Reflection

            This week was a great week of blogs for my group. We all interpreted the text very differently and our different writing styles continue to create diverse topics. I would have to say that the most surprising and important think I learned this week came from my blog. I researched how Herman Miller and Knoll go against the mold of a traditional company in a more sustainable direction. For years I had heard Herman Miller and Knoll this, Herman Miller and Knoll that. So I figured that they would act just like any other company, but they don’t. They focus on being environmentally friendly with how they manufacture things, and they also give discounts to clients who use their sustainable products. Which personally I think is a great way to get more people to buy sustainable products! They also take into account how their products effect the human body. Which is one aspect of design that very few companies ever look at.

I will use this knowledge in my professional career when it comes to buying products for clients. Now that I know that these companies are striding to be sustainable and that they give discounts to clients then it would be stupid for me not to. I will also research other companies I work with, or companies my clients want me to work with, and see if they take the environment into account in their business model.

I could not find any corporations that give discounts to non-professional designers. I would like to learn if there are any that give discounts to anyone who wanted to buy their sustainable products. 

Post 3

Corporate Evolution

            For hundreds of years the nobility, or the aristocracy, ran the world. These were a select few who had the “inherited privilege” to own land and run businesses. (Thorpe, 2007) “The idea that anyone can work hard and achieve monetary success is a relatively recent idea.” (Thorpe, 2007) You were born into a certain social and economical position, and it wasn’t until the late 1700’s that the market economy started to develop and moved production from feudal agriculture to industrial systems. This gave rise to the beginning of corporations as well as a new elite group of people. Known today as the 1%, this group is made up mostly of CEO’s and that “1% of people receive as much income as the poorest 57%.” (Thorpe 2007) These corporations have monopolized their industries. For example, when it comes to commercial furniture, Herman Miller and knoll are the first brands everyone looks at. This is especially obvious in the internship I am currently doing. Every time I need to spec furniture for a commercial space those two brands are the ones my supervisors tell me to look at. Fortunately for the Interior Design industry these two companies have tried to be consciously aware of how their products and manufacturing affect the world. Throughout the past decades corporations have taken a back seat when it comes to being environmentally conscious, but these two companies have helped shape the corporate culture towards a more sustainable future.

           

             Herman Miller is a company that has always had the cause of creating sustainable products for the citizens of the world.  In 1952 DJ De Pree, the founder of Herman Miller stated, “Herman Miller will be a good corporate neighbor by being a good steward of the environment.” For decades, Herman Miller has gone against the mold that other corporations fall into, and take into account how what they manufacture and sale, affects the environment. “Designing our products with consideration for their environmental impact is a central corporate strategy.” (Herman Miller Environmental Advocacy) Whether it’s decreasing the amount of VOC their products produce, or eliminating the amount of hazardous waste they produce, Herman Miller strides to have no carbon footprint on the world. Below is a diagram depicting current goals of Herman Miller and how much progress they have made. 

            Knoll is another corporation that has taken huge leaps in becoming, and promoting, a completely sustainable company. Their environmental history dates back to 1978 when they hired an environmental engineer to redeisgn one of their water treatment plants to reduce harmful effluents. (Knoll) When it comes to Knoll and Environment Sustainability they focus on three areas. Cimate change, third pary certification, and environmentally-friendly materials, products and manufacturing processes. A link to this guide is found below. These three areas encompass anything from elimianating their carbon dioxide emissions to producing textiles that can be LEED Certified. Unlike other companies that just want to make money, Knoll actually gives discounts to companies that use their products.

Knoll Environmental Timeline

http://www.knoll.com/environment/env_downloads.jsp

            The culture of these two companies is another aspect that make them inovators in sustainability. Throught out the book are many alternative strategies when it comes to corporate culture. I think that Herman Miller and Knoll could fit into each of these alternatives. First off they are both companies that don’t “push” their products on the public. When was the last time you saw a Knoll or Herman Miller commercial or advertisement outside of a design or design related magazine? Anyone can buy their products, but its sales reps work directly with professional designers, architects, and decorators, not pushing their products in every household.

           

             According to Thorpe, “the designer considers one dimension of an artifact- its salability- above all else.” Basically meaning they design products to make them as appealing to the consumer as possible without taking into account how the products performes or how long they will last. Herman Miller and Knoll  do not go by this principle. They take into account something called ergonomics, among other things, which is the study of how our body interacts with equipment and devices. They study how our body interacts with office furniture and how that affects our body. For Knoll they have a  guide, called the Layperson’s guide, of ergonomic standards that they use when they design any product. A link to that guide is posted below. I have also posted a link to a video, because I couldn’t figure out how to add the video to the blog, about how important posture is to your health as well as to your productivity throughout the day.  

