Green Persuasion:

Encouraging Environmental Behaviors Through Products

Michelle Ludwig

Rhode Island School of Design

25 May 2005
Introduction
How much do people really care about the environment and what are they willing to do about it?
What would motivate them to make ecological and equitable decisions? What do they understand
about their options? What are effective ways of utilizing these attitudes? What features, benefits,
designs and ideas work effectively? How to persuade the masses? How to help them persuade
themselves?

Once these things are understood, environmentally positive products can more easily gain consumer
demand. Current challenges to positive products and perceptions are not only technical and
financial, they are emotional, lifestyle-oriented, market driven obstacles to product adoption. When
there is strong consumer demand, the products and innovation will follow quickly. What aspects of
ecology and the environmental movement will provide incentives to consumers? Outside of
ecological issues, are there strategies such as culture, psychology and aesthetics, that are key to
promoting new responsible design criteria?

As a designer, it is important to understand the audience and users’ appetites, desires, fascinations
and tolerances. “Designers need to explore design as a medium and methodology of persuasion…
and is about effecting change in people’s choices and behavior.”1 Developing sustainable products
can be technically innovative, inspiring and noble, but if developed in a vacuum, they could easily
be a commercial failure. New business models can financially justify higher development and
fabrication costs, but it ultimately comes back to consumer demand and sales volume. The
challenge this poses to the designer is to create an enlightened market culture through the objects
she designs.

The Challenge
All products share a common future – the landfill. As designers, are we okay with this? Armed
with creativity and intelligence, we bring attractive solutions into the world. Is ending upon a heap
of trash the destiny of our efforts? Are we responsible? Where does the responsibility lie?

Never before in history have grown men sat down and seriously designed electric
hairbrushes, rhinestone covered file boxes, and mink carpeting…and then drawn up
elaborate plans to make and sell these gadgets to millions of people.

1
 By creating whole new species of permanent garbage to clutter up the landscape, and
by choosing materials and processes that pollute, designers have become a dangerous
breed.

In an age of mass production…design has become the most powerful tool with
which man shapes his tools and environments…society and himself.
Victor Papanek, Design for the Real World, 1970

Currently most products have a cradle-to-grave lifecycle. Beginning as a natural resource or

synthetic chemical, a product proceeds through manufacture, distribution, purchase, use, to disposal.
The lifespan can range from years to mere seconds but the end result is always the same – thrown
away wherever “away” might be.

How to do better?

Design Criteria
Alternative design models now exist illuminating a more intelligent and responsible approach to
design and manufacture. These provocative models include: The Natural Step, United States
Environmental Protection Agency’s Design for Environment (DfE) Program, The Hannover
Principles, United States Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) criteria for architecture, McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry’s Cradle to Cradle
Design Protocol, and various Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) systems . These are explained in more
detail in Appendix A.

My experience is with the cradle-to-cradle model which, among many strategies, proposes to view
materials in a closed loop. A given component of a product is either a technical or synthetic
material that is recyclable back into itself or as another industrial material; or it is a natural material
that derives from ecological sources and will biodegrade back into the natural biosphere.

2
In this way, materials keep going around. One product’s waste stream becomes ‘raw material’ for
another circuit. Significantly reducing the amount of new material required from our finite natural
resources.

Among many strategies, these sustainable design paradigms suggest: using non-toxic materials,
designing objects to use only minimal material, utilizing renewable energy such as solar or wind
power, minimizing wastes in manufacturing, designing for disassembly, including recycled content,
using renewable resources such as trees and plant material, pursuing energy efficiencies, designing
minimal packaging and anticipating future uses.

