Chapter 5

How Sustainable Product Design Leads to Unexpected Solutions

The most dangerous phrase in the language is “we’ve always done it this way.”

—Grace Hopper

In designing the future, condemning the past is easy. As the saying goes, “Hindsight is 20/20.” But instead of looking backward, how about looking to the future and imagining what might be needed?

The expectations placed on firms of the future are greater than ever before. They are expected not only to provide exceptional user experiences but also to design a safer future for their consumers. But the future of innovation doesn’t just lie in design for functionality. It’s this historical focus purely on functionality and other function-related metrics that has brought us here today. The key is instead to address functionality with a complementary focus on human health and environmental toxicity, creating a more intentional, holistic, and proactive approach to designing products, supply chains, and business operations.

An important consideration to note here is that in a systems-thinking approach, the sum of the parts does not always equal the whole. That is to say, inherently sustainable processes do not necessarily create inherently sustainable products. That’s something we get asked a lot, by the way. Chemical pathways and engineering solutions may require material or energy inputs that are not always “nontoxic” in their native element. But when combined with other substances, or when processes are progressed through less energy-intensive phases, the entire system may live up to the metrics on the Sustainability Scorecard. It all goes back to intentional design at each stage of the product life cycle—something that nature does exceedingly well.

Look to Nature for Sustainable Product Design

Complex problem solving requires creativity and inspiration. One important source of inspiration for designing the future is the natural world. After 3.8 billion years, who knows better what works, what is appropriate, and, most important, what lasts?

Janine Benyus is cofounder of the Biomimicry Institute in Montana and author of the book Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. The Biomimicry Institute was launched in 2006 to promote and educate the leading design thinkers of tomorrow in leveraging solutions preexisting in nature. This practice shifts the focus of designers from thinking of nature purely as a supply-chain input or physical input to an intellectual property asset or knowledge management database.

According to the Institute’s website, “Biomimicry is a practice that learns from and mimics the strategies found in nature to solve human design challenges in a regenerative way.” Biomimicry, as described by Benyus, lies at the intersection of biology and nature, design thinking, innovation, and technology. Most important, it offers a unique path toward unexpected solutions for sustainable innovation. In her work, Benyus has already catalogued countless examples of innovation inspired by living and nonliving organisms.

There are several firms that have applied biological system-based insights in their product redesign to create strategic sustainability advantages. The firm Mycoworks, for example, has developed a methodology for preparation of very fine mycelium, the thread-like root structure of the mushroom. This intricate structure is responsible for nutrient transfer, energy and water transfer in the vegetation under the fungus. Now, Mycoworks has created sustainable leather from mycelium, in an exclusive collaboration with luxury goods designer Hermès.

Looking to biology can provide unexpected insight into sustainable product development and supply-chain networks, including navigating complex issues in manufacturing, end-of-life considerations, and even performance measurement.

Take human waste. That’s right, feces. The World Health Organization estimates that over four billion individuals lack access to toilets or are affected by the lack of a system to safely and hygienically dispose of waste.¹ According to the UN, at least 1.2 billion people worldwide are estimated to drink water that is not protected against contamination from feces, and nearly 700 million individuals globally still practice open defecation due to lack of waste disposal strategies.² In geographies where these issues are prevalent, childhood diarrhea is closely associated with poor hygiene and communicable disease, and is a leading cause of mortality (approximately 1.5 billion deaths of children under five per year).

Enter the iThrone.

The iThrone, a solution developed by Changewater Labs, leverages several nature-based strategies to address both the access and the sanitation-related end-of-life considerations for human feces. Its approach to “flushing” mimics plants’ strategy of using evapotranspiration to pull moisture from soil, releasing it in molecular form through stomata cells on their leaves. As a result, the iThrone can convert about 90 to 95 percent of human waste into pure water vapor—a clever idea, considering that approximately 95 percent of human waste is urine. Any solids that are left at the bottom of the toilet can be leveraged as fertilizer or for other uses. What’s more, the iThrone also uses a pee-powered bio-battery to turn urine into electricity.

PROPERTIES OF TRADITIONAL AND UNEXPECTED SOLUTIONS LEVERAGING BIO-BASED ELEMENTS

And just to emphasize that sustainability can and should be financially viable, the Gates Foundation has determined that not only does every invested dollar in toilets produce a return on investment of five dollars, but the size of the opportunity could reach approximately $6 billion in the future.³

From Sustainable Design to Unexpected Solutions in Three Steps

When it comes to designing solutions to complex problems, we can boil the entire process into three really simple steps:

▪ Redefine the problem. There is nothing more tragic than the right solution to the wrong problem.

▪ Reengineer. Once you have identified your constraints, it’s time to design (and redesign) for these seemingly conflicting design characteristics.

▪ Optimize the solution. Perfect sustainability and functionality occur when the product itself no longer needs to exist.

