Australian Paper

While trend analysts predicted the rise of the green movement in the early 2000s, Haul founder Scott Kilmartin says it’s really only in the last couple of years that he has had to do less explaining about what sustainable design entails.

“Green was seen as too earthy and companies would pay lip service to it,” he reflects. “Now every company that calls us says they are ‘environmentally responsible’. It’s easy to say of course. But we can help them do it visibly.”

Yet surprisingly, it’s taken some two decades since UK businessman John Elkington began motivating business to explore the merits of corporate social responsibility and the triple bottom line of People, Planet and Profits. In other words: looking after both stakeholders and shareholders. While it has become the mantra of US and European sustainability indices including FTSE4Good and the Dow Jones, in Australia it’s taken somewhat longer to take hold.

Some, like Kilmartin, place it on the mainstream radar in about 2004. Others attribute the popular awareness of impending climate change calamity to Al Gore’s 2006 Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth. At least, as Kilmartin says, companies are aware that sustainable design is an issue now, even if they don’t quite appreciate how far they need to go to prove their claims.

Over the past year in the Australian Paper Sustainability Supplement we have examined many stages of the sustainable design ‘journey’. We have seen how third-party auditing and life-cycle assessments can verify claims of green credentials, so while sustainability has become easier to say, and more visible for everyone, independent auditing has helped avoid greenwashing. Arguably, it would be easier still if there was one government certification body, but at least the public and businesses can check on the claims.

It’s worth heeding the advice of Büro North’s Soren Luckins that designers need to do their own research, because information is always being updated and products not only change but their credentials are dependent on how they are used. Indeed, it costs nothing to ask questions. Organisations including AGDA, Designers Accord and AIGA provide basic information for anyone who likes to retain an independent eye on the claims made by others. For graphic designers, the print industry is remarkably easy to negotiate. As Luckins says in this issue’s Exchange, there is so much data available on carbon neutral FSC® certified papers and printing techniques.

Thanks to alcohol-free printing and vegetable based-inks, to name just two aspects, printing is a far greener business than it once was. Paper, too, is produced sustainably. It can be recycled easily (2.5 million tonnes of paper and paperboard are recovered and recycled in Australia every year) to make more, and it comes from a renewable resource. Indeed, the economics of the paper and printing industry rely on recycling because recycled paper is comparable in cost to the original fibre. In addition, carbon neutral papers are also available. They provide an effective way for companies to continue their reduction of carbon emissions. The emissions from the energy used to make these papers, and in some cases dispose of it, is offset with approved abatement providers.

Many analysts believe that because paper and print are renewable and recyclable, they have an immediate advantage over electronic communications that use new and additional energy every time they are opened or read from a computer screen. A computer’s plastics, glass, aluminium, monitors, components and parts are also recycled at much lower levels than paper products.

While design can be used to add value to a company’s green message, it’s also being used as an intrinsic part of that designed product. As Desktop magazine’s recent Create awards demonstrated, designers such as sustainability category winner Kent Gration (whom we featured last issue) embeds green principles in his bamboo furniture design – from the choice of the material to the sourcing of the product to its assembly and transportation.

Design-driven companies with green, ethical values as an intrinsic part of their philosophy are trying to change our relationship to stuff. Ideally we should be making stuff that lasts. That means everything we use and live with is designed for zero waste and either meant to last (“heirloom design” and “durability”) or to be shared (“product service systems”) or both.

These are not just models of good sense but good business sense.

From wayfinding systems at Falls Creek snowfields to producing its own Christmas trees, which won a Premier’s Design award for sustainability, Büro North has specialised in eco-design. The multidisciplinary studio that began in Melbourne in 2005 now has offices in Sydney and does business Australiawide. Company founder, 31-year-old designer Soren Luckins, explains what he has learnt so far about sustainability.

Why is the Falls Creek wayfinding project important to you?

In the past a lot of projects have compromised their aesthetics to achieve sustainability. It shouldn’t compromise anything; it should contribute to it. I would hate anyone to say ‘that looks like it’s eco’. Falls Creek doesn’t look very sustainable in that sense of looking literally green. It deals with sustainability in a more sophisticated way regarding materials and scale.

What was the brief?

To design 40 to 50 four-metre-tall steel and concrete signs, transport them to Falls Creek and pour massive concrete bases to support them. While it takes a lot of energy to refine aluminium it can do quite a lot in terms of structural strength. So it was a balancing act to work out the most efficient energy and processing. With sand casting there were almost no energy implications. And the beauty was it was produced locally. If we designed in steel and concrete then we would have needed eight-metre semi-trailer trucks. We could use cars. So it’s been an education in that there are no rules. Each project is different and we can’t make the same assumptions.

Which is your most successful design in terms of sustainability?

The Christmas tree was the most successful because we can qualify that [with life cycle assessments], but we say Falls Creek is, even though we can’t fully qualify it. We did indicative life cycle assessments but not an accredited LCA

What’s the difference?

To get an official life cycle assessment you have to get two independent LCA experts to do it, to validate each other’s work. It’s a highly detailed process that gives clients and the public confidence in the green credentials. But the more detailed the project and processes, obviously the more costly it is to evaluate. We just couldn’t afford it on this project. It would have been about $30–40K. But because the Christmas tree project was such a controlled process – with only one material and one or two processes in cutting them out – it was straightforward and therefore more affordable to commission.

How do you do an indicative assessment?

There are various ways, but the best is probably RMIT’s rapid assessment tool called Greenfly, which can be used to build your own life cycle analysis.

Like having five-star ratings for houses and commercial buildings?

Yes but maybe the next few years will be less about getting a score and certification and more about going through the process with your clients, which I think is more constructive. It depends whether you see it as a process for getting the best result or ticking a box. We tend to think it’s to get the best result… unless it’s for marketing purposes. When we launched the Christmas tree we said it’s the most environmental Christmas tree, and we had the data to support that.

How has it gone?

Incredibly well. Last year we sold about $40-50,000 worth of Christmas trees, but we’re a design studio and I don’t think we are good at ringing and supplying retailers. We’re looking to do it but through different avenues like licensing.

Unless you are doing your own product, how difficult is it for designers to practice sustainability?

It takes a lot of commitment and effort to constantly question and challenge all your assumptions and all the information you’re given in the industry. A lot of data doesn’t exist, so you’re constantly having to explore and get all the information yourself.

Do many jobs require you to validate the sustainability credentials as part of a client’s larger project?

On lots of print and graphic design jobs, yes. But that is much easier to validate. If we do a print job we use FSC® certified paper then all that [sustainability] data exists for the paper. If we use vegetable-based inks then the data exists for the inks. For print jobs it’s easier to audit.

How sustainable is your office?

It’s carbon neutral but we carbon offset to achieve it, because we have cars and motorbikes and every week one of our staff is interstate. You do everything you can in terms of paper, energy, waste, recycling and offsetting.

Any lessons for other designers?

Don’t right off things that appear less sustainable on paper. Read and scour the internet as much as you can because there’s always new information emerging.