Office Ergonomic Standards:  A Layperson’s Guide

http://www.knoll.com/research/index.jsp

To Thrive, Change Up Your Posture

http://www.hermanmiller.com/research/topics/all-topics/to-thrive-change-up-your-posture.html

            Throughout this blog I discussed how corporations in the Interior Design industry go against the grain of other corporations in a more sustainable direction. Both in how the companies are run and how they are changing the corporate culture. I hope next time you buy a product or work with a large company that you think about how that company takes the environment into account when they manufacture and sale their products. I sure know I will!!  

Reflection

In this weeks blogs I learned a lot about how companies are dealing with substances found in the AAFA, GOTS, and LEED guidebooks. In the US it is illegal to use theses substances but overseas it is not. Unfortunately almost every product we use is made in foreign countries where these substances are not banned. They are still making their way into this country and into our homes.

The most important thing I noticed this week came from Cally Hendricks blog. She talked about how Teknion gives discounts to anyone who uses their products and stride to have their building LEED certified. I think that we can use this as an example for other industries. For example, maybe clothing suppliers can have their own standards and they wont sell items that have substances that are on the banned lists. This might lower their profits but it could also put pressure on designers to use legal substances.

I will apply this idea of only using products that exclude banned substances into my designs. For example, when I look for textiles I will make sure that if I am not using 100% cotton, then whatever hybrid it will be, will not have used any of the banned substances in its production.

I would like to know if there are any other companies that give discounts to clients who chose to use sustainable products. I think it is a great idea and that more companies should do it. 

Post 2

THUNDER, I mean Trade UP

            Contradictory to last weeks blog, I am going to focus on two ways of sustainably trading up. First referring to the book and how it talks about upcycling. Secondly I am going to talk about some ways to sustainably trade up from toxic dyes to non-toxic organic dyes.

            Upcycling is the process of taking old products and making them into “high quality materials” that have the same or more value. (Thorpe 2007) This is typically only possible if the products used are pure substances. For example when companies add other chemicals or metals into steel to give it a non-tarnish affect. The new steel when melted back down will be weaker and it would not have the same value as before. One good example of how this is successfully done was in the Patagonia video. They have a recycling program called “Common Threads Initiative” where people return their 100% Polyester clothing and they break it back down and have it remade into string that they will then use again. This has the same value or more as before because the product was 100% Polyester and nothing was taken away or lost. According to their website, “Since 2005, we’ve taken back 45 tons of clothing for recycling and made 34 tons into new clothes.” That is 11 tons of clothing that won’t end up in landfills, better yet 11 tons of polyester that wont end up in landfills. Polyester is a textile that wont biodegrade unless under certain conditions such as, “Conditions where they are exposed to the combined attack of water and microbes”. (Leaversuch, 2002)

            LEED is one program that has put a lot of emphasis on recycling products. In their buildings you have to have a certain percent of recycled materials to qualify for LEED Eligibility. In the LEED handbook they say their goal is, “To reuse building materials and products to reduce demand for virgin materials and reduce waste, thereby lessening impacts associated with the extraction and processing of virgin resources.” They put an emphasis on this because they too understand the importance of pure “virgin” products.  A lot of materials used in building are not pure. Other things are added to paint to make it stain resistant. Other metals are added to aluminum to make it more durable. By adding these substances you decrease the value of these products and when it comes to recycling them they cant be.

            In the GOTS manual there were lists of chemicals that are banned from the production of textiles. Many of these were used in the dyeing of fabrics. One good example is 4-Aminobiphenyl. This is a chemical used in manufacturing of azo dyes. The reason this is on the GOTS list is because it is, according to the National Toxicology Program, is a carcinogen. Which is a substance that can cause cancer. Another fun fact about 4-Aminobiphenyl is that it can create a dust explosion. Because of this combustibility when it powder form, “Dust forms explosive mixtures with air. “ (GESTIS Substance Database)

            When referring to the dyeing of textiles I think that all manufactures should partake in the cradle-to-cradle idea. This states that substances found in earth should end up back in earth, without harming it. I think all substances used in dyes should be biological nutrients. This is a “material or product that is designed to return to the biological cycle- literally consumed by microorganisms in the soil and by other animals. “ (Braungart & McDonough) An example of this would be using natural indigo dyes. Because they are made from plant extracts, natural indigo dyes are biodegradable and won’t release any toxins back into the earth. This is a great way to avoid chemicals getting into the earth and another great way to trade up.

Trading up to sustainable products is something all of us should be able to and I hope after reading this you will consider it when it comes to your designs and choosing of fabrics. To end this blog I have posted a link to the live strong website that has a list of every day things that can be save biodegradable in landfills or could be used in compost if for some reason you make that.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/219138-list-of-biodegradable-every-day-products/

Reflection

            Honestly the most important thing I learned this week came from Theresa Hudson’s blog. She had this quote on her that blog really blew my mind.

