I’m glad to hear you’re getting such requests. More companies are now seeing the value of ecodesign strategies. Regarding your question being engaged with this site is a good indication you are serious about providing ecodesign options to your clients. And the Okala methodology and other resources available via Sustainable Minds can provide a solid foundation for delivering quality services.

However, what isn’t included is the practical knowledge to transfer this information into part of a consulting service mix. This response offers you and other consultants a simple framework for how to best integrate ecodesign services.

This information is available in detailed form in a new Greenleaf publication, Consulting for Business Sustainability. Chapter 12, A Guide to Sustainable Design Consulting, directly addresses your question and it is my contribution to the book. I’ll provide an outline of the key practice points within the chapter, but I recommend you obtain the publication. http://www.greenleaf-publishing.com/consult

1: Do your homework First, a company must have a genuine appetite for developing more environmentally responsible products and/or processes. Be certain your client views this approach as strategic to their business future and not just a short-term marketing detail. Start by acquiring information regarding corporate mission statements on the environment, current supply chain practices, any ‘low hanging fruit’ processes underway – anything that helps you get a fix on how the company perceives and communicates its environmental role.

First, let’s take a look at the values that Okala assigns to Polyvinyl chloride polymer (PVC), then I’ll comment on those results.

PVC is potentially problematic on a number of levels, as is discussed in the Okala design guide.

I thank you for asking an important, albeit complex question, so I’ll try to provide some context for my response. The financial crisis has triggered a global recession resulting in the contraction of large consumer economies like that of the US, as growing numbers of people experience job loss along with decreased asset values. These factors have combined to send consumer spending into a downward spiral in many parts of the world, derailing global economic growth plans.

Events are causing some economists to speculate on what a global economy will be like in a ‘post financial crisis’ world. The baseline question is this: will consumers change their spending, savings, and lifestyle habits in fundamental ways over the long term? During the 1930’s, consumption contracted, savings soared, and businesses tried to adjust to fewer discretionary dollars. Today, this model has significant implications for the design profession and for businesses pursuing sustainable design strategies as they try to ponder the future.

In the near-term we are seeing many consumers focusing on value. They are buying fewer ‘things’ beyond essentials, and non-essential purchases are meeting a more stringent evaluation of the value proposition. That’s good news for stores like Wal-Mart. This consumption model impacts medium- to higher-end goods most, resulting in fewer discretionary purchases. Many consumers are saying one of three things: “What I have is good enough; I can live without that; or, I really don’t need so much.”

I understand your concern and I’ll add that your question is similar to many others I’ve addressed in recent weeks. There is no doubt that the current economic climate has forced many companies to rethink their new product development plans for 2009. And for those who began sustainable design initiatives recently and have yet to implement plans or realize results, it’s expedient to make this a lower priority.

One way to help you frame the larger design issues your question implies is through a brief review of some innovation history. The Sony Walkman® (shown above), Black & Decker’s Dustbuster®, and Motorola’s first Flip-phone® were all product innovations that at first were met with skepticism or ridicule. These now-notable designs were criticized for being unnecessary, over-priced, and appealing only to niche market segments. Of course, the market response proved the critics wrong. Why? Because these products represent strategic planning that anticipated imminent shifts in consumer lifestyles and attitudes.