“Once we set about designing with such missions in mind…the process of innovation begins in
earnest. We leave aside the old model of product-and-waste…and embrace the challenge of being
not efficient but effective with respect to a rich mix of considerations and desires.”2

Business Criteria
Alternative business models have also been developed to[….]. A sustainable product must still
adhere to the principles of the marketplace – affordable and desirable to consumers, durable enough
for its intended use and profitable for the company. In the sustainable business models, the standard
‘bottom line’ becomes a ‘triple bottom line’ where standard business economics are incorporated
with the other two bottom lines of ecology and social equity. For instance, ecological accounting
practices consider additional metrics other than dollars. How much carbon dioxide does the
manufacture of this product generate? “How much money should be spent for what level of reduced
impact? Often the large cost savings from one set of ecologically sound design choices can help
offset the extra expense associated with another set.”3

There are many good reasons for a manufacturer or company to go green. They could have a
personal or corporate commitment to the environment; feeling it is the ‘right thing to do’ for which
they can utilize/optimize for PR and generate good will from their stakeholders. Manufacturers
could detect a niche market or an opportunity to differentiate themselves from their competitors and
thus result in sales and reputation for innovation and responsibility. There is also incentive in
reexamining a company’s product and processes to avoid potential liability. Our litigious society has
taken aim at many a company with seemingly deep pockets over issues only tangentially related to
them (e.g. toxicity of a material that they use but is made and supplied by another). A manufacturer
3
is better armed and prepared if they fully understand the impact and processes of their product and
materials.

“To refuse the challenge implied by the triple bottom line is to risk extinction.”4

Marketing Criteria - Ecolabels

To help consumers wade through the environmental information and comparisons, ecolabels have
been created. Typically established and assessed by an independent third party agency or
government, these ‘seals of approval’, visually differentiate a product from their competitors with a
logo or mark indicating compliance. In the past decade, European initiatives and ecolabels have
lead the way providing a benchmark of criteria for manufacturers to achieve. More specifics can be
found in Appendix C. The difficulty with ecolabels is determining the minimum criteria. Since
metrics can be as diverse as energy consumption to toxic chemical use to future recyclability, there
is much room for controversy over what defines an environmentally sound product. This difficulty
in coming to a consensus, and the political influences of big business, who fear any adverse
economical effects, have hindered many of the efforts here in the United States to establish
universally-recognized ecolabels.

However, progress is being made in industry-specific ecolabels, which address more narrow criteria
relevant to their products. For instance, the Carpet and Rug Institute (CRI) has Green Label, which
address volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) specifically but do not
address issues such as materials and manufacturing processes. The EPA’s Energy Star primarily
measures energy efficiency and is thus associated with electrical appliances but does not consider
other criteria such as disposal or recyclability. See Appendix C for more information.

Ecolabels are a good step in helping the consumer understand what constitutes an environmentally-
preferred product and be able to identify one in the market place. But it also makes the assessment
process seem confusing and overwhelming, especially for those who are only moderately green.

All efforts are good efforts. But it is not enough. How do we get there?

4
With sustainable design paradigms becoming better defined. And sustainable business models are
proving their merit and being adopted by more corporations. What is the missing link to mass
adoption of environmentally-preferred products? The Consumer.

The Consumer
When consumers are asking for a product or specific features in a product, armed with discretionary
income, manufacturers listen and scramble to meet this market demand. The challenge is how to
influence consumer culture and enlighten them to ask for objects designed responsibly.

Environmentally enlightened consumers say they will buy a responsible product if only the
companies would make it. On the other hand, most companies are tied to their existing business
models and have to show a market demand before they can invest and develop a new venture with
potential risk. The technical and engineering side of products can seem relatively easy to figure out,
particularly when compared to the challenge of creating market demand.
Research
To start to understand the consumer and their motivations, research centered on existing consumer
behavior studies. There has been extensive research on consumer psychology and behavior
conducted by social scientists, anthropologists, psychologists, behaviorists, economists and
marketing entities. Research sources include books, academic periodicals, trade journals, published
studies and essays, and personal interviews with a green marketing expert and a biologist.

