Content uploaded by Gavin Melles
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gavin Melles on May 20, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Deakin University Library]
On: 19 May 2015, At: 18:40
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
CoDesign: International Journal of
CoCreation in Design and the Arts
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncdn20
Socially responsible design: thinking
beyond the triple bottom line to
socially responsive and sustainable
product design
Gavin Melles a , Ian de Vere a & Vanja Misic a
a Faculty of Design , Swinburne University of Technology , 144
High St, Prahran, VIC, 3181, Australia
Published online: 23 Nov 2011.
To cite this article: Gavin Melles , Ian de Vere & Vanja Misic (2011) Socially responsible design:
thinking beyond the triple bottom line to socially responsive and sustainable product design,
CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 7:3-4, 143-154, DOI:
10.1080/15710882.2011.630473
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2011.630473
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Socially responsible design: thinking beyond the triple bottom line to
socially responsive and sustainable product design
Gavin Melles*, Ian de Vere and Vanja Misic
Faculty of Design, Swinburne University of Technology, 144 High St, Prahran, VIC 3181,
Australia
(Received 28 January 2011; final version received 1 September 2011)
As the focus of product design has shifted from exclusively commercial to
sustainability and social concerns, design education in this area has endeavoured
to keep pace. Victor Papanek’s book Design for the real world, crystallised many
of the systemic social, economic and environmental concerns into an argument
for change through eco-design, inclusive design and, in business and corporate
contexts, a triple bottom line of social, environmental and economic factors.
Simultaneously, design has developed and evolved participatory and co-design
approaches, with high-profile consultancies such as IDEO proving that early
involvement of designers with ‘wicked’ social and environmental problems is
possible. This position paper revisits Papanek’s agenda for industrial design, and
examines the link with participatory approaches, and existing socially responsible
design agendas and examples. Identifying eight critical features of socially
sustainable product design, this paper suggests that Papanek’s original agenda for
socially responsible and sustainable design has been partly fulfilled and must be
developed further through the changed role of the designer as facilitator of
flexible design solutions that meet local needs and resources.
Keywords: social design; sustainability; systems; product design; education;
socially responsive
1. Design culture, society and environment: industrial design in context
The idea that design should be responsive to society and the environment is not a
recent concern. Since the emergence of industrial design at the end of the nineteenth
century as the creative vehicle for mass production, the response of design to social,
technological and environmental concerns has been a shifting relationship mediated
by various institutions and individuals (e.g. Forty 1992). Counter-movements to an
exclusive concern with mass production and a return to more human values have
come in various forms, including the William Morris-led Arts and Crafts Movement
of the late nineteenth century, the explicit artistic and social agendas of the Bauhaus,
and Viktor Papanek’s call for socially responsible design three decades ago. Much
has changed in the latter part of the twentieth and the early twenty-first century, with
technology now playing a major role in the digital dematerialisation of design and
the consequence emergence of new fields of design, for instance interaction design
*Corresponding author. Email: gmelles@swin.edu.au
CoDesign
Vol. 7, Nos. 3–4, September–December 2011, 143–154
ISSN 1571-0882 print/ISSN 1745-3755 online
Ó2011 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2011.630473
http://www.tandfonline.com
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 18:40 19 May 2015
(e.g. Moles and Jacobus 1988), so that product design engages as much with
intangibles as intangibles such as systems and services (e.g. Silva and Simoes 2011).
The diffusion of a culture of design and its values in society through tangibles and
intangibles, exemplified by cell phones and other personal devices (e.g. Goggin 2006),
has affected the Western industrialised world and the industrialising countries. Julier
(2008) argues that design culture is the co-determination of objects, spaces and
images by designing, production and consumption; however, these interacting
dimensions may or may not be influenced by considerations of social responsibility
and sustainability. The practical transformation of these considerations into
participatory or co-design, notably absent in Julier (2008), features increasingly on
the product design agenda, expanding the domain of design culture beyond
conventional product and manufacturing considerations. Consumers, producers and
designers are now being called on to consider the responsibility of their decisions in
relation to design objects in a world of diminishing resources and climate change.