And the results are almost never what you’d expect.

Redefine the Problem

Design is the first statement of human intention, and when we use it to re-define performance and what we want to introduce into the universe, it changes the questions we ask.

In redesigning, the first question to ask is, what are the product qualities that will hook your future audience? Don’t compromise on them when developing the list of specifications.

Uncover the answers you need through a series of really good questions that challenge the preconceived notions that led to the present design. Hal Gregersen, a leading authority on creating innovative cultures at some of the most dynamic companies in the world, and director of MIT’s Leadership Center, sees questions as quests. The right questions, he states repeatedly in his conference talks, writing, and tweets, take on the fundamental assumptions that everyone is holding as accepted frameworks. It’s what we call finding the absurdity.

So here’s one: Why are citizens in the most powerful country in the world the least likely to be able to afford getting sick?

It’s a timely question for sure, as COVID-19, the latest pandemic to rock our world, has shed light on every gap, health risk, and supply-chain and economic inefficiency impacting care delivery networks in the United States. No one is safe, and most of the country cannot afford care. Let’s dig further as to why and how one pharmaceutical company leveraged this absurd reality to design a good thing better.

Pneumonia, one of the many illnesses experienced by COVID-19 patients, is the second most common hospital-acquired infection in critically ill patients. The culprit is a significantly stubborn gram-negative bacteria that has become resistant to conventional antibiotics and that affects ventilated patients at an astonishingly high rate. It is expensive to treat, in part due to the high cost of producing the specific antibiotics that work against it.

When it comes to the high cost of treating pneumonia, pharmaceutical company Merck & Company recognized the absurdity and began asking some righteous questions. What they led to was the reimagination of its purification process for its antibiotic Zerbaxa. In doing so, Merck scientists were able to reduce the mass index (in simple terms, the ratio of waste to the desired product) of the drug by 75 percent and the raw material cost by 50 percent, and increase yields by 50 percent.⁴ The new process also reduces water use by approximately 3.7 million gallons annually and energy use by 38 percent. They found the absurdity in their current reality and used it to design a more sustainable and profitable product—better for consumers and for Merck’s bottom line.

It is only when you ask the right questions—or create the right problem statement—that you can generate the right solution. In fact, according to researchers at the Cradle to Cradle Innovation Institute, a nonprofit organization that supports circular-economy design-thinking activities, the greatest return on investments in design usually comes from redefining the problem, as Paul has illustrated here.

Depending on the challenge you want to solve, the articulation of the problem can differ and lead to surprisingly different results. We have found that “good” problem statements home in on a few key levers that really change the game:

▪ Functions rather than a specific problem

▪ The source of the problem, not the symptoms

A good problem statement can lead to unexpected solutions that result in breakthrough, leapfrog advances. A poor problem statement can limit the ultimate benefit of the solution. Let’s take transportation as an example.

Problem statement 1: I need my car engine to provide four miles per gallon incremental increase in mileage.

Problem statement 2: I need to ensure access to where I want to go in the most efficient, effective, safe, and sustainable manner for myself.

The design states that arise out of each problem statement are vastly different from each other.

If I articulate the problem statement as a requirement to increase mileage by four miles per gallon, my incremental benefit for the invested FTEs (full-time equivalents) and money will be an increase in efficiency. This can be brought about through a variety of ways—for example, the use of lighter-weight materials to reduce the overall mass of the car, or perhaps incremental engine efficiencies.

The second, more effective problem statement opens us up to the domain of reengineering or redesign rather than the narrower focus of addressing incremental improvements. It might lend itself to a hybrid or fuel-cell system for energy, a change in the structure of the car for better aerodynamics, and perhaps even an ability to capture heat and energy loss for reuse.

When we redefine the problem statement as one of “access,” we end up designing to meet mobility needs rather than to increase efficiency. This redefinition expands the system boundary, allowing us to think about mobility needs in a much larger context. It could result in perhaps a more effective public transportation system or an urban-planning solution in which commercial and residential spaces are placed within walking distance (or even on top of each other!).

In the first design state, you might end up with a car that meets the desired requirements, perhaps with some reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. In the second state, you might decide to eliminate automobiles entirely, resulting in the removal of automobile-related environmental impacts, denser yet smarter urban development and growth, and potential improved health outcomes from walking to and from work. You might find your way to redesigning the entire automobile industry by way of eliminating the need for an automobile—this is the way to optimal solutions, as we discuss later in the chapter.

Here’s another great example that focuses on one of our biggest sustainability challenges today: the accumulation of plastics in the ocean and plastics’ negative, cascading effects on marine life, human health, and the ecosystem at large.

Problem statement 1: We need to reduce the consumption of plastics in daily life.

Problem statement 2: We need to develop a more sustainable alternative to plastic.