These studies presented many facets of consumers and their decision making process. Some of the
concepts and theories include:
Social Proof Hierarchy of Needs
Fixed-Action Patterns Aesthetics and ‘Making Special’
Brand Loyalty Role of Emotion
Behavioral Economics Belief and Value Systems
Cult Brands Commitment and Consistency
Psychology of Retail environments Authority Influence
Desire vs. Needs Post-Modern Consumer
Consumer Decision-Making Process Goal Structures
Guilt Identity Roles

5
Summaries of some of these studies are presented in Appendix D.

Thesis research consisted of surveying this body of information and drawing conclusions that
would help inform design. This scientific knowledge is fascinating, but what is concluded
foremost is that consumers are constant paradoxes. While they can be predictable at times, they can
also be easily manipulated and influenced to behave in particular ways with the right stimuli. Once
they define themselves in one manner they can specifically behave in another to contrast or
contradict expectations. Any given consumer has a variety of identity and social roles to play and
will make decisions differently based upon which role is engaged. When they have a fundamental
need, it can be superceded by a desire, and vice versa, an immediate desire will redefine what is
perceived as a need. The values that one holds, define one’s beliefs which in turn influence their
decisions, but simultaneously, lower-level decisions that are made for varying reasons can alter
one’s higher-held beliefs in an effort to attain consistency.

In addition, marketing and advertising have become extremely sophisticated and the efficacy and
influence is staggering. On one hand, if the environmental movement used some of these tactics,
significant progress could be made. In certain instances this is occurring – the successful celebrity
endorsement of the Toyota Prius. On the other hand, most environmentalists have more integrity
than to consciously enact many of these manipulative/influential devices or do not realize their
potential.

Green Consumer
Is there a ‘green consumer’? Environmentally enlightened consumers are hard to define
demographically, since their sensitivity extends throughout the population to varying degrees and
individual issues vary across a spectrum depending upon what is immediately relevant to them.

In 1990 (and periodically since) the Roper Organization, polled North America for its
environmental behavior. Based on their responses to polling questions, Roper described five groups
with each having a different level of commitment:

Percent of
 Population
1990 1992 1996 2000 2002
Group
True-Blue Greens 11% 20% 10% 11% 9%
Greenback Greens 11% 5% 5% 5% 6%
Sprouts 26% 31% 33% 33% 31%
Grousers 24% 9% 15% 18% 19%
Basic Browns 28% 35% 37% 33% 33%

True-Blue Greens are the committed environmentalists. They are convinced that
individual actions can make a difference in protecting the environment. They believe
that economic development should not take precedence over environmental
protection. They also express strong support for all kinds of pro-environmental
regulations, regardless of extra cost or inconvenience. They hold strong beliefs, live
them, and believe they can personally make a difference. Politically and socially
active, they attempt to influence others to do the same. Most likely to be white
females living in the Midwest or West, married with children. One-third hold
professional or executive jobs and regularly access the internet.

The Greenback Greens, like the True-Blue Greens, believe strongly in the primacy of
protecting the environment over economic development. They have a great deal of
faith that individual efforts to improve the environment can make a difference. And
these beliefs are most characteristically expressed by their willingness to pay higher
prices for environmentally-safe products, but not likely to give up comfort and
convenience for the environment. They are the youngest group and are well educated
More likely to be employed full-time in white-collar jobs and most likely married
white males in the Midwest and West. They are so-named because most willing to
spend more for products - up to a 22% price increase is acceptable. They are too busy
to change their lifestyles but they are happy and able to express their beliefs with their
wallets.

The Sprouts represent the key swing group in a movement toward a green consumer
society. On the one hand, Sprouts are concerned about the environment and support
many regulatory measures, but on the other hand, they do not believe strongly that
individuals can do a lot about environmental problems. They are also less certain
about which side to take when confronted with the trade-off between protecting the
environment and encouraging economic development. Willing to participate but only
when it requires little effort, thus recycling is their main green activity. They want
more pro-environmental legislation but don’t believe they themselves can make
much of an impact. They may engage in pro-environmental activity but are not
willing to pay more for pro-environment products. Even though they have similar
median income as Greenbacks, they choose the less expensive ones on the shelf. If
they do pay more, they are only tolerant of 4 % more cost. More female than male,
they have the oldest median age – 43, well educated, geographically evenly spread
and 65% are married. Potential source of new greenback greens.

