Remaking the Way We Make Things

An Interview with Bill McDonough, World-Renowned Eco-Designer and Co-Author of Cradle to Cradle.

Imagine a world with no landfills...a world where products don’t go from cradle to grave, but cradle to cradle—being reborn into new, high quality products over and over again. William McDonough, co-author of Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, has not only imagined this world, he has developed a system to help designers and manufacturers create a “new product revolution” based on this idea. Inspired by nature, this utopian, yet realizable concept requires us all to start looking at “waste as food,” and create products in accordance with this philosophy. Today, this eco-effective idea is being put into practice by businesses and governments around the world.

In addition to writing a book that’s inspiring a new era of product development, McDonough is a world-renowned architect and designer and winner of three U.S. presidential awards: the Presidential Award for Sustainable Development (1996), the National Design Award (2004) and the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award (2003). Time Magazine recognized him as a “Hero for the Planet” in 1999, stating that “his utopianism is grounded in a unified philosophy that—in demonstrable and practical ways—is changing the design of the world.

Along with his Cradle to Cradle co-author, German chemist Michael Braungart, McDonough co-founded McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry (MBDC), which applies the Cradle to Cradle design protocol to chemical benchmarking, supply-chain integration, energy and materials assessment, clean-production qualification, and sustainability issue management and optimization. Through MBDC, they have created a Cradle to Cradle Certification to verify products that meet these requirements.

McDonough took some time recently to chat with Organic Processing about the Cradle to Cradle concept and how each of us can help reduce—even eliminate—the idea of waste.

OP: First off, for those who have not read the book (or even for those who have but need to refresh their memories), let’s chat about the main points of creating products according to the Cradle to Cradle concept. This philosophy talks about moving beyond the conventional goals of merely reducing the negative impacts of commerce (eco-efficiency) to a new paradigm of increasing positive impacts (eco-intelligent design). Please explain this.

McDonough: My partner, Michael Braungart, and I are trying to move the discussion of design from an “end-of-pipe” issue of reducing harm to a “pre-pipe” issue of eliminating the very concept of waste. We can place filters on our minds to prevent problems from being created and design in a way that produces positive value.

Being efficient is helpful; reducing our carbon footprint, energy use, pollution and social inequity are endeavors that do have value. However, on its own it is insufficient at getting us to our goal of a sustaining world. Over time, eco-efficiency requires increasing amounts of time, energy and money to realize more meager gains. Importantly, the idea of “going for zero” does not do well within boardrooms, where efforts are expected to be toward expanding, not minimizing.

Being eco-effective requires an organization to first determine the preferred ends it wants to achieve, then identify the efficient path to realize those goals. The story of harnessing creativity to positively benefit the planet, people and prosperity is much more inspiring and valuable than guilt-driven efforts to reduce our impacts.

OP: According to your book, even recycling and composting—viewed as the most environmentally responsible options—are not without serious drawbacks. What are the issues surrounding this? And if these options are not the answer, what is?

McDonough: Today, most recycling and composting occurs with materials never fully designed for those end-of-life processes. The materials themselves are not optimized to be “nutrients” for recycling or composting and the systems of value recovery are incomplete and ineffective. In fact, the materials may never have been designed with human health and ecological health considerations in the first place, so why would we want to expose ourselves to them a second time by recycling them? We need manufacturers to design products safely for their first use (or cradle) and for their end-of-use (next cradle), so they can be easily disassembled into components that are fully and safely recyclable or compostable—Cradle to Cradle. We also need systems in place for recovering used materials and reusing them through the biological metabolism of composting and the technical metabolism of recycling. For example, the #5 plastic, polypropylene, is a very recyclable polymer that can be used in a range of applications, but there is not a widely available recycling system today. Collaboration among manufacturers, retailers, recyclers and consumers could provide for a wholly new, successful, technical metabolism where none exists now.

These metabolisms must maintain the materials at as high of a value as possible, and in ways that allow them to have a range of uses following their next life. Simply “downcycling” a bale of dissimilar polymers from a loading dock into a lower quality speed bump or park bench is not innovative or optimal. The dissimilar polymers cannot be separated when the speed bump wears out, simply delaying the inevitable trip to the landfill or incinerator. We need more creative, valuable solutions that eliminate the very concept of waste itself. We need to design our products and their life cycles to create future material resources, not dead ends.