Nigel Whiteley (1993), in Design for society, charts the range of economic,
environmental and social changes that converged in the late 1980s to globally
challenge a consumption and production (and design) culture hitherto relatively
unresponsive to or ignorant of transformations taking place, which would make
responsibility, sustainability and ethics keywords for the late twentieth century.
Victor Papanek’s (1991) Design for the real world remains one of the most read books
in the design world, and was the first to address in detail the ethics and social
responsibility of (industrial) designers. In his book, Papanek exemplified using with
the 10 cent Tin Can Radio some of characteristics of social responsibility and
sustainability that we wish to emphasise here. Working together with a student,
Papanek came up with a ‘one-transistor radio, using no batteries or current and
designed specifically for the needs of developing countries . . . The radio was, of
course, non-directional, receiving any and all stations simultaneously. But in
emerging countries, this was then of no importance: there was only one broadcast’
(1985, pp. 224–225).
For industrial designers, those most intimately concerned with the design of
objects, Papanek’s social, economic and technological sustainability concerns are
traditionally linked to materials selection where environmental costs can be
minimised (Ljungberg 2007). Despite the proliferation of ‘eco’ terms and designs
purporting to address these issues (e.g. Holdaway et al., 2002), Papanek’s agenda
remains only partially and unsystematically embedded in design education and
practice (Boks and Diehl 2006, Ramirez 2006). As Stegall (2006, p. 56) has noted,
conventional product sustainability considerations, while important, do not
adequately address the effects of the use and disposal of such products. A broader
agenda is required, demanding also greater intellectual and practice engagement
from industrial and product design. As Bakshi and Fiksel (2003) note for
engineering, ‘incorporating sustainability into engineering requires the ‘‘boundaries’’
of the process to be greatly expanded – beyond the plant and even beyond the
corporation’ (p. 1350). Such a shift demands more intellectual engagement from
practitioners and educators.
Industrial design is often positioned as the styling end of the manufacturing cycle
and production dimension. In popular US textbooks such as Ulrich and Eppinger,
for example, industrial design constitutes a particular moment or phase in the
product design and development process. For other writers with a stronger design
engineering focus in the product development process (Cross 2008), industrial and
144 G. Melles et al.
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 18:40 19 May 2015
product design is a systematic and creative process with potential for early
involvement in the product design process. Industrial design engineering (IDE) and
product design engineering (PDE), for example, develop capacities in graduates to
address both engineering and design concerns more widely throughout the product
design and development process (Boks and Diehl 2006; de Vere et al., 2010). Such
explicitly interdisciplinary programmes may be the right direction towards truly
sustainable design education.
2. Socially responsibly sustainability: triple line and beyond
Before explicitly addressing the implementation of Papanek’s agenda and critique of
his proposals, we want to briefly examine one of the terms – the triple bottom line
(3BL) – often associated with sustainability as a potential translation of Papanek’s
agenda. Although other models of sustainable product and system development have
been developed to supplement or supersede the 3BL (Maxwell and van der Vorst
2003), the term and its assumptions remain popular.
The 3BL is a concept proposed by sustainability guru John Elkington and one
used – as the name suggests – to attempt to account (in a bookkeeping sense) for the
costs and benefits of sustainable practice. In a recent review of the range of terms
included under this general heading, Hacking and Guthrie (2008) suggest that
clarification is required. Efforts are afoot to develop more complex models for
decision making in this field (e.g. Waage 2007), but even within the business and
corporate field there is doubt about the usefulness of 3BL. Thus, Norman and
McDonald (2004) are sceptical, claiming that the 3BL offers nothing new and adds
nothing to current discussions of corporate social responsibility, and specifically that
what is sound about the idea of a 3BL is not novel, and what is novel about the idea
is not sound (see also Henrique and Richardson 2004). This is also the case from
other scholars (Gray and Milne 2002). Ehrenfield (2004), a leading writer and
scholar on industrial ecology, is particularly scathing of quick fixes such as the 3BL,
arguing for more systematic and ‘radical’ approaches to sustainability, particularly
in relation to product design (Ehrenfield 1997).