The Grousers rationalize their lack of involvement in pro-environmental activities.

They are highly critical of all players in the game. They show a low level of pro-
environmental behavior and argue that they have reasons for not doing more about the
environment -- lots of reasons. They take few environmental actions but feel that
other consumers are not doing their part either, that business should be fixing the
problem, and that green products cost too much more and don’t work well. Slightly
below average education and income. They feel confused and uninformed about
environmental issues. Will recycle but usually grudgingly only to comply with local
law. Feel the whole thing is someone else’s problem and responsibility belongs to the
government and corporations. They use many excuses to explain their lack of
activity. Believe that anything they do will be inconsequential in making a difference.
The demographics reflect the national average with a higher proportion of minorities.

The largest of all the five groups, the Basic Browns are characterized by the virtual
absence of any pro-environmental activities. But unlike the Grousers, the Basic
Browns do not rationalize their behavior or point to the alleged shortcomings of other
people. The indifference of the Basic Browns is further evident in their lack of
support for government regulation. They believe that environmental indifference is
the mainstream. This group is also the least exposed to information about the
environment from any source. It is little surprise, then, that a plurality of them admit
they are confused about what is good and what is bad for the environment. They are
not convinced that environmental problems exist or are that serious. They don’t make
 excuses for their in-action, they just don’t care. Half as likely to recycle, only 3% read
product labels and buy green goods versus 18% national average. Lowest median
income, lowest level of education, disproportionately male, and southern. Basic
belief is that there is not much an individual can do. 5, 6, 7

Green consumers want to feel that in some small way, they can make a difference. Green
motivation comes from a desire for control and a strong need to alleviate guilt. Often
they acknowledge their role in overall consumption effects. They feel especially guilty about
environmental ills they can do something about but do not do much for. They feel ineffective in
solving large problems such as global warming but do prioritize smaller efforts like reducing
excessive packaging, recycling and conserving water.

In efforts to alleviate guilt, consumers will enact one behavior to compensate for another less
environmental decision. For instance, they will drive an SUV or use disposable items but then go
out of their way to recycle within their household. As their knowledge and commitment grows,
they become more aware of what they can do. The differential between what they know they can do
and what they are doing not only creates guilt but sometimes makes them feel defensive. Taking
relatively easy small efforts reinforces their intent with positive feelings. Once engaged a little bit,
such as recycling, they start to question what else can they do. 8

Target market
For this design thesis, the target market is the middle group, the Sprouts – a sizeable (33%) group
that is on the environmental fence. The True-Blue Greens and Greenback Greens are already
convinced to participate in environmental behaviors and there are products already designed and
available that are appealing and affordable to them. As a swing group, it is more difficult to appeal
to this demographic. Not willing to pay more or make much of an effort, the challenge is how to
engage this group through design. This group is aware that environmental issues exist, they just do
not feel empowered to do anything about it individually. Looking at existing established behaviors,
most do recycle when available mainly because it has been made to be so little effort – taking a
recycle bin to the curb.
Many consumers have good intentions in recycling, but may miss the mark in their attempts.
Recently, seeing a living room lamp in a curbside recycling bin demonstrated a wishful intent. This
lamp was glass with a brass base and had the electrical socket and shade harp still in place.
Whether it had reached the end of its useful life or not, it was clear that the consumer had hoped it
was somehow recyclable. By the behavior of placing the lamp in the bin instead of the trash, the
guilt of disposal was transferred to someone else – maybe someone else can deal with it; recycle it.
The ironic thing is that much of the lamp is recyclable but it had been designed and manufactured in
a way that made it next to impossible to separate the materials.

The design intent is to reinforce this group’s existing environmental behaviors by persuading
them to choose products that have the future potential of recycling and encourage a behavior
change in how they interact with consumer goods. Thus, design products that have the
potential to change behaviors.

