In the late 1980s, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) convened and subsequently published the Brundtland Report, which included the report “Our Common Future.” This report called for sustainable development with the following definition: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” A good initiative, however, it does present a conflicting statement regarding the meaning of the word “sustainable.” While it used to be a concept used to indicate a certain quality value (more or less sustainable), it now also has a new, additional definition emphasizing the use and awareness of materials and their impact on the future. The fact that we’ve given the word “sustainable” a new meaning has meant that all sorts of products can suddenly be considered very sustainable, as long as the story is told correctly.
Good Intentions
Despite the good intentions of this new definition, it has also led to a false sense of sustainability. For example, single-use plastics, such as plastic cups and cutlery, have been banned since mid-2021. The Brundtland Report certainly contributed to this, but bio-based disposable tableware has taken its place. Beautiful wooden forks and knives and food from a bamboo container all sound very sustainable, of course, and according to our new definition, they are. However, the new definition completely misses the mark here. I understand that wooden or bamboo cutlery is intended as an alternative to plastic, but in my opinion, single-use of such products is not sustainable, especially compared to stainless steel cutlery.
When I look at sustainability, especially in product development, I’d like to separate the two definitions. Sustainability should purely refer to a product’s lifespan. It can be better and therefore longer than a competitor’s, and the consumer may choose one or the other, either financially or consciously. One can try to make products even more sustainable by extending their lifespan or designing them for easy repairs. This automatically impacts the Brundtland definition, as a new product doesn’t need to be purchased until later.
I’m not suggesting we lose sight of the Brundtland definition. Developing products from regenerative materials with the smallest possible ecological footprint is a good thing in every respect. However, I believe we need to come up with a different term for this; my suggestion is “sustainable.” This might not sound as good as “sustainable,” but it captures the message better. For example, we don’t want a toilet roll to be sustainable at all; it has to decompose as quickly as possible after being flushed. It would be great if, for every tree that has to be cut down for a batch of toilet rolls, we could plant a new tree. This would create a process that could continue indefinitely.
In English, this distinction is much clearer. Durable means long-lasting and sustainable means “sustainable.” This way, the two concepts could be used alongside each other and even reinforce each other. Because when you score well on sustainability and a product is also “sustainable,” the world becomes a little better each time.
This article was written by Niels Schouten. Niels is an industrial designer, motion technologist and director at Fabrique Invent.
