innovation playground Idris Mootee

We Need To Change The Way We Use Trash, One Imagination At A Time. It Is About Behavior As Much As Economics.

We all love shopping and some do more than other. We love to buy shoes, clothes, electronic gadgets, toys and cameras. We all know we can’t continue on like this, the stuff we buy today is way worse than what we were buying a decade ago, everything has tons of electronic components inside which is really hard to recycle.

I guess if I try to name the top three most frequent purchases outside of food and other necessities, it would be 1/ shoes 2/consumer electronics (cell phones and laptops) and 3/clothing and accessories.

We don’t buy and throw away a TV every 12 months, but we do these days for cell phones. Thanks to Nokia, Apple, Sony Erickson, Samsung, LG and Blackberry. Shoes are probably something that we can rethink. Not by changing the habits of buying less shoes, but the way we manufacture them and discard them. Every time you walk pass a Camper shop (they are nice), you feel like you need to pick something for the season.

Sustainable shoes is not something new, the above is the Nike Dunks made out of old skate decks. Very cool. I remember visiting a Spanish company 15 years ago and they used recycle tires to make shoes. Not sure if they are still around. So how do we reduce the footprint of shoes? Whether it is your Pradas, UGHs or Nikes or Campers.

Company such as Simple shoe has an environmentally holistic approach to their business design. Simple uses recycled and sustainable products such as hemp, bamboo, car tires, wool, silk, plastics and crepe rubber, in their shoe manufacturing process. They also have an Ethical Supply Chain Guidelines that spell out the fair practice that Simple’s manufacturing and distributing partners must adhere to. Companies like Nike and Patagonia have been doing that that for a long time.

Or take a look at Novacas boots. From their mission statement, “Novacas is a vegan owned and operated business that produces, manufactures and distributes leather alternative cruelty-free shoes and footwear.” I like the cruelty-free one, not exactly sure what it means. I think they can use some help in the design.

Nike has something cool to offer, and they have rediscovered a new life for the print media after death. Nike just released the Women's Premium Print Pack, a limited edition set of three shoe styles, all made using shredded magazines. I hope they used the right magazines such as Vogue, Good Company, NY Times and may be Wallpaper. The pack contains the Flash Macro Premium, the Blazer Mid Premium, and the Air Rift Premium. Unfortunately they are only available in Europe and China. Let’s hope you won’t get caught with your shoes made from recycle banned magazines in China.

Idea Couture brings design thinking to sustainability big time. And not in a simplistic way of using recycled material. It is not that simple. The real economics of sustainability is still a work-in-process. Some desiners are naive about sustainability. But we need to start somewhere, Idea Couture just launched a site called Use2, the idea is to inspire young designers and design students (and high school students) to rethink the after life of objects. Thank you IC Use2 team (Sady, Jessica, Simon, Paul, Lily, Emma, Cheesan) for making this real. Please share that with your friends.

Use2 has lots of DIY ideas for people to use in class or to inspire designer to think about the second life of their designs. It is a designer’s responsibly to make sure that even old products can create value and until they become absolutely useless then they should go into being recycled. Recycle is also a costly thing that people are not aware of. It costs us more environmentally to recycle many products than to throw them away. The problem requires real d-school and b-school thinking. It is as much as about behavior as about economics.

Have a Happy and Green New Year!

Corporations Should Create A New Role: 'Chief Social Engineer' Accountable For The Company Second Or Third Bottom Line.

Very crazy weeks with 8 key projects in critical phases and we're excited on every one of them. MIT Global Challenge is one of my favourite since day one as it is a great idea to bring the brighest minds of MIT alumnis to solve the world's wicked problems. There are no shortage of wicked problems, while we try to solve one, new ones are being created. And I think B-schools need to follow what MIT is doing. I think the true impact is how the MIT Global Challenge will inspire young students and aware of what challenges we are dealing with and true power of communities and purposes. B-schools need to start breeding a different generation of humanitic capitalists and not the old school i-bankers, we don't need more.

Another exciting one is Aviva Change Fund. The last one was a runaway success and this year we expect the same. Great client of ours that truly understand the how the world has changed and it takes real action to build an authentic brand. Building great brands and creating positive change is not mutually exclusive. And there is Recyclebank which we have a dedicated team working day and night for some really exciting change. And there is the Adopt a School project which has jsut come to an end with some fantastic results. 26,960 books raised for children in high-need elementary schools, far exceeding our client Indigo's initial goal. Everyone at IC are so excited about these projects. More to come next month.

Over the years I’ve seen many large multinationals developed a cowboy mentality, where greed, ego and arrogrant aggressiveness took over and they were living on capitalism horsebacks, especially during a long interrupted post war boom. US-dominated international financial order has experienced a series of crises as its flaws manifested and we see one after another-big industries failing. In fact, the current world financial crisis has once again exposed the flaws of the US version of extreme capitalism (I am also a capitalist make no mistake) and it went to the extreme.

Management theories were mostly invented during those period based on assumptions that now seems outdated and some of them were flawed in the first place. Instead of thinking about how we can create more sustainable and humanistic societies, we pushed the other buttons to drive things to the extreme and the world is widely polarized.

Innovation did not happen in areas of how to make business models sustainable and how to develop human capital and social equality as a differentiating competitive advantage, instead money and creativity were spent on how to expand new profits by using "financial technology innovations" to develop financial derivatives and establish a man(not many women)-made "virtual financial world". That world is virtual but the damage is not.

Take the subprime mortgage credits as a perfect example. They were integrated, split and repackaged into a series of securities-like commodities, which were then sold throughout the world as new virtual financial products after being split and repackaged again and again by downstream retailers. These money machines did not add value to societies. They simply push risks to the mass, which have no idea of what’s going on. The focus on short-term profit over long-term client shareholder and social/environmental value and the lack of consideration for the global impact of their decisions is causing us the pain for a long time.

Large multinationals often profess to have a higher moral vision (at least according to the annual reports) and to be pursuing a world with laudable goals of sustainable economies and environment. On the other hand, it is convenient to ignore the socially destructive behavior of those economies that rely heavily on governmental regulations and state-operated monopolistic enterprises. These economies have incurred extreme rates of poverty, repressed human rights, and excessive or even unreversible environmental damage. I want to see large multinational corporations starting or incubating social enterprises just as they incubate technology start-ups through their venture funds.