Green by Design
It is ideal that a product be used as long as possible and perhaps be cycled to others for more use.
But inevitably, after it is broken or no longer wanted, it comes to the end of it’s ‘useful life.’ In the
current cradle-to-grave-model, this is where an item is disposed and ends up at the landfill to sit for
a millennia. In a sustainable model, the item has a potential to be recycled and re-enter the
materials stream.

Of all of the new paradigm design criteria, what consumers understand most readily are the
concepts of recycled content – material comprised of post-consumer or post-industrial waste -- and
the concept of an object being recyclable – it can go into the recycle bin. Current recycling
behaviors are often based on a general knowledge which is not always accurate. One common
green assumption is the meaning of the recycling logo.

Recycling has become synonymous with the ‘chasing arrows’ logo. This symbol was originally
developed in 1970 by Gary Anderson as a submission for an Earth Day competition sponsored by
the Chicago-based Container Corporation of America, a large producer of recycled paperboard, to
indicate their recycled content. In 1988, it was adopted by the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI)
to be used along with a centered number in their resin identification coding system. This system
was intended to identify containers by resin polymer type – numbered 1 to 7 – to facilitate
separation for recycling. To consumers it erroneously has come to imply that something is
recyclable as long as it contains this symbol. For instance, resin #3 - Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), is
rarely recyclable due to its chemical components and hazards. In regard to plastics recycling, only
those accepted by a municipality’s recycling program , typically #1 and #2, are actually being
recycled.

There is a design opportunity here. An established recycling market exists for #1 resin –
polyethylene terephthalate (PETE) - typically clear bottles and food containers; and #2 resin –
high-density polyethylene (HDPE) – typically milk and detergent bottles. Though other
thermoplastic polymers are also easy to recycle (e.g. polypropylene, #5), these materials already
have a reclamation market and socially conditioned behaviors associated with recycling them. By
creating products out of these plastics, the market for this material is stimulated and demands more
participation.

Process
My process began with generating many product ideas within the themes of Repurposing, Design
for Disassembly and Design for Recycling. I scaled my investigation to include items ranging from
simple to complex as well as those with short life-spans to longer ones. Having familiarity with
some precedents informed my decision/process as well. End-of-Life Vehicle Recycling in the
European Union is an effort to reclaim materials from conventionally made cars which is physically
difficult and intensive. BMW has been designing its cars and parts for disassembly for many years
but a car has thousands of parts and disparate materials. Even an office chair, Herman Miller’s
Aeron chair, has successfully been designed to be 98% recyclable, which is very commendable, but
is still confounding to consumers as to how to recycle it or even what to do with it when reaches the
end of it’s life. However, single-use cameras have demonstrated a consumer-friendly lifecycle
model in which the customer gets the convenience they desire, the service of photos and the
manufacturer gets its product and material back to go around the lifecycle again.
The key is to start simple.

Products with Potential™

Products with Potential™ is a brand consisting of everyday items that have been designed with their
future end in mind. This includes items designed with non-toxic, responsible materials, in ways to
allow disassembly, recycling, and repurposing. Acknowledging the existing and typical behaviors
of mainstream consumers, these items integrate and subtly encourage consumers to participate in
environmental actions without creating guilt, without appearing overly complex or elitist and are
cost comparable with conventional items. While possibly utilizing recycled-content material, these
products are new, mass-manufactured objects not to be confused with repurposed waste items.
Aesthetically, items strive to avoid a hemp-granola-hippie look in favor of sleek and sophisticated
without following some of the tawdry conventional offerings.

Items generated and explored in this process included: footwear, jewelry, tools for repurposing
packaging, bathroom accessories, toys, lunch bags, gift packaging, lighting fixtures, clothing,
graphic patterns, seating, refillable items, ‘disposable’ items and appliances. I further developed the
latter two concepts into prototypes.