Today’s recycling and composting are not the answers but new products, designed for post-use systems, and new processes for recovering products and materials, to place into safe, effective recycling and composting can be the solution. We are imagining a system of perpetual material flows—a materials economy—where safe and healthy nutrients move easily from one application to another, avoiding even the thought of a landfill.

We need to create a system of “upcycling.” Instead of speed bumps and park benches, materials would be optimized for health and recyclability because a part of the system would remove any problematic substances. For example, a problematic residual catalyst would be removed from an existing polymer and replaced with an optimized material so it could be safely used in a wide range of additional products in future. The first steps in realizing this ideal is to fully inventory what you’re currently using and then replace any substances that interfere with healthy cycling. We find that often the most minor additives are the ones that create the greatest havoc for well-functioning material metabolisms. For example, chlorinated pigment within inks can create dioxin when it is landfilled or incinerated. Avoiding such pigments makes a material more safely recyclable. Intentional material selection, effective product design and productive recovery systems are critical to the solution.

OP: The idea of “waste equals food,” ensuring that everything can be broken down to be a nutrient for new creation is also a big part of this concept. How does this work?

McDonough: We envision the world of production as ideally two streams: a “biological metabolism” of bio-based materials that can be composted following their use to become food for the soil; and a “technical metabolism” of recyclable materials being perpetually reused, avoiding the landfill. It is a simple concept, but can be challenging to implement. We are working from the elemental up, defining every chemical present at 0.01 percent or higher within a product, understanding its human health, environmental and recyclability characteristics, and then working to improve those as fully as possible. We say that fully 95 to 99 percent of manufacturers don’t fully know what’s in their products to this degree. For example, Material Safety Data Sheets do not go to this level of detail, and thousands of chemicals are presumed innocent until proven guilty, released into production without full information on their ecotoxicity. Cradle to cradle requires a designer to look to the vision, and then bring that down into actual product design and material selection, to eliminate the very concept of waste.

OP: I’ve seen that you’ve worked with major companies such as Nike and Herman Miller to help them develop products using these principles. In the real life application of these principles, what have been the biggest successes?

McDonough: We are gratified seeing the list of product types and company names that are pursuing the Cradle to Cradle framework, where quality is measured by price and performance, as well as ecological intelligence and social responsibility. In response, these clients become our greatest allies—pushing change throughout their supply chains, as well as to their competitors and other industries. Case studies of success incentivize others to participate as well. For example, we have worked with Nike on the design of buildings, footwear and apparel, demonstrating how Cradle to Cradle can be applied at various levels and to various objects. Our efforts to inventory, assess and optimize materials helps our clients improve their environmental performance for the long-term. Herman Miller and other furniture makers such as Steelcase, Haworth and Allsteel ask all their suppliers to provide ingredient data for Cradle to Cradle human health and environmental criteria, to be assessed before being used in products. Companies even compete in the marketplace on the basis of our Cradle to Cradle Certification.

OP: What are some ways this concept can be applied within the realms of organic food, fiber and personal care?

McDonough: The Cradle to Cradle framework can apply within any industry and to any product type. For example, organic food, fiber and personal care all require product packaging, which presents an opportunity for optimization. Today there’s a disconnect between product and packaging. You’ve taken the time to create a safe, organic product and now you put it in a package that might include non-optimized materials, which more than likely cannot be safely reused and is a burden on the environment. Product and package both need to meet our Cradle to Cradle principles. First a designer must decide for which metabolism—biological or technical—the packaging will be defined. We have certified all Priority Mail and Express Mail packaging from the U.S. Postal Service by evaluating its ingredients, manufacturing systems and helping improve the recyclability of all its components.

Organic food and fiber already are prepared for the biological system. The question is: how do we collectively develop the infrastructure necessary to recover those items locally and place them into composters? Sellers of such products should reach out to help develop the composting system, as well as engage their customers and others on how to build local operations into community assets.