One recent example of integrating 3BL and product design sees ‘sustainable
design as design which aims to achieve triple-bottom line ideals by striving to
produce products that minimize their detriment to the environment while, at the
same time, achieving acceptable economic benefits to the company and, wherever
possible, having a positive impact on society’ (Diehl et al., 2007). The commercial
and material meanings of the term are clear here but inadequate in addressing the
social and environmental impacts in the sense we are discussing. In general, most
recent literature is sceptical of the usefulness and meaningfulness of the concept,
while concern to develop socially responsible design at the intersection of business
and design remains a high priority (e.g. Cooper 2010).
Writers and practitioners in the design fields have attempted in various ways to
update Papanek’s proposals. Margolin and Margolin (2002), for example, focus on a
social model for design in the context of service (and product) provision. In so doing,
they argue that Papanek’s Design for the real world offered an overly drastic division
between commercial or market and design interests:
Papanek argues that socially responsible designers must organise their own interven-
tions outside the mainstream market, yet he gives little guidance as to how this might be
done. We believe that many professionals share the goals of designers who want to do
CoDesign 145
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 18:40 19 May 2015
socially responsible work, and therefore we propose that both designers and helping
professionals find ways to work together (p. 27).
The authors then propose in very general terms how designers might contribute
to socially oriented service design at different stages in the process. In fact, we believe
a proper reading of Papanek does not create such a sharp social versus market
division at all. Nevertheless, corporate social responsibility and socially responsible
design do leverage businesses sensibility for the overall advantage of engaging in
design and related activities, not just for market and profit gain.
Cooper’s (2010) recent review of recent socially responsive initiatives in the UK
with Design Council sponsorship, including design for crime prevention, gives
concrete evidence of how business and design can collaborate in socially responsive
ways. The author exemplifies how the British Design Council has inspired and
motivated socially responsible design projects in areas such as Design for Patient
Safety (http://www.nrls.npsa.nhs.uk/resources/collections/design-for-patient-safety/),
The Learning Environments Campaign http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/publications/
learning-environments-campaign-prospectus/) and Design against Crime (see http://
www.designagainstcrime.com/). These projects, set in urban Britain, show the potential
of designers to create socially responsive design solutions in collaboration with other
experts and working closely with users. The requirements for providing holistic solutions
is complex: ‘Designers often have to take into account a complex range of issues and
develop methods of considering tradeoffs between, for example, crime and inclusiveness,
or the economic and social inclusiveness (as an example, consider neighbourhood
gentrification)’ (2010, p. 17). The need for a focus on developed and developing
countries is a healthy reminder about the scope and potential for socially responsible
design.
A further critique of Papanek has been that of Morelli, who claims that in
Western countries the relocation of jobs is creating mass unemployment and at the
same time substantial immigration flows are changing the labour market and socio-
cultural patterns (Morelli, 2007). Morelli states that not only the social patterns
change but also the new situation is generating a demand for solutions of high social
and cultural values. He describes a solution that empowers social and individual
capabilities, suggesting mistakenly such considerations were absent from Papanek.
He adds that users need to be an active part of the process of a value production and
also to be an active part of the community. Morelli thus proposes a shift of
designers’ activities from products to systematic human-centred participatory
solutions. Another dimension of user participation and design agency that has not
been so prominent is encouraging sustainable behaviour through product design
(Lilley 2009).
3. Socially responsible: an essential participatory mindset?
Morelli (2007) suggests that co-design and participation are required for
sustainable product innovation. New participatory design research methods and
practices, such as those envisioned in IDEO’s Human-Centred Design approach
and Toolkit (http://www.ideo.com/work/human-centered-design-toolkit/), exempli-
fy how this might be done. Brown and Wyatt (2010) describe design thinking as
an approach that uses interdisciplinary approaches and team members to solve
problems for product innovation. Exemplifying with bad examples of so-called
sustainable or eco-design solutions for third world countries, Brown and Wyatt
146 G. Melles et al.
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 18:40 19 May 2015
(2010) suggest that, ‘A better starting point is for designers to go out into the
world and observe the actual experiences of smallholder farmers, schoolchildren,
and community health workers as they improvise their way through their daily
lives . . . design thinkers become embedded in the lives of the people they are
designing for’ (2010, p. 33). The authors describe the five-stage design thinking
process from inspiration to product testing, used by the IDEO consultancy in a
range of environments; this process is also illustrated in detail in Brown (2008).