Single-use cutlery
An item that is manufactured by using petrochemicals, used once or for a very short amount of time,
disposed of and then remains intact in the landfill for years is… a design failure. An item that often
creates frustration is disposable cutlery. One can argue that cutlery should not be disposable at all;
it should be washed and reused. But nonetheless, there are instances where it is convenient and we
live in a convenience-driven world. If it is going to be ‘disposed of’ it should be designed for that
action. If the intent is to end in the landfill, an item should be designed to be biodegradable.
Single-use cutlery is an excellent object to utilize biodegradable plastics and there are companies
pursuing this presently. However, the aesthetics, performance and cost issues are still being worked
out to be competitive with and as effective as what is conventionally available.

Conversely, if a spoon is intended to re-enter the materials stream, it needs to be a recyclable

material. By a casual poll, many people believe that if something is plastic it is therefore
recyclable… ‘somewhere, somehow, not sure’. Chemically speaking this is mostly true, but
practically it is only true for a couple of types of plastic and then only if it gets into the recycling
stream. Making cutlery out of recyclable plastic is not difficult, the challenge is how to
communicate its potential and encourage the behavior of recycling for an item that historically has
gone in the trash.
The design requirements for single-use cutlery would include: strong, functional, minimal material,
and cheap. The progressive criteria would add: uses recycled content, technically recyclable in lieu
of disposable, ‘looks’ recyclable, works with existing recycling infrastructure, while remaining cost
comparable.

To look recyclable, what are clues for recycling? Can we define a visual language for recyclable
objects? I surveyed the recycling bin.

Our current packaging presents many design details. Some details provide strength to the material -
corrugation on a tin can adds structural strength to the sides. Other details are for future
manipulation - original Evian plastic water bottles have circular creases that provide a better grip
but were originally designed to facilitate crushing when empty. And some are for user interaction -
detergent bottles have large grooves on their caps to assist in opening with wet or soapy hands.
These details are typically functional, but they also now define the object type. By adopting design
details of existing recyclable items, semiotics are created to give clues to recycling new products.

One of the more successfully established environmental behaviors is recycling aluminum soda cans.
These cans are engineered for strength and to withstand pressure with a minimal amount of
material. The rolled edge detail at the top results from the process of sealing the cans but also forms
a suitable edge to drink from and creates a familiar behavior of placing this detail at your lips. That
detail contributes to the overall shape of a soda can which is recognizable even in silhouette.
The rolled-edge detail, along with lightweight aluminum as a material, become devices for
communicating to a user that this object is recyclable. Resembling soda cans, it subconsciously
elicits a similar behavior – put it into the recycling bin. The spoon is also designed to use a minimal
amount of aluminum – approximately one-forth the amount in a can; has a rib for added strength at
the key stress point; and could be printed on for marketing opportunities.

A typical context for its use would be a picnic or party. Wherever the beer and soda cans go - a
recycling bin ideally - the single-use cutlery can go as well. As an added benefit, many have told
me that they felt more inspired to wash and reuse these spoons since the materiality conveyed a
more substantial item, resembling a ‘real’ metal spoon. Both are beneficial environmental
behaviors that are not prescribed but rather are opportunities designed into the object to let the
consumers choose to participate.

Coffeemaker
Making coffee can be a very simple process. Hot water poured over coffee grounds and into a
receptacle will get you a decent cup of coffee. An elegantly simple brewing carafe around this
principle was designed by American chemist Peter Schlumbohm and released by Chemex in 1942.
If coffee can be made that simply, why do we have a sports car of an appliance? Presumably to
continuously entertain and appease consumers, drip coffeemakers today have become gigantic
housings with ‘bells and whistles’ but still have relatively simple interior parts – a water reservoir,
heating element and a nozzle to sprinkle the hot water over the grounds.

What drives this design? Is the market asking for pretentious housings and extensive buttons or are
they just getting bored and need a new design folly?

I chose to redesign the coffeemaker since it is an ubiquitous item - most U.S. homes have one, as
well as offices and hotel rooms. It is precisely because it is an over-designed object that does not get
thought about often that makes it a good candidate. There are efforts underway to better recycle
cars and computers – these are complex items, with complex problems. In comparison, a
coffeemaker is a very simple appliance. It is a more feasible problem to solve and can illustrate
proof of concept since the proposed solution can work across many product types. As a common
consumer product, it affords an opportunity to communicate and demonstrate disassembly and
recycling principles to the average consumer.