“10 tons of water are used to grow enough cotton to make 1 pair of jeans – or 6 pints per cotton bud.”

         I knew I had heard this statistic before but its one of those statements that really puts things into perspective. If you think of how much cotton is used in both apparel and interior design you can see how much water is being used. This can then be compared to what Kiara Murry wrote in her blog. She stated that we consume large amounts of water when third world countries don’t have enough water to drink. I know it’s hard to compare since they live in desert climate parts of the world and the areas of the world that grow cotton have abundance of it, and it would be very hard and not cost effective to get it to them. But it still makes you think about if we are using that water for the right reasons. 

           

            I will apply this specific lesson into my work by being aware of water usage in my designs. Many buildings, residential and commercial, waste a ton of water if the right precautions aren’t taken. This waste increases the amount your bills are and in the long run make your building very unsustainable. Here is a link to 100 ways to preserve water.

http://www.wateruseitwisely.com/100-ways-to-conserve/index.php

            After learning how much wasting water can affect your home or office I would like to know more about other resources that we take for granted. I know most homes and offices don’t consider how much using natural light can affect their electric bill.  

Post 1

Psychology of the Pink Elephant Monster

         The other day I was rummaging through the pantry at home andI noticed an old bottle of wine. I knew I wouldn’t ever drink it and threw itaway. My mother saw me do this and gave me the whole speech about how I wastethings that are still good. Ignoring her speech, because I heard it before, alight bulb had lit in my head. The situation reminded me of how I had interpreted the two articles we had to read this week.
         First, I realized I was becoming the pink elephant in the wine industry as most people are in the fashion industry. I consume with the “denial of limits” to how it is affecting the world as well as fueling an industry. (Armstrong & LeHew, 2012). This denial came solely on the thought that this item I had purchased was meant for one purpose and one purpose only. I had bought the bottle of wine a few years ago for thanksgiving. After thanksgiving it had lost its special meaning and sat in the back of the pantry for over two years as just another bottle ofwine.

         This can be a good metaphor for the fashion industry. We buy things for specific reasons; such as going to a wedding, thinking that even afterthe wedding we will surely wear them again. So after the wedding we put the item away and never use it again. 

          In my opinion this is mainly due to the turnaround of the fashion industry. We don’t wear things because they aren’t in “style” thisweek. This problem seems more prominent with women than men. I know a handful of women who buy things, wear them once, and then never wear them again. For example, one blonde that will stay nameless, said that one of the reasons she buys clothing and only wears them once is because “it’s not in style anymore.”

          This turnaround was talked about in the article “FashioningSustainability” as one of the reasons why the clothing industry is considered unsustainable. They stated that “the fast fashion turnaround means that clothing has become more disposable.” I believe this is another reason we use clothing items once. We think that because something new has come out we should just forget about what we bought last week and purchase the new thing.

          A possible remedy of this fashion turnaround was mentionedin the article written by Armstrong and LeHew. This concept is called slowdesign. 

“Slow design implies that the design is no longer controlledby time, which eliminates the need for constant updates and production to compete in the marketplace.”

          Slowing down the rate that clothing is presented to the public may reduce the amount people purchase. It may also force people to wear items of clothing more thanonce due to a limited amount of alternatives.
          Another possible remedy would be to follow the ideas of modernists. When they designed products they used the principle, "form follows function." (Thorpe, 2007) They felt that the function is more important than the aesthetics of the products. This could also help slow down the turnaround if the purpose of clothing was more than one dimensional. If that outfit you bought for the wedding was appropriate for other events or even every day use. 

         These may be a temporary answers to making the  fashion industry sustainable but I don’t see them as being long-term solutions. On the poster I had posted on my blog last week, it said some of the factors that Industrial Designers take into account when designing completely sustainable products. As we all know the fashion industry has done great strides in increasing the technology used to create its items. This in turn saves time and energy. But what the fashion industry has not done is improve the user habits. It has instead created pink elephant monsters out of its clients. It has imprinted the importance of buying new things on our mind, and until we get over this disposable world mindset I don’t see the fashion industry ever beingable to be completely sustainable.

Questions

Does the sentimental gain of buying clothing outweigh thewaste your producing?

Is fashion “communism” a good solution for the industry?

Further Reading

          After further research into this subject I found an article explaining a reason why women buy clothes, wear them only once, if at all, but don't throw them out. That reason was because they feel guilty of wasting money. According to the article, "British women waste £1.6 billion on clothes they never wear". (Poulter, 2011) This is just another example of the mindset of people as consumers. I would think that this guilty conscious would make them wear those clothes, but if they also had the mindset of the clothing not being in style, then that may override the guilty conscious.