They need to play in this sandbox to prepare for a sea change and apply their scale and structural advantage to see what a social enterprise can do. I don’t know when we can see a first multi-national social enterprise with certain scale and scope. May be a first publicly traded social enterprise. That will be next birthday wish. Or my next or last career move?

I suggest every large organization should create a role for a Chief Social Engineer similar to the role of a CMO or CFO, his or her job is to identify systemic problems within the social systems and structures and responsibility for the second bottom line or call it the third if you wish. Just as a CFO is responsible for the financial bottom line, the CSE will be responsible for measuring the positive social impact bottom line. And I am not talking about the fuzzy CSR thing; I am talking about hard-core metrics that show social economic impact. And that should be part of the market valuation.

The Chief Social Engineer’s job (not a PR role for sure) is to create innovative path- breaking new ways to address social problems that are aligned with the corporation business strategy. I will consider taking that that job if GE hires me as the CSE. Or they can outsource that role to our Idea Couture, that's even better.

Developing Communities Of Purposes Will Soon Become The Strategic Mission Of CEOs' Offices.

I was invited to speak to a group of busness incubators from all across US and Canada. My goal was to cut to the point to show them what is needed to qualify as a viable strategy for any start-up 1/ it must not be subject to the same economics as the dominant players, otherwise there is no reason the world needs another start-up. 2. it must answer to very specific customer unmet needs 3/ it must have a purpsoe. A strategy without a purpsoe is like a computer without an OS. I shared my 70 slides power point with them. Unfortunately not much time for interations as I needed to be back in the office.

Before you talk about game-chaning strategies, think what you propose to do would impact your busines model or the industry architecture? How you turn the strategic assets of big competitors into strategic liabilites and how to leverage your strategic agility so their scale advantage is disminishing. Large multinationals not only have challenges with their legacies, they also have a motivation and mobilization challenge. The cubicles and business processes are designed to reduce individual’s imagination to ‘zero’ and these incentives (bonus etc.) are hardly as powerful as other intrinsic motivation. Companies need a purpose or people won’t feel intrinsically motivated on the works that they perform beyond getting a pay check.

Communities of purpose are the business backbone of the 21st Century and this does not end with companies’ employees or suppliers, it also extends to customers. It has profound and far-reaching implications for how companies should be organized to benefit from how value is created and distributed. It makes many management theory looks outdated (and many are very outdated). Any start-up or large enterprise that can consistency maintain a community of purpose would unlock there the true potential of an organization. I think many social enterprises will have an advantage both in attracting talents and customers, and eventually capital markets.

And to clarify, when I say social enterprise I don’t mean just co-ops, or quasi non-profits, I mean privately owned companies with policies on corporate social responsibility as part of their business strategy. It is a particular type of business or value creating activity that sometimes gives rise to distinct organisation forms reflecting a commitment to a social cause working with stakeholders. It’s business objectives is still to mazimizse profits well still aligned with core values. Whereas conventional businesses distribute their profit among shareholders, in social enterprises the surplus (or a meaningful part of it) tends to go towards one or more social aims which the business has - for example education for the third world,women empwerment, environmental issues or for animal rights.

The question of what percentages of profits can be retained for future use? Or for redistrubution to shareholders?  Should they enjoy some kind of tax incentives? Can they be public? Can they acquire non-profit and turn them into for profit?  And do we need tp adapt a broader definition which is independent of any legal model. This latitudinarian definition could include not only companies limited by guarantee, and industrial and provident societies but also companies limited by shares, unincorporated associations, partnerships and sole traders. It is complicated.

A Hip Belgium Design Firm Buzzispace Is Collaborating With Idea Couture To Create Sustainable Creative Spaces.

We wanted our San Francisco office to be a community space as much as a creative and functional workspace, and yet all material used will need be sustainable. Our San Francisco office renovation began with a commitment to create an airy, energy-efficient and healthy environment even when we have to look across the world to find the righ solution.

We purposely chose a convenient location so people can easily ride their bicycles to work. And it is a 5-minute walk to the waterfront. Office furniture is a difficult place to start as has the most environmental impact. 90% of office furniture out there is plain ugly. These desks and chairs can do more damage to the environment than just using up energy and natural resources when they’re manufactured. They can also introduce toxic chemicals into the environment, both during their manufacturing process and after their disposal. We wanted something that is highly sustainable.

We also need creative and flexible space that supports ‘explorative’ and ‘coordinative’ activities amongst our multi-disciplinary designers. The space design has to communicate and inspire creativity. Designers like keeping rough sketches, magazine clippings, pictures, design models and other relevant things on their working space and surfaces such as clipboards, white boards and office walls in a way that constantly informs and inspires their design work.

Buzzispace provides the multimodality for spaces that convey information through multiple senses that facilitate rich communications between designers and design thinkers. Additionally, we need to find ways to display design artifacts that are indicative of different phases of the innovation process, the current state and the future state. They serve as reminders and inspirations.

In search for our design solution, Idea Couture is working with a super cool Belgium-based company called Buzzispace, a young Belgium design group with big ambitions, and like Idea Couture, they are being recognized as a 'creative think tank'. Their ideas can be described in three simple words: Ecology, Acoustics and Flexibility. Their designs are winning awards across Europe including the Brussels Design Award for Best Belgian Product for 'Buzzizone' - an acoustic, half high, freestanding wall.

The beauty of the Buzzizone (free standing wall) deisgn is that they are all produced from recycled and recyclable materials. Fit nicely with Idea Couture's sustainability needs. You will be seeing a lot of grey, pink and green in our SF office. Their products are upcycled again and again, and the biodegradable cardboard structure inside can be returned to nature after its use, completley saitisfy the 'cradle to cradle' philosophy.

For chairs, it has to be Herman Miller. The company is known for its highly functional, sustainable, environmentally friendly products that marry functional, beautiful design with high standards for recyclability and minimal waste. The Mirra chair is what we are using across all offices. It is a Cradle-to-Cradle Gold and Silver certified by McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry (MBDC), the global sustainability certification firm.