The latter was what researchers at the Biomimicry Institute came up with in attempting to solve the problem of plastic pollution. In their research, they found that polypropylene (commonly referred to as plastic #5) is the second most produced plastic by volume and one of the main contributors to global plastic pollution. In 2018, global production was fifty-six million metric tons. In refining the problem statement, the authors found that the problem wasn’t so much the consumption of plastics in daily life, but rather the lack of innovation, particularly in plastic #5. Therefore, when designers work on developing a sustainable alternative to plastic, polypropylene is a valuable, practical, high-impact place to start.

On the surface, the first problem statement, which centers on curtailing consumption, makes sense. But on analysis, there are several barriers to such an approach. What is really in our control as individuals? Is it simply a matter of mass behavioral change? Think of the number of individuals who would have to research alternatives to plastics, in every geography, through every income level, in order to create measurable and sustainable long-term change. It may be practical for some individuals, but this is not always possible and requires significant planning—another challenge to wide adoption.

That’s because the role of plastics in our everyday lives cannot be understated. Plastics not only save lives but enable critical economic activities that would quite simply be far too expensive or labor intensive without them. The Macarthur Foundation, in its 2016 report titled The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future of Plastics and Catalyzing Action, called plastics the “workhorse of the economy.”⁵

Maybe, then, the problem statement shouldn’t be about reducing consumption but about increasing the recycling of plastics. But this approach has significant limitations too. In our busy lives, it is challenging to recycle all the plastic we consume on a daily basis. And even if we have the energy and motivation to do so, the city where each consumer lives needs to be able to process each type of plastic. It’s important to note here that plastic types #6 and #7 can’t presently be recycled. Furthermore, most plastics collected for recycling in the US used to be shipped to Asian countries for recycling and further processing. But in 2019, China cut back on the import of all trash coming from the US. With few recycling plants in the US, this has left domestic consumers with a dead end to their recycling plans.

Perhaps then a strategy for managing plastic pollution is to address the operating model by which they are currently consumed. After only a one-time use, 95 percent of plastic packaging material worth approximately $80-$120 billion annually is lost to the economy.⁶ When plastics are lost from the economy, they enter natural systems, depleting the value the natural environment provides to the economy and on which economic activities rely. The cost of such externalities from plastic packaging, in addition to the cost of GHG emissions from plastic production, is conservatively estimated at $40 billion annually—more than the global plastic packaging industry’s profit pool, according to the MacArthur Foundation.⁷

So the “take-make-dispose” value chain of plastics may be an area ripe for innovation. And as we further refine the problem statement, another solution becomes clear: the development of a sustainable, biodegradable, and cheap-to-scale plastic alternative. It is such a simple and elegant idea—just like every great leapfrog innovation.

Reengineer

Julie Zimmerman, professor of green engineering at Yale School of the Environment, and her team advocate for the use of a tool known as the life-cycle assessment (LCA) directly in the reengineering phase, rather than later on down the path of development. We recommend using this tool in conjunction with or to inform the completion of our scorecard for accuracy of reporting.

Julie’s pioneering work has not only established the fundamental framework for her field but has furthered industrial and engineering progress on designing safer chemicals and (nano)materials, novel (nano) materials for water treatment, and analyses of the water-energy nexus.⁸

The LCA, as it’s commonly known to green engineers, helps us understand the real, system-wide environmental impacts of a product at each stage of its “life”—from production to manufacturing to distribution, use, and disposal. As Julie explains, the digital age we live in, with the fast pace of innovation and speed to market, often lacks a comprehensive understanding of environmental and human health impacts associated with products, processes, and technologies.⁹ And according to Paul Hawken, renowned environmentalist, the amount of material used as inputs to the manufacturing process that ultimately forms the end product is 6 percent.¹⁰ Further, 80 percent of these products are single use, which means that their end-of-life graveyard is likely a landfill. Ultimately, the entire product, from development to end of life, arrives in the graveyard.

The LCA offers a system-wide view that enables designers to ensure that the environmental impact is minimized at each stage and not simply moved from one stage to another. For example, it can help to assess whether a decrease in the impact on air quality increases the impact on waste accumulation, or whether creating a product that is recyclable ends up increasing the environmental burden in the production or manufacturing stage. Take car manufacturing, for example. If a gate-to-gate or single-component analysis of a car manufacturing process is conducted, the emission footprint that is reported may be very low. The reason for this is that the majority of emissions emitted are in the use phase of the vehicle—after customers have purchased the vehicle rather than during the manufacturing of the car. So the LCA can really help designers understand where the environmental impact is occurring and how to make decisions to improve the negative externalities of the entire system—from cradle to grave.