Disassembly
Designing an object to be easily disassembled at the end of its useful life, facilitates separating
disparate materials and getting them into their respective recycled waste streams. To encourage the
behavior of interaction with a product, it must be friendly, approachable, ergonomic and intuitive.
Unless dismantling procedures are included on the object, it is highly unlikely that original
packaging would still exist at the end of a product’s life. If disassembly is the goal, how can this be
communicated without specific written instructions? Through the design, clues for disassembly are
established that communicate a process and encourage one to interact.
What are existing clues for disassembly?

Since childhood, most people have developed an inherent and logical knowledge of how things go
together and come apart. Things like fasteners - buckles, snaps, hook-and-loop, and levers - are
readily understood. With a little investigation, even unfamiliar connections can be figured out using
similar logic. Buttons invite pushing on them, knurling or grooved notches imply turning or
twisting by hand, a peg fits into a similar-sized hole, and certain shapes and incisions indicate what
tool is required. This knowledge base can be utilized to inform how an object is put together and
thus, how it can be taken apart.

To better understand a standard coffeemaker, I tried to disassemble one. Ultimately successful, the
process took over an hour, required removing 25 screws of differing size, and at times, some brute
force to get some parts separated. In total there were 42 pieces and a handful of different materials.
It was over-structured and over-engineered. However, I was pleasantly surprised that the majority
of the appliance, the plastic housing, was made from polypropylene - an easily recycled material.
Sadly, if this appliance would have been thrown away, it would still be sitting in the landfill in its
entirety - with no future.

Design
The design started from the function. I explored and attempted engineering on other brewing
techniques to simplify the process further but ultimately realized it was not about reinventing how
to make coffee rather how to make an appliance better.

Taking the standard functional parts of a coffeemaker and their requisite orientations helped derive
the form. Water goes in the top, now moved near the front for easiest access. It fills the translucent
water reservoir which then drains through a simple plastic valve into the heating element. The
heating component is self-contained for safety and code reasons, exposing only a water inlet, a
water outlet and an insulated power cord. Inside, the water is heated by an adjacent coil and
acquires enough pressure to travel up the tube to the sprayer head and onto the grounds.

Developing simple connections also contributed to the final form. The bottom housing is comprised
of two parts to allow for basic access to the water tubes and the power cord. The heating element
unit and the screw-on top ring hold the bottom housing together and keeps the heating element at a
proper distance from problematic surfaces. The water reservoir visually and physically inserts into
the base, like a peg into a hole, and attaches to the water inlet by a plastic tube. The reservoir
inserts into the upper housing and has tabs that attach it into place. Because the tabs are translucent
and appear in an opaque material, they communicate a connection, or tab-type fastener, indicating
where to push to separate the two materials.

The bottom housing originally borrowed details from a 2-liter plastic soda bottle to convey a
similarly recyclable material. Those details evolved into curvaceous ‘feet’ and create a space.
Technically this allows for air flow space, but also encourages handling and interaction since it
ergonomically fits a hand and ‘looks touchable.’ The water reservoir is also hand-sized with the
dimensions similar to a sleeve of tennis balls. In one version, the plastic reservoir sports grooves,
similar to plastic water bottles, that further communicate a squeezing action which would facilitate
the disassembling process. By minimizing the areas of the top housing that are not functionally
needed, it becomes smaller and narrow enough to grip in one hand as well.

The carafe is intended to resemble a nice pitcher or tabletop vessel to differentiate from the fat
squatty conventional coffee carafes. It is made from glass and cork. Cork is a rapidly renewable
material and has insulating properties allowing the neck to also be the handle.

While it is not necessary to take the coffeemaker apart until the end of it’s useful life, the design
additionally allows it to be disassembled for periodic cleaning.