For us, the work space is important. Not that it needs to be cool and stylish, it reflects the company culture, or the smell of the place. Sustainability is a key criteria. Creative spaces are more than just space to brainstorm or a random unification of desks. They are places where innovation happens, experience is being designed, economy is being produced, and new industry are being created. Our design thinkers search for ways to create innovation, our spaces should be a haven for people with ideas. They should act as idea laboratories where people can experiment with new processes of developing and implementing ideas. There is no need for water coolers.

I hate cubicles. Wonder who invented cubicles? It is the worst thing that ever happened to the modern corporation. I believed several decades ago modernist architects/designers saw walls and rooms as downright fascist and wanted change. The spaciousness and flexibility of an open plan would liberate office workers. But corporations took up their ideas differently and used it as means to save costs and pack as many as possible into a space. It eventually became the assembly line equivalent for the white collar.

Cubicles were then invented when interior designers attempted to save it from becoming a white collar factory. In the 1950s Quickborner, a German design group broke up the rows of desks into more organic groupings with partitions for privacy—what it called the Bürolandschaft, or “office landscape”. In 1968 Herman Miller began selling its system as modular systems, the unfortunate consequence is when people cherry-pick the space-saving aspects of these designs and leave out the humanizing touches which is part of the original concept. And when the low cost manufatuers tried to copy the idea and it became a disaster.

Funny enough, there is actually a children cubicle for sale: a baby's first cubicle is one of the most depressing toys ever designed. But having people to switch to the open office is not easy either. One question often surfaces is the benefit of open offices, can you actually make decisions quicker and more efficiently when information are easily shared in an open space working environment? My experience with this is sometimes it takes a little longer for people to adjust to the open space working concepts where people easily overheard conversations. Co-ordination is improved as a result of that and the result is usually better individual and collective decisions.

Elizabeth Gould, Professor of Psychology at Princeton, was working on research attempt to defy the dogma of her field and proved that the primate brain creates new cells, she has gone on to demonstrate that the structure of the brain is incredibly influenced by one's surroundings. The key to Gould's demonstration of neurogenesis was the stimulating environment. Cages stopped neurgenesis, which she describes as "The neurons stop investing in them." It means cubicles can kill new brain cells production and as a result stiffens creativity. And the dull, boring, unstimulating cube life is creating stress for the brain.

I suggest we should have health warning attached to every single cubicle reading “WARNING: Cubicle kill new brain cells” or “The Ministry of Health warns: Use of cubicle decreases creativity”.

"Corporate Repsonsibility Is An Illusion?" According To Prof Karnani. What Is He Thinking?

This is an argument that will not go away anytime soon. I have had heated debate in our b-school days way back.The question goes back to the core of the modern corporation. What role does business plays in creating value in societies? Or the question should be more about the ‘how’? Among B-schools there are many different point of views on what is a modern corporation.

CSR is becoming a buzzword much as social media. There are many real experts and many wannabes. Why the rush now? Well, the answer is simple, with all those money thrown into advertising whether targeted at institutional or retail investors in WSJ or general public adverting on cable TV, they are almost a total waste of money. Net net, people don’t trust large corporations. Period. This is not even a question of brand value or equity, it is simply difficult for companies to communicate anything—without the trust. Not to mention asking for a price premium.

So how have some companies joined the socially responsible bandwagon? We first launched the Aviva Change Fund 2 years ago with stellar success, followed by Pepsi launching of its Refresh Project. There are many campaigns out there these days and now everyone wants to be like Petagonia. Marriot utilized giving a washer basket from World of Good – a social enterprise helping overseas artisans create more sustainable lives. Liberty Mutual’s campaign with the theme/slogan 'Responsibility'. You have probably seen some of the television spots depicting everyday Americans confronted with a decision to do the “right” thing or “look the other way.” (For full disclosure, Pepsi, Liberty and Aviva are all current clients of Idea Couture).

CMOs are very enthusiastic and are convinced CSR is the answer to customer engagement. The role of CSR in marketing and branding is undeniable and its importance will grow for sure. But what about CSR in business strategy?

I remember in my business school days I had long debates about the role of business in societies. 35 years ago, Milton Friedman wrote a famous article for The NY Times Magazine with title aptly summed up its main point: “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits.” The future Nobel laureate in economics had no patience for capitalists who claimed that “business is not concerned ‘merely’ with profit but also with promoting desirable ‘social’ ends; that business has a ‘social conscience’ and takes seriously its responsibilities for providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of reformers.”

I seemed to share the same point of view then but since then my views have changed. I am not a socialist by any definition at all, but I think what is missing is the humanitarian dimension of capitalism. I am not fully convinced that a corporation role of adding value to societies is not just maximizing profits and then perform philanthropies. The order should not be that way; it is not about making tons of money at the expense of the planet and then figure out how to put money in fixing it. This is not how it should work. They need to put people and planet not ahead of profits, but aligned with profits. I believe that the enlightened corporation and CEOS should try to create value for all of its constituencies including investors but not excluding everything else.

I admire companies that make good profits, usually those are the results of continuous innovation, operational efficiencies, strong leadership and great brands and I am not hostile to profits and shareholders. In fact, I believe in relentless pursuit of profits. But I believe good CSR is good for profits.

A recent WSJ report suggested otherwise. Aneel Karnani, a prof at the University of Michigan's Stephen M Ross School of Business, believed the idea that companies have a responsibility to act in the public interest and will profit from doing so is fundamentally flawed.

He argued that CSR is an illusion, and a potentially dangerous one. Very simply, in cases where private profits and public interests are aligned, the idea of corporate social responsibility is irrelevant: Companies that simply do everything they can to boost profits will end up increasing social welfare. In circumstances in which profits and social welfare are in direct opposition, an appeal to corporate social responsibility will almost always be ineffective, because executives are unlikely to act voluntarily in the public interest and against shareholder interests.

I think his views are very narrow and dated. The answer lies in what kind of executives we are breeding today for tomorrow. It is all about maintaining that balance. CSR is an unstoppable movement against the public outcry over corporate malfeasance (you don’t need to agree with me). CSR means building sustainable economic development, sustainable societies and sustainable consumer lifestyles, the collective mission is to rethink and rebuild an economic system that is in balance with the natural world. You can’t have two worlds. Business and the rest.There is only one world.

Innovation Needs To Expand To Include "Leadership And Management Innovation". Business Schools Need A Reset.