The user-centred approach of IDEO suggests a role for co-design but does not
explicitly relinquish expertise to users. If we refer to Liz Sanders’ (2008) depiction
of the current movements in design research and practice (Figure 1), we can see
the ways in which the boundaries of user-centred and participatory design
research and practice partly overlap. How this participatory mindset translates
into practice is the subject of a later paper (Sanders and Stappers 2008), where
the authors signal a shift from a broad user-centred to a participatory co-design
mindset and practice (see below). Participatory design, which we suggest should
be fundamental to socially responsible design, displaces the expertise and
Figure 1. Design research and practice (Sanders 2008).
CoDesign 147
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 18:40 19 May 2015
authority of the designer. Sanders and Stappers (2008) talk of a key change in
roles, with the designer playing the role of a facilitator and other roles in the
traditional design process also changing:
In co-design, on the other hand, the roles are mixed up: the person who will eventually
be served through the design process is given the position of ‘expert of his/her
experience’, and plays a large role in knowledge development, idea generation and
concept development. In generating insights, the researcher supports the ‘expert of his/
her experience’ by providing tools for ideation and expression. The designer and the
researcher collaborate on the tools for ideation because design skills are very important
in the development of the tools. The designer and researcher may, in fact, be the same
person. The designer still plays a critical role in giving form to the ideas (2008, p. 12).
This facilitator role in the performance of co-design and co-creation, we suggest,
is a new addition to the socially responsible design toolkit. With this in mind, we can
now examine some examples where a systemic approach to product design has
occurred, considering a much wider range of factors than typical for 3BL and some
versions of sustainable design. The following examples are drawn from more ‘exotic’
locations than those described by Cooper (2010), and aim to address a broad range
of systemic considerations in socially responsible product design. Implications for
design education are then presented at the end.
4. Definitions of socially responsible design
There are many examples of products resulting from social design agendas, some
more successful than others. Design ‘solutions’ range from products or systems that
utilise existing or new skills and workmanship, utilise natural local resources and
materials and are wholly manufacturable and maintained by the end user
communities or nearby regional centres, to ‘band aid’ or ‘parachute’ products that
are reliant on first world manufacturing and supply chains.
4.1. Some criteria
Those in developing nations (the other 90%) lack the basic fundamentals to live a
healthy and productive life, let alone the tools for self-determination and well-being.
This marginalisation is not confined to third world economies. In many ‘first world’
nations, disparities of wealth, opportunity and education lead to crime, substance
abuse and lack of realisation of potential or life fulfilment. Globalisation also has
had a significant effect on all global communities, and design has the potential to
make a significant contribution in all regions and communities. Some descriptions
(falsely called models) for socially responsible design have already been developed
but can read like a utopian agenda to save the world (e.g. http://www.sociallyr-
esponsibledesign.org). More realistic is the Design Against Crime Research Centres’
reference to socially responsive design (http://www.designagainstcrime.com/metho-
dology-resources/socially-responsive-design), which recognises the limited practical
power of designers to ‘change the world’ while promoting design responsive to social
issues as the primary driver, e.g. crime, in urban contexts.
For our own purposes, a more practical list of criteria by which to judge product
quality that is broader than 3BL but more focused than some of the utopian
proposals is required. We suggest that the success of socially responsible design can
be measured against the following criteria:
148 G. Melles et al.
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 18:40 19 May 2015
.Need: does the user or community need this product/solution?
.Suitability: is the design culturally appropriate?
.Relative affordability: is the outcome locally and regionally affordable?
.Advancement: does it create local or regional jobs and develop new skills?
.Local control: can the solution be understood, controlled and maintained
locally?
.Usability: is it flexible and adaptive to changing circumstances?
.Empowerment: does it empower the community to develop and own the
solution?
.Dependency: does it add to third world dependency?
As designers living in the first world, we have to let go of many of the
fundamental values of the market-driven design process. Industrial designers are
‘value adders’; that is, they enhance the perceived or market value of a product
through aesthetic styling, improved usability, enhanced user experience, lower
manufacturing cost, increased desirability, etc. Product designers traditionally ‘own’
the solution, it is ‘their’ product and they measure their success through a variety of
mostly market-driven agendas. Not only is this contrary to the co-design or
participatory design process where the most desirable outcome is a solution owned
by the user and their community, thus requiring designers to let go of their personal
product agendas, but also the very process of value adding becomes significantly
redundant in a functionality-driven solution.
