In the book, “Design is the Problem: The Future of Design Must Be Sustainable”, the authors outline eight frameworks to measuring a company in terms of sustainability, all slightly different. These eight are not all of ways product design and manufacturing can be measured, but they are all possible ways.
I was intrigued by the comprehensive and thoughtfulness of some of the frameworks, and also lack thereof of some. For instance the ‘Social Return on Investment’ framework in my mind lacked a template/direction for companies to pick apart their.
I also felt generally that in order for a model to be complete, they couldn’t incorporate all three spheres (Human, Natural, Financial) intricately, it had do be surface level. For instance the “Natural Capital” framework incorporated all three, but critiques found it too vague and not effective for tackling specific issues.
I think the “best” framework is the “Life Cycle Analysis”. I think ‘best’ in my opinion refers to whether or not it seems to be easy to implement, to measure, and to sustain. This framework seemed straight forward, and it incorporates an analysis of sustainability at every step in the process. The frameworks acknowledges the simplicity of the final product is not always representative of the waste occurring in the development process, and stresses the importance of upcylcled materials. The metrics are easy and uniform, and I think the author of this handout had a good quote about their mission that resonated with me:
- wise choices during development can make a big difference in the resulting environmental impact
The weaknesses of this framework are just as apparent too, and one weakness in particular is concerning to me: the lack of ability for smaller businesses to participate in this analysis. Its expensive, difficult and time consuming, so might not be advantageous for little businesses to buy in. That being said, it might be good to have a framework just targeting bigger companies (and possibly bigger polluters in conjunction).