Here is our summer collection. Everybody like these. I guess the message is cool. I get people coming up and ask me where did I get those.  Rethinking management and leadership - one innovation that is less talked about is “Leadership and Management Innovation”, OK what does it mean?

Management practices have always circled around a narrow view of Return on Capital and that drives many of the key business decisions. Optimization of profits, financial capital and assets are an important part of executing a business strategy, but have we thought about how to innovate “leadership and management” itself. I mean new thinking around business strategy that provides additional bottom lines beyond just financial. Where money, purpose and systems are aligned.

Any CEOs who are only interested in maximizing short-term profits or trading hedge funds and companies are not the one that can steward organizations to a healthy and sustainable future. So what do we mean? Here are some examples.

There are cases of CEOs who have broken away from the norm of the “classical, narrow view of what investor accountability which is suffering from QRB (quarterly returns obsession). What they have been doing in innovating the very core of leadership and management and rethink the role of it. Here are some examples:

Founder and exCEO of Nike, Phil Knight, who responded to global protests by overhauling the company’s labor standards and then lobbied for other firms to be held to the same standards; Jeff Immelt, CEO of General Electric, who sought to convince shareholders that legislation capping US carbon emissions is a smart business move; and Yvon Chouinard, founder and CEO of Patagonia who was the first to pledge 1% of annual sales to grassroots environmental organizations and the first major retail company to switch all its cotton clothing over to organic, the first to make fleece from recycled soda-pop bottles.

Each of these business leaders broke the rules of what their own organizations would have considered the right thing to do, and is not only profits, profits and profits. Leadership requires building a culture of “Integrity”, creating a brand with “Authenticity”, reinforcing purposes and values through “Communities”, encourage the organization’s decision-making style for “Transparency” and making sure key resource decisions need to consider “Sustainability” beyond just environmental.

Management needs to innovate itself the very idea of management and leadership. CEOs have larger responsibilities, not only creating a viable future for the organizations and return for shareholders; they need to be change makers of our future societies. Real change will not come from governments; it will be the multinationals that possess the power. My observation is that that the biggest constraints that business leaders facing are their “inability to value new types of “competitive advantage” and the true power of “sustainability” embedded in business strategy making.

Government and NGOs can advocate our social problems, clean water, climate change or obesity or women empowerment etc, but top business leaders are having a hard time interpreting, sense-making, translating them into business strategies, One day we wake up and realize “Sustainability has become the new Capitalism.”

On a different note, MIT Global Challenge is a wonderful idea towards solving many of our problems. In 2011 the global MIT community will be invited to celebrate the 150th anniversary of a world-changing institution. In the spirit of celebration, innovation and service, the MIT Global Challenge is launching a competition to involve the MIT community worldwide in innovative, multidisciplinary problem solving, reconnecting alumni with the spirit of invention and enterprise that pervades the Institute. Idea Couture is proud to be a partner to design and develop the platform which is an unique online space through where people can engage in an ongoing, interactive process to identify problems, propose solutions, reward the most innovative and workable ideas, and document experiences as the winning ideas are implemented in communities around the world. Our team is very excited to be on this project.

There are no shortage of global challenges. Some are really complex. For example, the inequality of the distribution of natural resources on the planet, especially of energy, gives rise to powerful structural tensions within the systems that try to resolve the problem locally with uncivilized methods. 

Another example is business as such. The obvious globalization of worldwide production all the more powerfully enters into conflict with the national character of political activity, when business in the lawless space of an international muddle acquires the forms of earlier, wild capitalism with all the terrible consequences for society and the environment. But the attempts of some public movements to stop the globalization of money flows are waste of effort: no one has the least chance of successfully resisting the laws of economic development. These are no simple challenge that simply throwing money at it can solve the problem or creating a new policy. It truly requires innovative thinking. Probably too much for the sunny weekend.

I am pleased to officially announce that Idea Couture is the proud sponsor of TED 2010 Toronto. We’re looking forward to connect with others in this exciting event. Expecting to see many cool people.

Off to the arrport to SF for a a few days. Back-to-back meetings but looking forward to meet up with old friends and colleagues.

The Intersection Of Style And Sustainability Lies Great Opportunities.

I am not sure if Hunter boots are still in fashion, but I do like the look. I always have a thing for girls wearing boots or be specific Wellies. It is less about splashing in puddles and more about the look. Do you know what Lilly Allen, Kelly Osborne, Kate Moss, Samantha Cameron, Liz Hurley, and Angelina Jolie (and my wife) have in common? They all have the same boots.

They were so hot last year and not sure they can sustain that. The first original rubber Wellington boots were produced in Scotland in 1856 and Hunter Wellies were then introduced back in the mid '50s. But only 36 pairs were sold. I see many making the mistakes not wearing them right, such as not pairing with jeans that are slim enough or not matching the right short dresses or skirts.

The next cool thing is a pair of Orange Power Wellies, they are thermoelectric rubber boots that charge your cell phone using heat from your feet. These could come in very handy and also very energy friendly. UK mobile operator Orange teamed up with renewable-energy company GotWind to create the boots, which feature a power-generating sole that converts feet heat into an electrical current. That’s a great idea.

The power collected in the ‘power generating sole’ is collected via a process known as the ‘Seebeck’ effect. I hope they will make one that can power up an iPad with an extended cord, or a matching raincoat with a pocket for iPad. It will take a lot of walking (roughly12 hours) to give a full charge to your phone. We don’t know how much it cost but this is a great example of applying sustainable technologies to our everyday lives.

The idea is not new, Japanese telecommunications company NTT was developing shoes that generate electricity upon movement early 2008. The shoes generate 1.2 watts of electricity— enough to power an iPod forever if the wearer doesn’t stop walking. Unfortunately, the shoes are not capable of storing energy, but they are certainly good for juicing up gadgets on the go. The shoes are powered by small turbines and each shoe has a small generator attached to the water-filled sole, which spins a small turbine and generate power each time the wearer takes a step. Last heard they plan to bring them to market later this year. I hope Apple can design their own iBoots. That will be very cool.

The Future Of Sustainability In Design Is Invisible. Idea Coutue's Patrick Glinksi Presented Three Snapshorts Of The Future At The Sustainability Brand Conference.