Of course, there is value in any product that is a delight to use, one that satisfies
the visual and tactile senses and delights with the quality of its design and
manufacture. Styling is critical when a plethora of similar products is available in a
market-driven economy with designers tasked with gaining market share, but to
most in the developing world these are petty concerns, especially when the basic tools
for survival, health and well-being are at stake. Besides this fundamental adjustment
of values and expectations by the designer when engaged in socially responsible
design, there are other resultant dependency concerns to be addressed.
Dependency can result from inappropriate solutions, technically complex
products and non-local/regional solutions and is a likely outcome where
participatory design is not involved. Dependency can take many forms, including
financial, technical, material, manufacturing and supply, and social dependency, and
results in the product or solution failing to empower the user and their community.
Designers are typically remote from the communities and environments that they
are seeking to assist. As a result, their solutions are also ‘remote’, lacking the
essential local context necessary for viability. The most successful examples of
socially responsible design have emerged from co-design where designers have
engaged effectively with communities and then co-designed and co-manufactured a
solution that utilises local or regional materials, craftsmanship and expertise,
facilities new skills and knowledge acquisition, empowers the community and allows
the user to ‘own’ the solution. Designs that increase reliance on Western
manufacturing and supply chains are ‘band-aid’ solutions at best; increasing
financial dependency and denying communities the tools for self-determination.
Designers are trained to be technology dependent, eagerly embracing and
incorporating new materials, process and equipment in a relentless pursuit of the
ultimate design, often without consideration of the durability, maintenance or
accessibility of such products. While in first world economies this may result in
CoDesign 149
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 18:40 19 May 2015
frustration for the home handyperson who can no longer achieve car servicing at
home or replace the element in an electric kettle; in developing nations the effects are
catastrophic. Products with high levels of complexity (especially those with electronic
circuitry), while providing an immediate short-term solution, in the long term
contribute to the existing problem. This seems to be one of the problems with the oft-
touted one laptop per child programme which, while it attempts to solve social
inequities, has created a technology dependency (Kraemer et al., 2009). The solution
is not to throw technology at the problem, but rather to use appropriate local
materials and processes that can be easily replicated, maintained, improved and
adapted to meet changing needs. Papanek’s radio is an example of this approach: a
simple device consisting mostly of readily available, often scrap materials, not
requiring an external power source, and easily understood and maintained.
4.2. Critical analysis of cases
So, it is worthwhile examining some ‘socially responsible’ products in this context
and within the framework of criteria that we advocated earlier. Are the criteria of
need, suitability, affordability, advancement, local control, usability, empowerment
and dependency met, and does the solution allow the user and community to
determine their own destiny?
4.2.1. Example 1: The LifeStraw versus slow sand water filters
The LifeStraw (see http://www.vestergaard-frandsen.com/lifestraw), a personal
point-of-use water purification device, aims to make contaminated water drinkable
using iodine, mesh and carbon filters. It will filter a maximum of 1000 litres of water,
enough for one person for one year, and remove 99.9% of waterborne bacteria and
protozoan parasites. It has been criticised for being too expensive for its target
market and diverting attention from much needed long-term water infrastructure,
but is mostly provided by humanitarian organisations to those in need at no cost. So,
is it an example of good socially responsible design?
The LifeStraw addresses the needs of its users well, and is portable and effective
at providing safe drinking water, but it is a dependency-promoting product.
Although it is a clever design solution, the LifeStraw does not empower communities
to own the solution. As a ‘parachute’ product it is dependent on external supply
chains, cannot be produced locally, and lacks local context and engagement.
Alternative products, such as the Slow Sand Water Filter (see http://www.youtube.
com/watch?v¼zHilE1ukkjY), are almost as effective as the LifeStraw family
domestic purifier, but rely on readily available materials and simple local
construction. These water purification systems, while not portable or aesthetically
pleasing, nevertheless afford the local community ownership of the quality of their
future water supply, without dependence on imported technology.