We are working with companies on packages that are made from agricultural secondary materials and are compatible with food use. In this way food and its packaging are designed intentionally for the biological cycle. We worked with Designtex, a Steelcase company, to develop a fabric, including colorants and finishing chemicals, that is as compostable as the base wool and ramie, and can be used as mulch by local garden clubs. As a result of our work, the fabric mill’s water effluent became as clean as its influent—a success story on its own.

Personal care faces the issue of packaging as well, but also safety of the ingredients in the product itself and how to differentiate oneself within a competitive industry. Personal care that does not damage the user, others’ health or the environment will continue to be more and more important over time. We have certified gDiapers as a flushable diaper insert, which provides an innovative alternative to landfilling disposable diapers. We also are working with consumer product companies and manufacturers of cleaning products to help them identify any ingredients of concern and replace them with preferred alternatives. Companies can brand themselves as contributing to a healthier future through an expanded definition of quality—ecological intelligence, social responsibility and customer satisfaction.

OP: Many companies have commented on how they see these product development principles not only benefiting the environment, but also bettering the bottom line. The global director of product design at Nike even called the idea a “profit engine.” Herman Miller said that they saw the criteria not as a burden, but as way to ensure “better, more efficient products.” What do you see as the biggest advantages from a business perspective?

McDonough: We are working on an agenda of “triple top line”— revenues can be maximized by also building value from the environmental and social as well as economic perspective. The perspective should be to expand the definition of quality, not just minimize costs and negative impacts. We designed Herman Miller’s GreenHouse factory and office facility for worker satisfaction, and Herman Miller saw increases in worker productivity, product quality and employee retention.

OP: You have also worked with the government of China. Do you think it is possible to get government buy in from the United States?

McDonough: We have worked with the U.S. Postal Service, U.S. Air Force, NASA, the City of Chicago, the City of San Francisco and other public agencies. The State of California has adopted Cradle to Cradle as part of its future vision for the Department of Toxic Substances Control, helping manage hazardous materials to prevent the creation of problems in the first place, instead of cleaning up problems after they are created.

OP: You have developed a certification program. How does this work?

McDonough: Cradle to Cradle Certification is a program through which we validate how well a product has achieved against our criteria for human health, ecotoxicity, recyclability, material recovery, as well as renewable energy use, water quality, water use efficiency and social responsibility in manufacturing. It makes manufacturers think about important aspects of their products which to date have not been taken into account. The program and criteria were developed from our work with numerous clients across various industries. We used our acquired knowledge to create an eco-label that could be applied to any product type and would reflect the three main tenets of the Cradle to Cradle framework: “Waste equals food,” “Use current solar income” and “Celebrate diversity.”

First, to prepare materials for recycling or composting following product use, they must be assessed for whether they can safely flow through those systems. Each material within a product must be broken down into its individual chemical ingredients. Collaboration with the supply chain is critical to this inventory effort.

Each chemical then must be evaluated for its own life cycle impacts on human health and the environment. We use peer-reviewed, publicly-available research for the assessments. We also look to see that companies maximize renewable energy, maximize water quality, and guide their operations with social responsibility.

If a candidate product achieves the necessary criteria, it is certified as a Basic, Silver, Gold or Platinum product, depending on its level of achievement, and can be branded as “Cradle to Cradle.” Our eco-label is becoming the standard for environmental design in various industries, with companies competing against one another for achievement within our program—companies are improving their product design and manufacturing processes to obtain higher tiers of our certification, and lead their industries.

OP: Lastly, what needs to happen to take cradle to cradle to the next level? What will it take to make “the next industrial revolution” happen?

McDonough: The simple act of a company asking its suppliers whether their materials contain PVC, chlorinated polymers, toxic heavy metals, halogenated compounds, carcinogens, endocrine disruptors and other hazards takes us a long way toward better product design. Not only are manufacturers making better material decisions, but they also are educating their supply chain at the same time. Continuing efforts among manufacturers, material suppliers, the recovery system, product recyclers and designers, as well as governments, NGOs and other groups need to continue to pursue the agenda and optimize product life cycles collaboratively. A collective effort is necessary because no organization can fully achieve Cradle to Cradle alone.