The modern green response to these new environmental and social pressures attempt to make things better through new or altered methods of consumption. We’ve seen an explosion of everything from recycled paper to hybrid cars to green cleaning products to energy efficient electronics as purported solutions. This, unfortunately, is flawed logic — digging slower won’t stop a hole from getting deeper. By placing human (market) needs at the center of the equation, we inherently place our (human) needs above all others, driving us further from sustainable practices by emphasizing aspects of convenience and short-term gain over appropriate solutions that deliver systemic long term prosperity.

From a very interesting re-think of design philosophy by Eric Wilmot:

1. User-centered design is no longer appropriate

“In the spirit of progress and “triple bottom line” (i.e., economic, social, environmental) development, how might we start to discover new opportunities that generate wealth without destroying our planet? How might we challenge our existing approach of framing problems to provide more holistically responsible solutions that continue to drive economic growth?

To understand where we need to go, it’s important to understand how we got here. Contemporary design and marketing practices have emphasized “human-centeredness.” Human-centered has become synonymous with “user-centered,” which historically relates to the designed interactions between technology and humans. Microsoft Windows was a user-centered solution to the then-classic DOS operating systems.

However, the current interpretation of human-centered has expanded to indulge human desires at the expense of other equally critical considerations. This is a dangerous interpretation that has become default for many leading academic and professional creative practices. Don Norman explains the main concern of such unquestioning adoption of human centered approaches: “The focus upon individual people (or groups) might improve things for them at the cost of making it worse for others.”

2. Calculating true cost

“How then, might we begin to start designing solutions that inherently meet ecosystem needs first, while creatively and iteratively creating economic value and stimulus to bring concepts to reality?

Hartmut Esslinger, the founder of frog design, has recently called for the disclosure and integration of Ecological Load Factor (ELF) in pricing the stuff we consume.

Load is a term for how much negative ecological impact is incurred by the making, shipping, use, and disposal of a product or a service. His call is not the first in this topic area.

This notion of true pricing is one such call made by pioneers like Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, Janine Benyus, Ray Anderson, William McDonough, and the plethora of players in the current sustainable business movement who continue to challenge and innovate ways of creating economic wealth while simultaneously improving associated social and environmental conditions.

What is striking about these leaders is their ability to uniquely approach problems in ways that break conventional human-first approaches. Maybe they start with the target (zero-waste) and reverse engineer, or perhaps they look to nature and biomimicry as inspiration for new ways to approach chemistry. What is inspiring about these approaches is that they are slowly becoming recognized as valid inspirational approaches to reframe the way we look at the world around us, and design in a more balanced and benign fashion.”