Julie explains that the LCA is often inaccurately used as a deterministic tool, when in fact it is a directional or decision-making tool and should be used as such early on in the design process. The advantage of this early introduction of the LCA is that it enables teams to identify future hotspots and create alternatives that reduce the overall impact of the entire system. Right at the outset, it helps you understand key questions that most major corporations today address in their risk models, such as: Worker safety—how much of the chemical will workers be exposed to during the manufacturing of the product? How much of the input will be released to the environment? And perhaps a question that draws much consumer attention: How much of the general population will be exposed to the substance, whether through water, air-quality effects, or otherwise? Does the exposure change over time, and who is affected the most—humans? or perhaps earthworms? These fate-exposure assessments can be incredibly revealing, and provide opportunities for data-driven, sustainable product and supply-chain construction. The LCA can also be linked to risk models, health metrics, and other safety data points tracked at the organizational level, making it effective from a development and operations perspective.

Currently, few firms use LCAs, especially in the product design phase. But there is a growing body of research supporting the potential of the LCA to identify the best manufacturing or supply-chain inputs for sustainability.

Optimize the Solution

Optimizing the solution requires the biggest-picture perspective of all the steps; it takes an intentionally system-level approach. That’s because the resulting product or solution must fit into the entire system and cause an improvement in a multidimensional manner. In other words, this step ensures system integrity in addition to designing a better product.

Optimization of the solution occurs when the following are considered:

1. There is a desired state.

2. There is a present state.

3. There exist alternative methods for moving from point 2 to point 1.

To come up with alternative methods for achieving the desired state, designers must

1. Use all information to ask important questions about the product

▪ How will the product be used?

▪ How should the product be optimized? (When viewed through the system lens, you may realize that the innovative product causes some new risks or concerns to the entire system—e.g., perhaps it increases the overall energy expenditure of the entire manufacturing process, or perhaps the materials required to make the product are expensive, and cheaper alternatives are required.)

▪ How should the product be recovered? (For example, have we developed end-of-life strategies to recover, upcycle, and so on?)

▪ What is the ideal way to provide this service/product? What is the most effective way to provide the service/product? What is the best way to achieve durability, reliability of supply, and yet avoid immortality?

2. Consider all assumptions

▪ Are there any assumptions that were left out of the initial analysis? (We want to make sure that we have captured all the criteria that are required for the product to function with ideal performance in the system into which it will enter.)

▪ Is there any redundancy in the system? (Any overlaps or duplicates can typically be discarded unless they provide value along other parameters.)

3. Assess all implementation issues

▪ How will degradation be handled?

▪ How will end of life be handled?

▪ Is everything recyclable or able to be upcycled?

▪ Am I able to recover all my initial inputs and therefore fulfill a circular model, or does my end of life largely belong in the graveyard?

This is where the Sustainability Scorecard is critical, because you can use it to assess your entire system. In determining implementation issues related to a particular method or solution, look to the relevant KPIs for waste reduction, maximizing efficiency and performance, renewable inputs, and safe degradation. But optimal solutions—that is, true innovations—occur when all the benefits of the product can be achieved without the product. Consider the evolution of technology. Technologies tend to evolve in similar ways toward ideality—an ideal future state wherein all the benefits of the product can be achieved and the product itself ceases to exist in the state that we know it. (Remember the discussion about F-factor earlier in this book?) Consider the telephone. Not too far back in the past, phone lines traversed much of the landscape in most US cities and towns, carrying electronic signals that facilitated real-time communication. The concept itself was a leapfrog innovation when it arrived. Now, these telephone wires largely do not exist—unless you are watching a period drama wherein the landline serves to re-create the late 1990s. The unexpected innovation here was the cell phone. (The smartphone was incremental, replacing telephone wires and bringing the power of a laptop to consumers’ fingertips.) The leapfrog innovation for decaffeinated coffee is the growth of non-GMO decaffeinated beans in Hawaii, completely eliminating the need for carcinogenic methylene fluoride to chemically decaffeinate the beans.

Less-Bad Solutions Aren’t “Unexpected” Solutions

When it comes to sustainability and designing for the future, it’s simply not good enough to be less bad than what came before. Consumers demand better and are looking to organizations to figure it out and scale.

Cosmetics, food production and distribution, sectors within consumer packaged goods, and others are homing in on sustainability as the next wave of design differentiation. Customers in this space demand products that are nontoxic, and they are educated about the supply-chain inputs and their effects on health and wellness or their local environment. But what happens when your customers don’t demand it? Henry Ford has famously stated that if he had asked his customers what they wanted, they would have “asked him for a faster horse.” It is said that Steve Jobs recommended that instead of asking customers what they want, “observe them, and figure out what they want before they do because people often don’t know what they want until they are shown it.” Strategy and innovation’s design challenge today is to read things that are not yet on the page, to deliver the unexpected.

Challenge your assumptions. Look to nature. Nature has been perfecting elegant design and product development for millennia. Develop better problem statements. Reengineer from the bottom up. Set your sights on optimal—not just improved—solutions using the Sustainability Scorecard as your guide.