4.2.2. Example 2: Smokeless Metal Stove and Kenya Ceramic Jiko
Among the many successful and appropriate designs by the Rural Integrated
Development Service in Nepal (RIDS-Nepal) is the Smokeless Metal Stove (see
http://www.rids-nepal.org/index.php/Smokeless_Metal_Stove_SMS.html) devel-
oped for remote Nepalese mountain communities. These stoves replace the
150 G. Melles et al.
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 18:40 19 May 2015
traditional use of open fires for cooking, heating and lighting, which have resultant
health issues (including respiratory and eye problems, cancer, pneumonia and
tuberculosis) and contribute to widespread deforestation. The design of the stove
(sheet metal construction, assembled on site with local mud used as an insulating
layer) addresses air pollution and resultant health, improves cooking, reduces
consumption of firewood by 50%, and heats water in a separate chamber for
cleaning and hygiene. But the stove is just part of a much larger and well-considered
product service system. Stoves are constructed in the regional business centre of
Nepalgunj by locals newly skilled in sheet metal fabrication and welding. This model
is an effective piece of socially responsible design empowerment as the end user
receives a product that is affordable and easily maintained, while urban workers
receive new skills and employment, and independence from poverty and outside
dependence, and this contributes to societal advancement.
The Kenya Ceramic Jiko (see http://www.solutions-site.org/kids/stories/
KScat2_sol60.htm) is another example that addresses our key socially responsible
design criteria. While providing effective cooking it also reduces fuel (charcoal)
consumption and toxic gas and particulate emissions through increased efficiency,
and addresses the issue of manufacturing costs through the use of discarded steel
packaging materials and locally sourced ceramic pots. It can be produced and
maintained locally, reducing external dependence and empowering communities to
own the solution.
4.2.3. Example 3: Hippo Roller and Q Drum
The Hippo Roller (see http://www.hipporoller.org/) and the Q Drum (see http://
www.qdrum.co.za/) pose interesting dilemmas. Although these successful products
mostly achieve their goals, they are also limited in the contribution that they make.
These rollers do not provide a long-term solution to problem of access to clean
water, but for those (mostly women) who spend most of their day transporting water
from source to community it makes a valuable contribution, as long they do not
need to traverse steep, uneven terrain. Disappointingly, with these products, in the
pursuit of affordability (which has not been achieved) several key areas of
functionality have been neglected. There is no brake or, in the case of the Q-drum
any steering control. An opportunity also exists for these rollers to incorporate water
purification filtration systems. But, more importantly, these rollers, by providing an
intermediary solution and resultant improvement to quality of life, may actually
delay the introduction of permanent water infrastructure.
Revisiting the critical socially responsible design criteria of need, suitability,
affordability, advancement, local control, usability, empowerment and dependency,
these roller solutions, while addressing needs and suitability (mostly) are not
affordable, do not adapt to changing needs, are not locally made or controlled and
further external dependency. In the style of the ‘Jiko’, it would be preferable to see a
roller solution that could be produced locally from reclaimed materials and local
expertise.
Together, the examples discussed above suggest that socially sustainable product
design is by any measure a complex task. While successful approaches to socially
responsive design in urban industrialised settings have been developed (see above),
the agendas and complexities of ‘exotic’ locations add other layers to the design
problems and solutions. Whether design education is up to the task of delivering
CoDesign 151
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 18:40 19 May 2015
graduates with the appropriate training and practice remains to be seen. This is the
subject of the final section.
5. Conclusion – industrial (product) design education: what is required?
Industrial design education in the twenty-first century demands new competences
and skills, including the ability to work in more complex ways with product and
system design (Yang et al., 2005). Margolin and Margolin (2002) suggest the
limitations of current educational approaches: ‘Students of social design will have to
learn more about social needs and how they are currently addressed by helping
professionals. They might do an internship with a clinical team in a psychiatric
hospital, a community agency, or a residential facility for the elderly. They would
also need a stronger background in sociology, psychology, and public policy. As far
as we are aware, no university programs specifically train social designers’ (p. 29). In
a recent review, Lasky
1
points out that a number of factors have contributed to
socially responsible design, which is a whole lot harder than it looks. In addition to
competition for funding, designers, according to Lasky, do not have what it takes to
cope:
Famine, drought, disease, pollution, violence, ignorance – such problems are systemic
and so seemingly intractable that social planners have described them as ‘wicked’.