Minimizing the size of the housing and components has the added benefit of using less raw
material. Not only is this a more intelligent way to design, it translates to reduced cost of material
in manufacturing, thus cheaper to produce. A simple disassembly process also means a simpler
assembly. Less screws, less parts, and less labor in manufacturing are potential cost savings.

With the heating function safely encapsulated, the housing essentially becomes a decorative
covering for the parts. It now can be made from almost any material - ideally something recyclable.
Plastics such as PETE and HDPE have an existing recycling market which makes them good
options. Some of the other polymer resins would have a higher reclamation rate if there was more
demand for recycled pellet raw material, thus more items that were made from recycled content
plastic, creating a bigger market demand.
This design lends itself to being made from recycled content material. While there are plenty of
items that require using virgin plastic material for performance integrity reasons (e.g. the medical
industry, safety items), exploiting our finite fossil resources for an undemanding countertop
appliance is not one of them.

In the end, with most of the appliance in the recycling bin, all that is left is the heating element. It
also has potential. The heating element could be transferred by the consumer to a new housing -
perhaps one that matches the new kitchen décor. Or it becomes part of a business model where the
manufacturer reclaims them. A postage paid, pre-printed label on the element makes it easy and
cost-free for the consumer to participate. The options at the manufacturer then include refurbishing
and being included in a new coffeemaker, or further disassembly. There is the potential of reusing
parts (e.g. the thermostat) or reclaiming materials for salvage such as metals or wiring. Any
disposal would be significantly reduced and controlled responsibly. The postage and reclamation
costs would be offset by the other savings and the additional benefit to the company are perceptions
of responsibility, goodwill and brand loyalty from its consumers.

This coffeemaker would be sold next to conventional ones, cost the same if not less, be easier to
use, make a great cup of coffee, look desirable and attractive in one’s kitchen, and perform for
years. It would additionally provide the consumer the option of recycling. There is no
environmental guilt here, just potential and opportunity to participate.

Through design details, the consumer is encouraged to slightly modify their behavior in how they
interact and dispose of their appliances. From the research, this target demographic has a moderate
concern for the environment but feels helpless as an individual. When presented with and
empowered by a simple and easy behavior change, consumers can persuade themselves to
participate individually in what is ultimately a collective effort towards reducing resource use and
waste.

Persuading Behavior
If a coffeemaker can be recyclable, why not a toaster? If small appliances, why not larger
appliances like a washing machine or refrigerator? If large appliances have a future, why not more
complex items such as a cell phone or computer? How many ‘disposable’ items should really be
recyclable items? Could we start thinking of items with short life spans (e.g. toys) as disposable and
design accordingly?

Starting with simple examples sets a precedent for design. Consumers will come to understand the
feasibility and potential of this type of manufacturing. Having changed their expectations of
products, they will begin asking for more items to meet this criteria. Increased consumer demand
is the most powerful incentive to companies for innovation and development. It is far more
effective than punitive government legislation or strict emission controls. And ultimately, a closed-
loop lifecycle feels good – less guilt for the consumer and an opportunity to choose to participate in
something low-effort and environmental. It also benefits the manufacturer through reduced costs,
product differentiation, additional sales, and consumer relations.

Through the design and manufacture of products, moderately-green consumers can be empowered
to make minor behavior modifications. The result is subconsciously persuading themselves to
participate in environmental actions and thus collectively become part of the solution.

Some men see things as they are and say, why?

I dream things that never were and say, why not?
Robert F. Kennedy
1
Michael Schrage. “The Power of Persuasion.” Innovation. Summer 2004.
2
William McDonough. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way we Make Things. 2002.
3
Sim Var der Ryn. Ecological Design. 1996.
4
John Elkington. Cannibals with Forks. 1998.
5
The Roper Organization for S.C. Johnson & Son, The Environment: Public Attitudes and Individual Behavior. July, 1990.
6
Jacquelyn Ottman. Green Marketing. 1993.
7
Roper ASW. Green Gauge Report, 2002.
8
Jacquelyn Ottman. Green Marketing. 1993