Design and Design Studies. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Methodhome. 2008. http://www.methodhome.com [accessed February, 2008].
Norman, Donald A. 2004. Emotional design: why we love (or hate) everyday things.
New York: Basic Books.
Origins Organics. 2008. http://www.origins.com/organics/ [accessed April, 2008].
Ottman, Jaquelyn. 2004. Green Marketing: Opportunity for Innovation. Charleston:
BookSurge Publishing.
Pangea Organics. 2008.
http://www.pangeaorganics.com [accessed November, 2008].
Presidential Forum on Renewable Energy. 2008.
http://www.2008energyforum.org/topics [accessed January, 2009].
Prüfer, Tillmann. 2008. Ich schäme mich dafür. ZEITmagazin LEBEN no 14. http://
www.zeit.de/2008/14/Designer-Starck-14?page=all [accessed April, 2008].
Puma.com. 2008. http:www.puma.com [accessed October, 2008].
Puma Sustainability Report 2005/2006. 2006.
http://about.puma.com/EN/6/ [accessed October, 2008].
42
Reisch, Lucia, and Inge Ropke. 2004. The Ecological Economies of Consumption.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Retromodern.com. 2007.
http://www.retromodern.com/item_detail.asp?7370 [accessed October, 2008].
Rohner Textiles. 2008. http://www.climatex.com [accessed September, 2008].
Sanders, Elizabeth B.-N. 1992. Converging Perspectives: Product. Development
Research for the 1990s. Design Management Journal 3, no. 4. 49-54.
Sanders, Elizabeth B.-N. 1999. Postdesign and Participatory Culture. http://
www.maketools.com/pdfs/PostdesignandParticipatoryCulture_Sanders_99.pdf
[accessed November, 2008].
Sayer, Keyeann. 2005. Veja’s Fair Trade Organic Trainers. http://
www.treehugger.com/files/2005/10/vegas_fair_trad.php [accessed November, 08].
Seventhgeneration.com. 2008.
http://www.seventhgeneration.com [accessed April, 2008].
Shoes.com. 2008. http://www.shoes.com [accessed October, 2008].
Spiegel.de. 2008. http://www.spiegel.de [accessed September 20080].
Veja. 2008. http://www.veja.fr [accessed September, 2008].
Walker, Stuart. 2002. A journey in design - an exploration of perspectives for
sustainability. The Journal of Sustainable Product Design 2, no 1-2 [March, 2002].
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m3722283639g8m18/
[accessed November, 2008].
Wigder, David. 2008. Shopping for Green. http://marketinggreen.wordpress.com/
2008/03/04/shopping-for-green-online/
[accessed November, 2008].
Wilk, R. 2004. Questionable assumptions about sustainable consumption. In: Eds. L.
A. Reisch, I. Ropke, The Ecological Economics of Consumption. Cheltenham,
United Kingdom, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 17-31.
43