Happily, we were taking on a seminal text – Victor Papanek’s “Do It Yourself Murder: The Social and Moral Responsiblity of the Designer” from Design for the Real World.
With so much to cover, we began by pulling apart the role of design in the current context. Specifically, has the definition of design changed? Is design naive? Does it lack practicality when applied to our modern world? Or in fact, is the practicality lacking in other disciplines persistent in modern day design? Has the role or need for design changed? What do designers bring to the table?

The first of many key elements to be presented was the distinction between design and design thinking. Is there a distinction? Has the role of design changed to the extent that what we call design is really now design thinking? How do design thinking and social science intersect? Is design really a new social science discipline (as distinct from science which is disconnected from humas systems)? What role does pure critical thinking (as distinct from design thinking) play in innovation?

In the fashion context, is what was traditionally called design still applicable? Is there enough of a distinction between the role of true designers and “product developers” in the fashion system? Specifically looking at sustainable fashion, we looked at where design innovation is happening currently. With true design evolving beyond simple aesthetics, we discussed whether true design innovation is happening around fashion systems rather than products. And beyond fashion, are there industries or sectors where design innovation is still based on products? Does this mean this is true design as opposed to design thinking?
Next, morality.

We discussed the difference between happiness and goodness, looking closely at our modern desire for happiness (as distinct from goodness). What does it mean that we no longer strive for goodness (in a collective sense, with a heavy emphasis on morals, maturity) but instead for happiness (which implies a leaning toward selfishness, instant gratification)?

Further along this line of thinking, is “sustainability” broadly a design challenge or a social/system challenge? This question becomes complex when we begin to introduce the notion of responsibility into the sustainability question, and particularly when looking at the complex fashion system.

We also discussed the role of design activism, (ie. provocation via the media or subversive redesign) as a design discipline. And as an extension of this, is creating businesses focused on sustainability a design activism practice? Does it matter that some of the best recent innovations in business also happen to be a step in the right direction in for sustainability? Is this down to good business sense, good luck or morality?
The best we could come up with as an answer to the question “do designers have a social and moral responsibility?” is to the extend of their ability. That said, we could easily argue that it is the moral imperative of everyone, designer or otherwise, to behave morally to the best of their ability.

As you’ll notice, the text raised MANY interesting questions, and though we didn’t necessarily manage to conclusively answer too many. But without doubt, we have opened Pandora’s Box which means a very interesting 2013 in the land of GRVP…

Stay tuned.

With 10 sustainable fashion enthusiasts around the table, it was somewhat surprising that we didn’t quite know what to make of this latest book from Fletcher. Or perhaps it was because we’re all enthusiasts and relatively well informed on the issues that the discussion wasn’t straight forward.

The intended audience threw us a little – Who is this text for? How is it different from her first publication? Does it interrogate the issues too much/not enough depending on the desired audience?

Assuming that the group was correct in determining first/second year fashion students to be the audience, the text began to make more sense. As a “next edition” to Sustainable Fashion and Textiles: Design Journeys, Fashion and Sustainability updates students on the landscape and the developments in the industry (which are minimal), but this text doesn’t quite delve deeper into the issues at the centre.

The group discussed some notable points raised in the text including:

Why there is so much weight given to materials in the sustainable fashion debate when they are really such a small piece of the puzzle. Could it be because they are physically obvious? It is a logical first step for labels and shoppers to look at.

Does technology prohibit change? We are so heavily dependent on mechanisation now that we’re reluctant to rethink the way we mass produce, or better still, look to return to handmade and artisan production.

What is the role of the designer? We tend to think of designers as only being responsible for product design, but in reality, they have great power to influence the whole system including service design, information design, system design. (Depending of course on the kind of business they’re working in.)

We also discussed the concept of the “metabolism of your wardrobe” and the term “fashionably obese”. Fletcher is currently working on The Local Wisdom Project which documents and encourages “the craft of use”, prompting consumers to engage with their clothing differently, and more personally.

Some of us found the language used in the text to be problematic, with the over abundance of the word “deep” an issue for some. This does relate to the concepts of deep ecology – which are certainly linked to the sustainable fashion question – but without having introduced the concepts the language loses potency.

The text is, though, a great introduction to the concepts, an update on the sustainable fashion landscape and a pretty compelling advertisement for new ways of thinking, especially for the next generation of designers that it is aimed at.

This month at Gladrags we discussed Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point.

Looking at the characteristics of trends and social movements, Gladwell presents several interesting case studies and personality types that play a key role in activating this phenomenon.

The book is a funny mixture of social psychology, “self-help”, and behaviour change theory. It is concerned with understanding why some trends reach critical mass and become mainstream, then predictably die out – and others don’t. It focuses on individual and collective consumer behaviours that cause this invisible “tipping point”.

It prompted varied responses from the group – from cynicism to how much of the book is focused on tools and tricks intended to have people ultimately buying more, to interest at how these principles can be applied to the environmental movement generally, and how we can see them active specifically in the sustainable fashion landscape.

We discussed who in this sector could be easily classified as “connectors”, “mavens” and “salesmen” and where they play a role. We see many of these people as already actively participating in discussion and driving change, but wondered if their influence is limited as long as “sustainable fashion” exists outside of the broader industry context.