The Sustainability Brand Conference 2010 in Montery California last week attracted over 700 leading sustainability, brand strategy, product design and communications executives from top global brands as well start-ups, NGOs to share ideas and green practices.  Idea Couture's Head of Social Innovation Patrick Glinski was speaking on The Future Vision: 3 Snapshots of the Possible. Patrick’s key messages for the audiences are:

• We need to talk to our customers more often.
• We need to communicate a message of improvement rather than perfection in our attempts to be sustainable. This was echoed in several other sessions, including Starbucks (who gave themselves a needs improvement ranking on their ability to meet their 2015 target of 100% reused or recycled cups).
• The future of sustainability in design is invisible. Sustainable choices are made by brands and built into products as part of the design process and supply chain.

Patrick also co-presented with Rob Kaplan from Brown-Forman where Rob talked about the Jack Daniels American Forest program and Patrick presented the design and implementation process from the Aviva Community Fund.  Patrick top five take aways from the conference:

• Organizations need to focus on innovations in sustainability. But from the outsiders perspective, most talks took the position that innovation is easy - a fact that we know at Idea Couture is simply not true.
• There is a strong economic impact that results from sustainable practices. But in selling through the idea of sustainability to the C suite, most sustainability practitioners focus on social impact rather than rationalizing financial impact first.
• Strategic sustainability (solving social needs within the core business, leveraging the assets of core business, and forcing innovation through impossible constraints) will be a major economic force in the near future.
• Being sustainable is no longer a significant differentiator for your brand since most organizations are including some form of sustainability / green / pro-social messaging as part of their value. No one is going to pat you on the back for following regulations.
• It's ok to be profitable by doing good. But unless you're transparent about your intentions, you're going to deal with a lot of doubt. Transparency is becoming a key factor of building trust with customers.

I guess the biggest myth in sustainability in business that there's no money to be made from sustainability or being seriously green. This is definitely true ten years ago, but not the case today. It should be part of any company's business strategy, not just marketing strategy. Sustainability innovation offers brand opportunities for both top and bottom line benefits and build brand equity. Sustainability not only involves cutting down on waste and carbon, it many instances there are opportunities to support economic development for developing markets.  Innovative companies have found they can resell used products and materials that were formerly considered waste and help support micro-enterprises.

There Are So Shortage Of Wicked Problems Out There. Just The Coffee Cup Alone Is A Hard One To Solve, Not For The Lack Of Trying.

Sustainability and in particularly recycling is a very tricky topic. Just use coffee cup as an example, Today there are 58 billion disposable coffee cups being thrown away, unrecycled, around the world each year. Often least understood by consumers and even governments and large corporations.

There is a long held assumptions charging by the quantity to consumers can provide incentives to reduce consumption. The sad reality is the benefit of many program do not outweigh the costs. I think there can be more impact on the product and packaging design side to help with the problems. One most common challenge is coffee cups, which are used in all coffee shops and cafeterias. These paper coffee cups aren’t made from recycled paper. Mostly are manufactured using 100% bleached virgin paperboard.

There are many reasons why manufacturers don’t use recycled paper. First, in the US, FDA regulations are regulating paper pulp that is used in direct contact with food and beverages. Second, recycled paper isn’t strong enough to hold liquid. Starbucks experimented with a variety of coffee cups made with recycled paper with mixed results. Leaking is the main issue. In 2007, Starbucks has begun to use cups made from 10% post-consumer materials, while the remaining 90% of the cup is composed of new paper. It is not that they are not trying, it is a very difficult one to solve.

During the manufacturing process, paper cups are laminated with a plastic resin called polyethylene. This helps keep beverages warm and prevents them from absorbing liquids and leaking. The plastic also prevents the cup from being recycled. Every paper cup that is manufactured and coated with plastic resin ends up in a landfill. Yes the paper will decompose but this process releases methane, a greenhouse gas with 23 times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide.

Reusable cup is a better idea? Not sure the economics of washing including water consumption for the purpose makes sense. Studies suggest that ceramic mug has the lowest material intensity but only if it has been used at least 50 times. If you use it for at least 250 times, then it is a good idea. We need to develop the habit of bring-our-own-cups. For disposable cups, forget about plastic cups as they can’t hold hot drinks. Let’s look at the cost. Styrofoam costs around 15-30 cents; paper cups cost 35-50 cents and100% compostable good paper cups costs over 80 cents, all depending on volume and quality.

Yes, paper is less expensive and is biodegradable and the consumption perception is that it is greener. But the paper production process can cause almost twice as much CO2 emissions and energy consumption as creating plastic or styrofoam products. But styrofoam is made from benzene and other chemicals that contribute to smog and global warming. It is not biodegradable and it never deteriorates. They are already banned in many cities in the US. This is probably the worst choice.

To help solve this wicked problem. there is the Betacup Challenge, an open-ended crowd-sourced competition for design of coffee cups that address the problem of disposable coffee cups. They received more than 200 submissions. Here is a link to the international entries section. Not sure if there are many good ideas submitted. This is not an easy one.

A few companies are now sponsoring the Betacup Challenge including Threadless which has launched a Betacup tie-in contest for the design of "an amazing tee inspired by coffee". Starbucks is involved but not sure how committed not because they don’t believe in it, they know how hard it is and they are not betting on it. BTW there is no guarantee to implement any of the winning designs.

Don’t expect a viable solution to come out from this. The organizers behind the Betacup Challenge says that it will have been a success if it catalyzes conversation about bringing sustainable practices to the morning latte ritual. That’s is 100% true.

From Recycling To Fair Trade And Conflict Free Material. Companies Such As HP Are Doing A Great Job.

Despite there are a lot of effort on recycling, very few of our stuff are recyclable and being recycled. I don’t think we are doing enough, designers and consumers have a dilemma, and we love nicely designed packaging but hate to see the kind of waste we’re producing. Food containers are one good example.

Now a new sugar-based polymer could be used to make food containers compostable at home together with your potato peels. A team of scientists at the Imperial College London led by Charlotte Williams in partnership with BioCeramic Therapeutics have created a degradable material from sugars derived from the breakdown of lignocellulosic biomass. This is definitely not the first "biorenewable plastic," previously biodegradable plastic made from sugar beet or corn-based biomass. There is a Denmark-based company, Agroplast, that is working on developing plastic products from animal urine, that’s good idea but not for my milk please.

