Imagine living in a world where there was no waste—that’s right, not less waste but no waste. Where companies didn’t “go green” (at least for advertising’s sake) to appeal to guilt-ridden customers searching for some product that they could feel less bad about buying; rather, they re-evaluated not only their priorities but also the possibility of what their product could be, how it could serve both humans and the natural world. Is it possible that the corporate giants ruling the capitalist landscape might adjust their business plans to include fostering a sense of environmental stewardship without having to sacrifice economic benefit? According to Michael Braungart and William McDonough—authors of Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things—it is.
It’s not everyday that you come across a discussion of environmental concerns that discusses the notion of being good rather than being less bad. As the authors mention, too often does the increasingly-publicized discourse focus on reducing one’s footprint, making one’s presence less damaging, all the while instilling a sense of guilt (not to mention helplessness, given the lack of alternatives to the current system). This is problematic for two main reasons: first of all, the solutions offered in response—such as reusing and recycling—might seem optimal in theory, but in reality when these items aren’t initially designed with such an eventual purpose (or any purpose after initial “consumption”) in mind, they could be doing more harm than the unsuspecting customer is aware of. Take a water bottle made out of recycled materials, for instance—are there unintended hazardous chemicals leaching into the water? What was the production process like—how much energy did it require, what by-products did it release?; these are all crucial factors to consider. Designing products with these kinds of considerations in mind can help facilitate “eco-effectiveness” in lieu of the normative “eco-efficiency”—essentially approaching the design process with the intent of allowing either industrial up-cycling (such as with the unique non-paper material the book is made out of) or eventual biological contribution (biodegradable or compostable materials, say); again, no waste. While the issue seems to lie inherently in an object’s design, it certainly also speaks to the priorities and mindset facilitating its production. Is the ultimate goal one of short-term, individualized economic profit or one bearing long-term effects and potential—on a societal level—in mind? For an industry to truly “progress,” the motivation and mindsets that have enabled its existence thus far must be re-assessed in order to re-work its output. After all, we’re not talking about simply shifting to a more euphemistic discourse while the system stays the same; ideally, mindsets would shift and the actions would follow.
The second shortcoming of such negative discourse is its ability to undermine the positive efforts that people can make, even if on a small-scale for now. Rather than simply listing all of the system’s failings, the authors counterbalance what can be overwhelming information on its own with action steps that companies can take. And yes, there are also things that people can do now, without having to wait for corporations to change; for instance, planting a tree, growing a garden, composting, building structures that utilize natural power (working with the elements, especially the sun, instead of against them), even fostering a little imagination. You might support local industry and buy organic produce from the farmer’s market in addition to supporting companies that are making decisions with environmental concerns in mind. Of course, with the lack of transparency on the production process available to customers, it can be difficult to know—or trust—not only a company’s actions and standards but also their underlying motives. How are labels of “cage-free” or “organic” being regulated, for instance? One must keep in mind that there aren’t instant, perfect solutions, change takes time—it’s a process (and anyone who tells you otherwise is probably just trying to sell you something). Let’s not forget, though, that there is such a thing as a step in the right direction.
Even if corporations are ultimately still interested in economic gain (because they will be), they may begin to see that re-evaluation of responsibility will serve not only them but also the interdependent world ecosystems as a whole. Sure, it’s a potential “win-win,” but maybe that’s not the point.