Designers, who traditionally operate at the point where object (or communication)
meets user, lack the training for this grinding realm of competing interests and
entrenched behaviours – an arena where expertise includes the ability to influence policy
through delicate negotiations.
Socially responsible design poses many problems for educators. It is rarely
possible for students to actively engage with the communities and environments that
they seek to assist, especially those in third world locations. Engagement with
representatives from humanitarian aid agencies provides a connection to those
communities, but although empathy may be generated it is difficult for students to
gain a full understanding of the complex cultural, environmental and societal issues
they need to address. Consequently, while curricula may contribute to compassion
and enlightenment amongst student, student design solutions are typically ‘remote’
and often unsuccessful.
In many cases, for students to successfully engage in socially responsible design a
more local context is required, where students can co-design directly with the target
community. These ‘design interventions’ can greatly assist marginalised groups such
as ethnic minorities, economically disadvantaged people and indigenous groups,
through urban renewal activity, crime prevention and the provision of community
resources. It is in these areas where the proposals for socially responsive design by
the Design Against Crime group appear to be the most realistic and exemplified
through experience.
Based on recent reports from the British Design Council, Fuad-Luke (2007)
suggests that despite a plethora of books on eco-design and sustainability, design
professionals ‘often have an inadequate grasp of ‘‘design for environment’’, and are
rarely engaged in ‘‘design for society’’ (p. 25). Such claims are partly substantiated by
recent evidence in the literature (e.g. Ramirez 2006). This view is shared by others,
such as Stegall (2006), who notes that industrial and product design typically short
change views on sustainability by focusing on products and materials but rarely on
152 G. Melles et al.
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 18:40 19 May 2015
use. Such a state of affairs requires that a more complex ‘philosophy’ of
sustainability be included in industrial design education than may be typical. Non-
industrialised third-world settings introduce both methodological and intellectual
challenges to such designing which has yet to be fully developed.
Specific institutions, however, have taken a lead here. At Delft University the
IDE programme has championed sustainability throughout the curriculum in a
range of ways, and experience shows that only a broader realistic engagement with
systemic issues, e.g. safety, brings credible results (Boks and Diehl 2006). Although
sustainability is a commonly referenced term in most industrial design programmes,
the extent to which such issues are embedded in industrial design education is
questionable. We have observed both the significance and varied interpretations of
sustainability in design and institutional contexts (Melles et al. 2010).
Likewise, in our paper, which includes examples of project work from the
product design engineering at Swinburne University, we attempted to show how
students could simultaneously address environmental, material and social concerns.
These approaches were not limited to a narrow reading of the 3BL but rather require
and informed understanding of the need for and consequences of socially responsible
design work. We must recognise that, however, our successes to date have been
limited in scope compared to the agenda set out in this paper.
In these socially responsible projects, design is seen as the means to empower the
user; the resultant functional product, when viewed in its system of use, from cradle
to grave, must satisfy the objective of helping the user but in doing so must provide
the community with some economic gain (monetary, education, health, etc.) with
minimum environmental impact. In a user-centred co-design approach to developing
products, designers look further than just eco-design tools or user-centred design
information. They attempt to develop products (and or systems and services) that
address the holistic needs of society as well. This can really only be achieved by
understanding the user (and their needs) within their social and economic context,
and addressing these concerns in ways we have illustrated above. The challenge, as
Lasky notes,
1
is a substantial one.
Note
1. Metropolis Magazine, October 2010: http://www.metropolismag.com/story/20101020/the-
limited-power-of-good-intentions
References
Bakshi, B.R. and Fiksel, J., 2003. The quest for sustainability: challenges for process systems
engineering. AIChE Journal, 49 (6), 1350–1358.
Boks, C. and Diehl, J., 2006. Integration of sustainability in regular courses: experiences in
industrial design engineering. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14 (9–11), 932–939.
Brown, T., 2008. Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86 (6), 84–92, 141.
Brown, B.T. and Wyatt, J., 2010. Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social
Innovation Review, 30–35.
Cooper, R., 2010. Ethics and altruism: what constitutes socially responsible design? Design
Management Review, 16 (3), 10–18.