The polymer developed at the Imperial College London is instead derived from the sugars that are produced when you breakdown lignocellulosic biomass: biomass made from cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin that is found in wood byproducts, grasses, and some types of agricultural waste. I think there are still technical and economic issues before this become market ready. I like to see fair trade biodegradable material to be used for all our everyday consumerables.

If you think recycling is the only problem for computer and electronics, think again. Think about blood diamonds, blood oil and blood minerals, and now blood PCs.  HP is the first trying to trace 'conflict minerals' in electronics as part of their socially responsibility initiatives and they are taking it to an unexpected place including the war-ravaged Democratic Republic of Congo.

Concerned that purchases of metals could be financing armed conflict in the West African country, HP and other companies are turning their attention to its suppliers of metals, including tin, gold, tantalum, and tungsten, which are used in everyday computing products. Most of the world’s raw material came from places where there have been conflicts for a long period of time.

It is not easy at all for HP to trace all their components and to make sure that they are fair trade and conflict free zone. The push toward "traceability" in the metals extraction is an outgrowth of HP's practices of auditing its supply chain partners to make sure they do not contribute to human rights and environmental violations. Kudos to HP. Next time you buy a HP notebook you will find a Fair Trade and Conflict Free stickers on top of the Recycle stickers there. In the meantime if you're interested in recycled PC, you can buy the fashionable keybag designed by Joao Sabino, is a made from recycled computer keyboards available in red, white, black and pink! If you have a few old keyboards, you can actually create your own.

When Made In The UK Is Not Good Enough. Can Design Leadership Help The UK?

I saw Kenya Hara’s book Designing Design in Tokyo a few months ago, but it was in Japanese so I didn’t guy it. I saw the English edition today at the Tate’s book store so I picked it up. I always wanted to read that it, now it is available in English. Kenya Hara is a Japanese graphic designer and curator or the Muji Man, he is art director of Muji since 2001. His design philosophy is putting an emphasis on “emptiness” in both the visual and philosophical traditions of Japan. I am not sure how Japan got into this minimalist thing, it is not in their history.

Lunch at the top floor of Tate Modern is probably the best place to talk about art and design. Usually a good view of London but not today.  Yes they are two very different things, are they really? Design in Europe has a much longer history and tradition, and there are huge differences between how design is being used. Ever approach to branding is so different, UK branding and design firms talk of 'brand experience', expressed through retail design and interactions design and the like, their continental counterparts in Europe still focus on traditional elements of branding such as logo, packaging and corporate identity. And in the US, we’re talking about branding as business strategy.

I think British design is undergoing some form of identity crisis as structural changes are happening. A designer who manufacturers his/her designs realized that it is no longer an advantage to make things in the UK. With the emergence of China as the factory of the world, products bearing a 'made in Britain' tag are deemed expensive and of no better quality than Chinese made products, with some exception in the luxury brand goods. UK, I believe, still provides the best design education in the world. They are just a little ahead of the US and tens of years ahead of Asia, except Japan. A lot of businesses believe that if production goes abroad, you can keep R&D in the UK, let me tell you but that’s not always the case. In many case when you lose one, you often lose the other. This is a dangerous assumptions. This debate is worth a separate blog post.

What about Korea? Seoul is the 2010 World Design Capital and has one of the world's most technologically advanced infrastructures. It is ranked first on the Digital Opportunity Index and its Digital Media City is the world's first complex for high-tech technologies, a test-bed for futuristic multimedia applications. They are certainly way ahead of China but has yet to rise above the European standard.

And for China, along with an increasing consciousness of innovation (it means different things there) in Chinese industries, demand for design within Chinese companies is growing fat, as are expectations of the quality of design required. Design is not widely appreciated or understood. In the past 10 years hundred of design programs have emerged with more than 10,000 design graduates stepping into industry each year. There is a lack of opportunities and mentorship as well international exposure means it needs as least a decade before they are ready for prime time. The lag between demand and supply in design management education is becoming a major bottleneck constraining the development of the design management profession in China.

The 21st century has often been referred to as the century of design, where design drives innovation and plays a key role in assuring sustainability and creating growth for organizations, many countries are not ready for this. The west still has an advantage.

Random Thoughts: From Aviva Community Fund To Positive Social Change To Women Empowerment.

I was so excited that our Aviva Community Program is getting such good response even before the official launch. It is a very important project for both our client and IC because it is something we truly believe in. It is about 1/ Empowering change in our communities while building brand 2/ Prove that social media is not a hype and if you use it right it is the most powerful communication medium 3/ Authenticity is the key ingredient of marketing, this program is about action and not just words. Check out the program here It is truly where "Marketing Innovation" meets "Social Innovation".

The idea is Aviva Canada will be introducing a nation-wide pilot positive social change competition supported by see a large-scale $500,000 donation put towards the fulfillment of positive community changes in neighborhoods across Canada. So far our metrics are indicating that this will be a super hit for an insurance company successfully social media to drive awareness and action for positive social change and brand awareness. Quick stats to date (before official launch): Ideas created: 800+ (see map below), Registered Users: 60,000+ Site Votes: 160,000+ Comments: 6,400+ Not to mention the crazy Facebook links.  Kudos to the client and the IC team John, Paul, Caroline, Jeff, Jackie, Claire, Cheesan, Andrew, Patrick, Ryan (did I miss anyone?). Lot of hard work, big thinking and flawless execution. Thank you team!

I received some interesting positive feedbacks and discussion on an earlier post this week titled “A Simple Life Or Green Living Are Not The Solutions. They Distract Us From The Real Number One Problem”. I’ve received a dozen of emails and some great comments /discussions from the linkedin group "Design For Social Change" which I'd like to share here:

Manuel Toscano, Design Principal, Zago NY

“There are many problems and many systems that can benefit from more design thinking, more involvement and support from the design community, but I wound't argue that it should start from one place, or in one way. I say this even while agreeing with you that empowering women (everywhere) is proven to be the social investment that brings the most significant returns.”

Jeremy Faludi. Green Design Strategist, SF

"I agree that nowhere near enough attention is given to this issue. The key is that it's not just a social issue--it's an environmental issue. Empowering women in developing countries is the only effective (and the only humane and responsible) way to stop the population bomb. Easing population pressure helps solve all the other environmental problems we have (all forms of resource depletion, and all forms of pollution). The fact that it's also pivotal in fixing a lot of social and economic problems is icing on the cake. I agree, it should be a very high priority. (Note, though: why is it all three of us who've talked about this so far are men?)”

