The lion’s share of responsibility for sustainability falls on the shoulders of individuals, not corporations.
In the modern quest for sustainability, a stark reality emerges: the lion’s share of responsibility falls on the shoulders of individuals, not the corporations whose rhetoric champions stakeholder capitalism. This incongruity challenges the efficacy of corporate-led initiatives and reveals a fundamental imbalance in the distribution of sustainability burdens. In the diagram below, I adopted the RSA Great Recovery Model. Still, I switched the emphasis of color and orientation to focus on the fact that individual people bear the burden of sustainability.
I’ve also specifically removed the label of ‘Consumers’ that is so often put on people. It’s dehumanizing, and I hate it.
In our home, we collect our recyclables. These materials are cleaned of any residue and then set aside in paper bags to be carried to the recycling bin, which is faithfully rolled to the curb once a week. We do this because we’ve been educated to believe that we’re doing our part to help save the planet.
But consider the following from MIT Technology Review:
“Currently, about 430 million tons of plastic is produced yearly, according to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) — significantly more than the weight of all human beings combined. One-third of this total takes the form of single-use plastics, which humans interact with for seconds or minutes before discarding. (May 2024)
A total of 95% of the plastic used in packaging is disposed of after one use, a loss to the economy of up to $120 billion annually, concludes a report by McKinsey. (Just over a quarter of all plastics are used for packaging.) One-third of this packaging is not collected, becoming pollution that generates “significant economic costs by reducing the productivity of vital natural systems such as the ocean.” This causes at least $40 billion in damages, the report states, which exceeds the “profit pool” of the packaging industry.”
So why are we taking the time to set aside our recyclables when the plastic goes into a landfill anyway, and why is it our responsibility?
As with all that needs to be redesigned, depending on the context and solution, things can move more or less quickly.
Incremental Change
In our home, we used to buy a large plastic container of Tide Laundry detergent. We’d use it, wash out the container, and throw it in the recycling bin. Each container we’d use likely went to a landfill somewhere and is still there. Alternatively, it was burned in a foreign country, polluting the atmosphere. To counter this, we started using a product called Dropps. They are bio-based laundry detergent pods, shipped to our home in a cardboard container. Dropps has incrementally improved the situation by reducing the consumption of single-use plastic bottles.
We are aware of Tides’ push towards solutions like this with their Tide Pods solution…but it fell short in the use of a big plastic container to deliver the pods. Tide’s new Evo product is closer, and perhaps we’ll try it. I’m picking on Tide a bit, but they’re just a proxy for the problem.
The burden of sustainability falls on individuals. The fact that the Dropps product needs to be shipped to our home has an environmental impact, as Dropps aren’t available in stores near us, so we pay more for the solution. Despite growing awareness of environmental issues, many products are still designed for single-use or rapid obsolescence, contributing to waste and resource depletion. While some companies have made efforts to offer eco-friendly alternatives, these options are often more expensive or less accessible, placing the onus on people to seek them out and make sustainable choices. In addition to shipping, Dropps seems to provide fewer washes per dollar spent than the Tide alternative. Cost parity isn’t available in this case, but we’re willing to pay a few dollars more to help the environment. Again, the burden is on us.
This cost and availability issue is worsening existing inequalities. Low-income communities and marginalized groups often bear the brunt of environmental degradation, yet they may have fewer resources to invest in eco-friendly alternatives or participate in sustainable practices. This perpetuates a cycle in which those least responsible for environmental harm are most affected by its consequences.
Step Change
I very different model for people is to shop at a store like The Daisy Refillery. We could get not only our laundry detergent there and buy in bulk, but they also have many other products. How it works is a person shops by bringing their own containers and filling them at this very different retail experience. Products are locally produced or sustainably sourced. The burden here is that the process is more complex. You weigh your container, fill it, and then pay. This isn’t like shopping in a supermarket, where you just throw the product you want into a cart and go. There is also a limited delivery service. This experience is closer to sustainable but less convenient. And the burden is still on us.
Here’s a cost comparison of the three options:
Tide is still the cheapest option if we’re only considering the cost of the purchase and immediate value. Again, I’m fortunate and willing to pay more to address environmental concerns. For most people, the choice is unavoidable — the long-term consequences aren’t visible, but more importantly, they don’t have the money to AFFORD a more environmentally responsible option.
Longer Term Change
As a designer, I was excited to read about Julia Marsh on the Designers Fund website and her company, Sway. She and her colleagues want to replace plastic altogether with a material naturally derived from seaweed. The list of potential benefits is truly groundbreaking, so I strongly encourage you to read about their efforts to ‘Sway the future’. Not only is the material completely biodegradable, but because seaweed is fast-growing and abundant, it makes manufacturing that much easier. So Julia and her co-founders’ idea is to replace single-use plastic.
The beauty of this solution is that companies producing food items (for instance) could use their existing tooling to a large degree.
I came to see that design was essential for enabling the transition to plastic-free solutions, because plastic waste is a design flaw. — Julia Marsh
Of the three ideas presented, Sway would be the most preferable. It fits into the existing supply chain most easily, although there would be changes and disruptions to the plastic industry. Sway’s material REMOVES the burden from people. Here, the burden finally falls on companies who must take the chance to switch from a known material to one like the Sway product. When we’re done using a Sway package, my wife and I could throw it into a compost pile in our backyard. When we buy a bag of pasta from the supermarket, that bag would be fully biodegradable.
While individuals play a crucial role in promoting sustainability through their purchasing habits and lifestyle choices, the burden should not rest solely on our shoulders. Corporations must recognize their responsibility to society and the environment, rather than shifting the onus onto individuals. Only through collective action and shared accountability can we achieve a truly sustainable future for generations to come.
Further Reading
https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/topics/circular-economy-introduction/overview
https://professionalprograms.mit.edu/blog/sustainability/circular-economy/
https://www.earthday.org/plastic-recycling-is-a-lie/
https://www.paperforrecycling.eu/publications/
https://unfoundation.org/blog/post/protect-our-planet-from-plastic-pollution-5-things-to-know/
https://us.pg.com/blogs/introducing-tide-evo-innovation/
https://www.thedaisyrefillery.com/
The burden of sustainability was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.