Cross, N., 2008. Engineering design methods: strategies for product design. 4th ed. New York:
Wiley.
Diehl, J., Van Leeuwen, G., and Daalhuizen, J., 2007. Base of the pyramid. Delft: Delft
University of Technology.
Ehrenfeld, J., 1997. Industrial ecology: a framework for product and process design. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 5 (1–2), 87–95.
CoDesign 153
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 18:40 19 May 2015
Ehrenfeld, J.R., 2004. Searching for sustainability: no quick fix. Reflections: The SoL Journal,
5 (8), 1–13.
Forty, A., 1992. Objects of desire: design and society since 1750. New York: Thames and
Hudson.
Fuad-Luke, A., 2007. Redefining the purpose of (sustainable) design: enter the design
enablers, catalysts of co-design. designers, visionaries and other stories. London:
Earthscan.
Goggin, G., 2006. Cell phone culture: mobile technology in everyday life. New York: Routledge.
Gray, R. and Milne, M., 2002. Sustainability reporting: who’s kidding whom? Chartered
Accountants Journal of New Zealand, 81 (6), 66–70.
Hacking, T. and Guthrie, P., 2008. A framework for clarifying the meaning of triple bottom-
line, integrated, and sustainability assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review,
28 (2–3), 73–89.
Holdway, R., Walker, D., and Hilton, M., 2002. Eco-design and successful packaging. Design
Management Journal (Former Series), 13 (4), 45–53.
Julier, G., 2008. The culture of design. 2nd ed. London: Sage.
Kraemer, K.L., Dedrick, J., and Sharma, P., 2009. One laptop per child: vision vs. reality.
Communications of the ACM, 52 (6), 66–73.
Lilley, D., 2009. Design for sustainable behaviour: strategies and perceptions. Design Studies,
30 (6), 704–720.
Ljungberg, L., 2007. Materials selection and design for development of sustainable products.
Materials and Design, 28 (2), 466–479.
Margolin, V. and Margolin, S., 2002. A ‘‘social model’’ of design: issues of practice and
research. Design Issues, 18 (4), 24–30.
Maxwell, D., and van der Vorst, R., 2003. Developing sustainable products and services.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 11 (8), 883–895.
Melles, G., et al., 2010. Sustainable product design: balancing local techniques and holistic
constraints through innovative curricula. Journal of Design Strategies, 4 (1), 42–51.
Moles, A.A. and Jacobus, D.W., 1988. Design and immateriality: what of it in a post
industrial society? Design Issues, 4 (1), 25–32.
Morelli, N., 2007. Social innovation and new industrial contexts: can designers ‘industrialize’
socially responsible solutions? Design Issues, 23 (4), 3–21.
Norman, W. and MacDonald, C., 2004. Getting to the bottom of ‘‘triple bottom line.’’
Business Ethics Quarterly, 14 (2), 243–262.
Papanek, V., 1991. Design for the real world: human ecology and social change. Revised 2nd ed.
London: Thames & Hudson.
Ramirez, M., 2006. Sustainability in the education of industrial designers: the case for
Australia. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 7 (2), 189–202.
Sanders, E.B.N. and Stappers, P., 2008. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design.
CoDesign, 4 (1), 5–18.
Sanders, L., 2008. An evolving map of design practice and design research. Interactions, 15 (6),
13–17.
Silva, A. and Simoes, R., eds., 2011. Handbook of research on trends in product design and
development: technological and organizational perspectives. New York: IGI Global.
Stegall, N., 2006. Designing for sustainability: a philosophy for ecologically intentional design.
Design Issues, 22 (2), 56–63.
de Vere, I., Melles, G., and Kapoor, A., 2010. Product design engineering – a global education
trend in multidisciplinary training for creative product design. European Journal of
Engineering Education, 35 (1), 33–43.
Waage, S., 2007. Re-considering product design: a practical ‘road-map’ for integration of
sustainability issues. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15 (7), 638–649.
Whiteley, N., 1993. Design for society. London: Reaktion Books.
Yang, M., You, M., and Chen, F., 2005. Competencies and qualifications for industrial design
jobs: implications for design practice, education, and student career guidance. Design
Studies, 26 (2), 155–189.
154 G. Melles et al.
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 18:40 19 May 2015