Kara Pecknold, Design Researcher at Emily Carr Institute, Van

“I'll jump in as one female voice in this discussion. I'm sure there are others who could add additional ideas. I concur, we're past "green living. After working with a group of women in Rwanda, I would suggest that empowerment is definitely needed. Actually finding out what these women regard as empowerment is something else altogether. The "developing world" is a broad title and each country faces its own political, social and cultural realities that can affect this empowering. But talking to the people we perceive as needing it might be a step in the right direction. They likely have some good ideas to contribute to this conversation. “

Maz Kessler, Creative Director, NY

“Hi all - such a huge area for discussion, but extremely glad to see it surfaced here. there's definitely momentum building around an increasing awareness (at last!) of the benefits of investing in women globally, and what this brings to communities, regions and nations. This rapidly emerging awareness (hesitate to call it a movement yet...) has recently been given mainstream visibility in high-income countries through e.g. Nick Kristof and Sheryl Wudunn's book 'half the sky'... through the 'girl effect', through the NGO Women to Women, and eve ensler's work in DRC etc……as designers we can bring our creativity to communications and advocacy in high-income countries, as well as into advocacy and design projects in low-income countries (anyway, immense and great topic and yes I'm also female)”.

Growing up in big cities and having lived and worked in Boston, London, Toronto, LA, HK, Milan, the women empowerment thing was never under my radar screen. I worked with some of the smartest and well educated women and it never came to my mind this is such a big issue in the developing worlds. I always thought we were making good progress. While a lot of progress has been made in the last 20 years improving women's health and education, women in the developing world are still at the periphery of the economy, marginalized in segregated low-paying jobs, or practically barred from education and work opportunities. The situations are different country to country but the problem is still very serious as a whole.

I am very interested in what innovation is needed to make the change. Social innovation that links to empowering women is what I am talking about. An example, in 1999, 35 women on the isolated island of Char Montaz in Bangladesh discovered they could make a huge difference in their community by going into business (none of them have MBAs no surprise). Taking a lot of criticism since they were breaking society's rules by working outside the home and that’s a big deal there. They later got funding from the World Bank and the UN Development Program, and assistance from a local non-governmental organization Prokaushali Sangsad Ltd.

They started to build battery-powered direct current lamps to replace kerosene lanterns widely used in local homes—a known source of indoor air pollution. And as they mastered lamp construction, they also learned about quality control, business development and marketing. Soon, their critics were their customers. Within two years, they were bringing low-cost light and clean power to over 1,200 households, shops, and boats, and 300 businesses. Shops stayed open longer, children spent more time on school work at home, and incomes increased by 30 percent. My point is, this is not just a moral or a human rights or a political issue, it's deep down also an economic issue as well as global climate change issue.

Hope everyone have a very scary weekend.

The Sustainability Challenge Is Complex. Is Ecolabeling The Answer Or Just Another Greenwashing Tool?

No one will disagree that today’s customer is empowered like never before. With social media and other connectivity, they care able to acquire more detailed information about brands, products and services in order to make smarter decisions; everything is a just a few clicks away. Any green-washing or eco-washing can last only for a few clicks. Customer can access new knowledge about the behavior of companies and can more readily question and challenge this behavior.

Many CSR initiatives are of limited success. It is pretty simple, for a retailer to have some green products available as a choice is worse than not having them. If they are doing what they supposed to do, there would be no reason for greenlabels in the first place. Because everything should be green. For a shoe company to offer 10 green SKUs over 3000 total designs, it is not acceptable at all. No surprises that many retailers struggle with green as consumers ask the question if it makes sense given what may be construed as a conflict of interest—what retailer wouldn’t want to label every product on its shelves with a green label to make it sell faster? I think what they should do is a big sign showing what percentage of products are becoming green and the index should move upwards until more than 90% of products are green to a reasonable level.

Taking a deeper look many retailers' eco programs may not be too effective—the Home Depot’s Eco-Options, Staples’ EcoEasy, and the Office Depot Green Depot. Is ecolabeling the answer? There is a much needed gap here as no one really knows what qualify as “green”. It is too complicated to just label a product’s degree of greenness. Some are pushing a bill which would empower the Federal Government to create a multi-attribute eco-label much in the spirit of the ecolabels generated by 25-plus other countries in the world.

Walmart is developing a universal rating system to help consumers determine which products are truly sustainable. The rating system would scrutinize a product's entire life-cycle by focusing on broad factors, rather than the usual marketing gibberish that extolls isolated virtues.

For the index, here are three examples. the most common one covers four main areas, including: 1/ energy and climate 2/material efficiency 3/ natural resources, and 4/ people and community.  Nike's sustainability group has developed a framework or index (see photo above) which they use for product design that includes 1/ environmentally preferred materials 2/ waste 3/ solvents, and 4/ innovation (see photo). At Idea Couture, we use a slightly different framework (see photo below) to evaluate product innovation which also included social and transport footprint as those are sometimes ignored. It is a little more effective as we take into consideration of the supply chain impact as well as the job creation or other social impact.

Ecolabelling is useful in a limited way but still a big step forward, at the end of the day the most potent sources of credibility and purchase influence comes from the voices of consumers amplified through social networks. Transparency is still a long way until we have full access to process classification, ingredient classification and disclosure, and access to the farmers growing whatever the raw material. In the end, the power may rest with the people and the Twitterverse.

A Simple Life Or Green Living Are Not The Solutions. They Distract Us From The Real Number One Problem.

I was hearing a group of designers here in Boston saying that the only way to solve our sustainability problems is to simplify our life and go back to creating less garbage. They went on to suggest that if the government decides to stop collecting garbage, and they end up piling up in our backyard or frontyard, we would then feel the problem and start living a simple life - a radical idea but a silly one that doesn’t work. Why don’t we go back to riding horses and we do that, we will have some serious horseshit problem to deal with.

A simple life has a different meaning and a different value for every person. For some, it means eliminating all but the essential, eschewing chaos for peace, and spending your time doing what’s important to you and not accumulating things. Not a bad idea but you can’t take it to the extreme. We love things and we love to own beautiful things. However, moving to simplicity isn’t always a simple process. It’s a journey, not a destination, and it can often be a journey of two steps forward, and one backward.

