Moving from eco-efficiency to eco-effectiveness: An interview with Ray Anderson and Bill McDonough |
|
|
|
reprinted from Corporate Environmental
Strategy: |
|
Bill McDonough is Dean, University of Virginia School of Architecture, a principal in McDonough + Partners, and cofounder, McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry. He is an internationally recognized environmental architect and product designer.
|
|
|
|
Tim Judge: In redefining how business operates, what were the greatest obstacles that you both had to overcome, and how have you done it? Ray Anderson: Not enough happens by focusing on what is referred to as eco-efficiency - waste reduction here and there, emissions here and there. To make real progress, the product development people need to understand what sustainable design is, and should be wholeheartedly involved in moving in that direction. This is what Bill McDonough talks about. Bill McDonough: Once people realize we have a fundamental design flaw, that we're working from the wrong platform, that's when everybody starts to realize we're operating from a new set of principals. When this light bulb goes on when people realize we're in a different game, and that [sustainable design] is not "business as usual" is the dramatic moment for me.
Anderson: The most important breakthrough in our company happened when the head of product development "got it" and began to think differently about dematerializing the product line. He took material content out of the design and used materials that were recyclable. McDonough: It's based on the "Technical Nutrient" and "Organic Nutrient" protocols. I'll give you an example:
Judge: What advice would you give environmental professionals who are trying to convince senior management of the value of sustainable business practices? McDonough: I would say, copy Ray Anderson. He got in and did it, he's successful, and the magic is happening. Judge: Ray, what was the key thing that convinced you? Anderson: Everything I know I put in my book which has just been published. So, I'd say, buy my book, read it, and give it to the CEO. Do to him what somebody did to me.
McDonough: Ray's exactly right; you take the best of the best, and put it in front of everybody, and just let them get going. At Nike, it was their line people who got it. They listened to the concepts we outlined for them as design protocols, and they said, "let's just do it." They have a corporate ethic of performance. For them it was about total quality management - this is the right thing to do and you just do it.
Judge: I constantly see environmental professionals hit the "Green Wall." We have a client that has been pushing to change things at his company. He meets with his senior executives, talks for two hours, and at the end, they all walk up to him and ask, "are we in compliance?" Anderson: It took us a year of spinning our wheels before we began to get any traction. A particularly hardheaded group was our European management group, who just couldn't believe this was coming from the United States. They view our country as energy hogs, and when they heard this message of sustainability coming out of Atlanta, Georgia, they just couldn't believe it. They thought it would pass, but I just kept talking.
McDonough: That's the key, that the message is coherent. Paul Hawken said the other day at a talk how interesting it is that there are so many people talking about so many sorts of belief systems, and developing so many ways of looking at this picture, but that none of them are contradictory. They may not be identical, but they all fit. It is what I call the "Declarations of Interdependence." |
|
|
|
Judge: How would you describe moving from beyond compliance to the mode of sustainability? Anderson: The change is in the mindset. However, the whole thing begins in the heart, not the head. Anybody who comes at this from the head is going to come up short. You ultimately want to appeal to the head, but it must begin in the heart. Or, to put it another way, it begins on the right side of the brain, not the left side. McDonough: The framework is different, the attitude is different, the economics are different. It's about legacy instead of activity. We do not forsake the future for the present, period. It's a design question. Nobody's asking you to give up anything; we are asking you to be smarter.
|
|
|
|
Judge: Ray, as cochair of the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD), where do you see the council heading, what policy changes do you feel are needed, and what do you see as the roadblocks? Anderson: The first term of the PCSD resulted in the delivery of the report, Sustainable America, to the President. In this second term we are focusing on implementing ideas from that report and continuing to raise awareness. I think the main deliverable that will come out of this second term is the National Town Meeting for a Sustainable America, that is being convened by the PCSD with the help of the entire environmental community. The core meeting will be held in Detroit, May 2-5, of this year. There will be events going on around the country simultaneously, where local sustainability efforts will be spotlighted and showcased.
McDonough: In a way, it's almost alright that we didn't do it until now. Look at the energy situation. Within three years, we will see photovoltaics competing head on with other energy sources. Until now, they've been made with heavy metals, and we have been substituting a mass problem for an energy problem. We're about to see the result of extraordinary effort from NASA, where we talked about why such things are made from toxic material. They got to work, and they did it. And it's cheap. We are going to see nontoxic roofing materials that are invisible PVs - basically shingle and metal roofs. This is really exciting!
Anderson: The other aspect of PCSD's work in the policy area is to visualize environmental management systems for the next century - how the EPA will do its job. The fundamental notion is there should be a lot more carrot and a lot less stick. As the technologies come on stream, there's an opportunity to offer incentives for people to do good things instead of keeping them from doing bad things. It means a shift in the mindset of EPA as well; its time to move beyond compliance to being proactive. The EPA is, I think, realizing this, and is trying to figure out what its role would be in that proactive world. |
|
|
|
![]() |
Judge: Bill, I have heard you speak about retroactive design. How is that applied in practice? McDonough: Let's use a TV set as an example. The retroactive design assignment would be: design something to sell to consumers who can't consume it. Give them the responsibility for 4000-plus chemicals and heavy metals, and then give them the responsibility to dispose of it. Make it cheap and make it so it has planned obsolescence, either technologically or stylistically. As soon as someone receives this assignment they say, "wait a minute, I thought I was making a television."
Judge: Both of you call for the elimination of regulations. Many grass-root environmental organizations are pushing for lower emission levels and greater regulation. How do you convince them what you're proposing is actually going to work? McDonough: You just do it. Most people say we need smaller pipes or filters on pipes, but what I'm saying is put a filter in your head. Use intelligence filters. We don't need to use that material in the first place, so just don't use it. Regulations are a sign of design failure. Anderson: Regulators deal with people who just don't get it. As more and more companies get it and move beyond compliance, in time the whole regulatory process will become obsolete. Judge: Ray, you say the transition at Interface took over a year. What was the hardest thing you had to change from a business perspective? Anderson: The hardest thing was to get our suppliers on board, because we're utterly dependent on them, in some cases, to develop the new technology. We've said we won't make investments that don't make sense, in a true business sense. When you make a statement like that the accountant's reaction is, "if it costs more then you won't do it." My answer was, "no, I didn't say that." What I said was, "we won't make investments that don't make sense."
|
|