The “stickiness factor” Gladwell describes is also a really interesting idea. As the conversation continued after we officially wrapped up, I discussed with Patricia how impossible it is to “unknow” the critical information about the true impacts of the global fashion industry. Why then has this “movement” now grown to become mainstream?

Enter advertising. For me, even when consumers have a clear understanding of how they should spend their dollars (as a responsible consumer), I feel like it needs to be constantly reinforced, lest they “gruen transfer” and become overwhelmed by the retail environment and the constant bombardment of media and advertising demanding them to buy, buy, buy.

Perhaps then, the tipping point in this case would be production patterns, with the change in behaviour coming from retailers – not consumers.

Personally, I feel like there are some limitations to applying this theory to behaviours of conscious consumption.

On the flip side though, is it realistic to apply this to the fast fashion movement? A wonderful manifesto recently penned by Daniel Dykes of Fashionising.com discusses the concept of The Curated Wardrobe. Daniel outlines the way consumption trends rise and inevitably fall – and wonders whether fast fashion will go the same way. Now that the masses can have as much as they want, there is little appeal for the fashionable elite. Is this a reverse tipping point? Does this signal the end of fast fashion?

Next month we’re tacking Lucy Siegle’s To Die For: Is Fast Fashion Wearing Out The World.

We looked at an adaptation of a speech given by Hannah Jones, Global Manager of Nike’s Corporate Social Responsibility efforts, which was given as Nike were awarded top honours for sustainability reporting.

The summary of this speech was posted on CERES (www.ceres.org) and was titled Why Sustainability Reporting is Revolutionary. Not surprising I suppose, given the occasion.

This content did create an interesting discussion, not least of all this: “To quote Don Tapscott: “You’d better be buff if you’re going to be naked.” Transparency is the new inevitability.”

Fair to say Tullia had a field day with this analogy. We discussed the role of internal reporting tools like the Eco-Index framework. Such a tool enables businesses to “get naked”, but in the privacy of their own home, and to continue to “work out” before revealing their new “buff” self (ie, their robust sustainability strategy) to the world.

Most of us agreed that new levels of transparency – of the supply chain, business operations, product strategy and eco-claims – provide us with a much more useful platform for evolution and progress in the sustainability space. After all, how can we know where improvements need to be made without an understanding of the current landscape?

Business transparency, especially where environmental and social issues are concerned, allows the media to report on the issues in a manner that is consistent with the public interest. It enables consumers to make informed decisions, helps us avoid overblown green marketing claims (and equally claims of greenwashing) and allows all stakeholder groups to understand the real social and environmental costs of doing business, and to work to improving them.

As Jones correctly raises in her speech, possibly the most exciting part of the reporting journey though, is that complete transparency enables a new kind of innovation, one that considers business operations in a holistic sense.

From a design perspective, introducing a new dimension to the innovation process is an exciting challenge, particularly in an industry that is completely cyclical and where we’ve pretty much seen it all.

By setting new goals for design innovation – goals that prioritise low environmental impacts (or better yet positive environmental impacts), and looking closely at well documented supply chain impacts, the fashion sector has the opportunity to actually achieve really great outcomes.

The principle is simple, and its not a new one. Once upon a time we routinely shared things with our neighbours and friends. Botsman suggests that thanks to the internet, consumers (especially Generation Y) have become increasingly comfortable with the idea of sharing things with strangers, and not just their innermost thoughts, but possessions. In addition, a swag of web enabled businesses to facilitate this sharing. Businesses like eBay, Airbnb, DriveMyCar, even Hub Melbourne for office space.

Director of The Clothing Exchange and friend of Gladrags Vox Pops, Juliette Anich, participated in the discussion, explaining how a business like The Clothing Exchange enables people to “collaborate” in consuming clothing. As the original Australian clothing swap business, they set the tone for many clothing swaps, online markets, lending and resale enterprises.

A lively discussion followed – at our first Gladrags Vox Pops to be held at 1000£ Bend.

Many of us, particularly those who are environmentally minded, are frequent participants in collaborative consumption when consuming fashion. We participate in clothing swaps, share with friends, buy secondhand clothing which has once been used by others. The notion of collaboration in consumption certainly has many applications. It could potentially also have huge implications for the way the fashion industry is structured.

One point that generated quite a bit of discussion was around how garments having an extended lifecycle is likely to impact on prices. Would we be willing to pay more for items of better quality, knowing they would have a longer lifecycle and stay out of landfill?

With the introduction of regulations forcing manufacturers in Taiwan to pay for the eventual disposal of items they produce, it seems there is finally a financial incentive for companies to extend the lifecycle of garments and consider how their garments will be disposed of. Manufacturers who currently make only a small profit margin on a large volume of goods may see their margin half. Does this mean the days of high volume, low quality garments are numbered?

The social implications of this kind of shift are also significant. Rachel Botsman touches on the possibility of fewer possessions, fewer full time jobs, and the charming idea of increased leisure time. But after only 50-60 years of mass marketed consumers goods, are we already programmed to consume? What would it take for us to be satisfied with consuming less? What are the possible broader economic effects of a marketplace focused on sharing? What does this mean for the notion of community? How might this impact on the economic prosperity of developing countries?

Come along to our next Gladrags Vox Pops to find out more.