If you are feeling a sense of progress with your green habits including driving 20 minutes somewhere to buy organic good versus buying from across the street or only wear recycle cotton Ts not knowing the amount of water needed to recycle them. Even if you buy organically grown cotton, you have not considered the amount of land needed to grow them and the whole process is very long and very chemically intensive. It is just a false sense of sustainability.

Reading the essay in Orion by Derrick Jensen on the plane, he is aything that any “simple life” movement is just a political act, the radical environmentalist argues that focusing on our personal choices as a solve for eco-destruction is not just misguided, but also useless. He shows how agriculture and industry are responsible for the bulk of water and energy use as well as emission and waste. He is saying it is cool if you wan to live simple, but if you think you are making it is effective or if it distracts you from the larger environmental issues, that’s not good.

To become true steward of our planet, first stop using the “flawed” notion that humans inevitably harm the environment. We have the power to redesign our societies forward but not going backward. Technology can power us forward? Perhaps. The key question remains, with global population of 9.2b people by 2050, can we produce enough food to feed everyone? Don’t worry about the quality of air and water for now. With industrial production of nitrogen fertilizer and super-crop, there are not enough land as cropland grows by 8% and population 80% in the next three decades.

Every time I drive past downtown New York, Toronto or Chicago, the office buildings were all lit up for whatever reason. I cannot imagine how much energy they consume. There are no ones in those offices. Buildings play a major role in the environmentally unfriendly trends projecting energy consumption to increase by 37% and greenhouses gases by 36% over the next 20 years in North America alone. Adding all top 50 cities in the world we begin to see the magnitude of the issue. No one is doing anything. But does really matter?

We sometimes forget that the world's number ONE problem is population. There are too just many of us in this world. Overpopulation is the ONLY problem. Our planet cannot handle so many people. Current estimates put the planet's population at more than 7 billion, if we stay at 4-5 billion, we can easily manage all other problems. Our top 10 challenges are overconsumption, the need for more sustainable practices worldwide, the growing need for energy conservation, the need for humans to see themselves as part of the global ecosystem, overall carbon dioxide emissions, the need to develop ways to produce consumer products from renewable resources, and dwindling fresh water resources.

We need a global solution for population control fast. To make things fair universality is necessary but not sufficient. We must also address why the third world people think they need more children when they are surrounded by underfed and dying children. Having said that, children in the west use 30 times as much of the world's natural resources as a third world child. Think about it, if 20,000 people unfortunately died in an earthquake, the losses were made up before we see the news on CNN. There can be more than 100 extra people born while you leave a Facebook message on a friend’s wall. Something radical must be done to get the world to wake up and face this reality.

Creative Capitalism + Social Innovation = New Social Enterprises That Make Money And Change The World.

We need more (and more innovative) social enterprises and I really want to see a top tier MBA programs with specialization in Social Enterprises. Call it B-school needs S-school. There are so many problems out there and sometimes we feel we are almost giving up. Our capitalist system is not adjusting well to these shocks. It is almost pointless for these endless debates on how things got to this point and who is to blame. The point remains: We've got to change it—and change it fast – and change it for the better.

The last thing we want to replace these problems with a set of newer problems, I’ve seen in many case when smart people think they have a solution, but they are simply migrating the problems. There is hope. The good surprise is that business—the same institutions that bear a fair amount of the responsibility for the current situation—is also the most potent force for bringing change. No government alone can make that happen. Businesses are powerful, if we can align the forces. There are hundreds of social enterprises are doing exactly that.

Who invented the social enterprise? Or the better idea is how do we reinvent social enterprises so they can be good business and good citizens. Not good business and bad citizens or bad business good citizens. Peter Drucker argued that in this post-capitalist society (not sure I agree with that tern), managers must learn to negotiate a new environment with a different set of work rules and career expectations. Businesses exist to serve social purposes, they have to function in ways that make sense to the society in which they are situated – and in the case of multinational corporations, they often have to function in ways that make sense across more than one society, at a deep level.

Social enterprises can change the world for the much, much better. If social entrepreneurs can navigate around the challenges and become some of the most popular brands of the world. For now, they need to improve the odds and make sure that they can proof that it works. I am very convinced that the concept works, it is just exceptional challenges that needed to be overcome. Some realities. I don’t know the success rate of social enterprises. I don’t think it is higher or lower than the average business. Like any business, social enterprises fail—because businesses fail. But how come social enterprise didn’t scale—like many other businesses with successful business models?

The way I see it, it is not uncommon that traditional social enterprises did not attract the best and the brightest entrepreneurs, many are into the mission and not interested in the business. The other reason is there is a lack of appetite or aspiration for them to take it global or to a larger scale. And then there is the question of capital availability and time frame to achieve scale. Too many are forced to think survival, rather than innovation and growth. There needs to be series ambitions to make sure the social enterprises is leverage its mission and commitment to changing the world and transform our future. That’s a big mission. And it is not mutually exclusive to pursue the mission and not ignoring the competitive dynamics of the industry that you operate in. What’s the best example? Here is one.

Rubicon Programs is a $16mm social enterprise n SF focusing on helping with employment. It started initially as a drop-in center in Richmond, California, for very low-income people with severe disabilities. Their first social enterprises were very small programs that were seen more providing with some training than anything else. Today Rubicon has evolved into an organization that today serves low-income, homeless and mentally disabled people in the businesses, housing and services it provides. About one-third of the people currently served have a mental health disability, so its original focus is still a part, but not the largest part, of what Rubicon does. It is a one-stop shop for those trying to escape poverty. It not only helps clients find homes and jobs but also offers career, mental heath, and family counseling, as well as technological training and money-management programs.

Take Rubicom Bakery as an example, they produce a range of delicious cakes and tarts. The high-quality and handcrafted products are baked from "scratch" recipes and use only the best of ingredients including fresh-grated carrots, Maine blueberries, real butter and Dutch chocolate. We use absolutely no preservatives and our products include no transfats. The bakery also serves as a unique training center, preparing people for employment with Rubicon or other employers. Job training, counseling, and peer support provided in a dedicated baking workshop, classroom with audio-visual capacities, and a job search center with computer terminals help participants develop their work and life skills. Everything integrated, almost like the Cornell School of Hotel Management. There is even an online store too.