Being inspired

The observation of nature leading to the socially refined abstractions of science is a human achievement.

However, it is what we do with those insights that matter, and our actions in turn present further environmental possibilities and ideas.

We use nature dynamically, as a source of inspiration, whilst recognising that man transforms the environment. The most imaginative contemporary architectural and engineering practices are ecologically minded, but could they do better? Does it help to think about sustainability when building human environments, or does a deference to nature limit creativity?

I take the view that defining sustainability sometimes defeats the object.

Some companies are focused on long-term performance, where the primary goal is not maximising profit. They tend to share core values, or fundamental beliefs that everybody in the organisation understands and is willing to work by.

Click to go to the discussion in this session chaired by Austin Williams

Is everything worth building naturally precedented?

Austin Williams (chairman) (Following Duncan Price) The next speaker is Alex Cutler, but I think in the discussion that follows her presentation we should try and draw out whether natural constraints give rise to more imaginative designs? That seems to be a theme in architecture today. The idea that with restrictions on development we have to look deeper for design solutions.

Brian Edwards argued that "…sustainable development is intellectually more interesting, professionally more challenging, and socially more demanding than any other single agenda of our age." However Duncan Price suggests that design "greenwash" attempts to justify business as usual. Perhaps Alex can tell us?

Alex Cutler Thank you. I start with the caveat that I'm not a designer, I'm not an architect, I'm not an engineer, but I deal with business. So I'm going to take us on a slightly different path, and I think that you will find that there are implicit connections with nature, but not explicit. I will provide a little bit of context first of all.

I work for a company called SustainAbility, dealing very much with the principles of sustainable development. The organisation that I work for, our trademark I would say, is "constructive discomfort". We are somewhat unusual because we do a number of things. We are a think tank, we research into sustainable development, campaign for sustainable development, and we are a consultancy. We have a focus on business but we are NGO influenced, and I would like to think that we are creative, innovative natural thinkers.

We have a definition of sustainable development as a matter of intergenerational equity. We realise that protecting the rights of future generations, caring for resources and leaving the planet in a fashion that we would have liked to have inherited it is important, but what does that really mean?

Sustainability is much more complex than a definition, because there are so many interwoven issues, impacts, prejudices, resources, attitudes, perceptions and relationships. However, I take the view, with Lucy, that defining sustainability sometimes defeats the object.

I think different people see it in different ways. Some as limiting, and others see it as an opportunity to innovate. My role is to help business to understand the advantages of sustainable development, and deal with it. So what is the reaction of some businesses to sustainability?

Some companies are focused on long-term performance, where the primary goal is not maximising profit. They tend to share core values, or fundamental beliefs that everybody in the organisation understands and is willing to work by. They adapt to change, and mimic the evolutionary process. I think that the fundamental question is whether businesses are reacting to fashion? Is sustainability a management fad or is it the corporate greenwash that eventually pushes companies to look seriously at sustainable development?

We live in a world where financial bottom line obligations push very hard, and sustainability is in the process of being clarified. There is also the question of who is leading all of this? Is it a handful of individuals or a mass revolt? I think we have seen from the consumer reaction against genetically modified foods there is a degree of both leadership and revolt. I think sustainability is also partly a return to values. I agree with Duncan actually. There are fundamental beliefs and ethics inspiring us to achieve sustainable development.

I do a lot of work Ford. The point I wanted to make here was that the invention of the automobile dominated the twentieth century, and allowed people a new mobility. Ford started in about 1903. The huge success of the Model T Ford was achieved through mass production techniques, allowing a much cheaper car to be made. As cars became affordable they helped create a middle class. This mobility allowed people to move from inner cities to places they had never visited. This represented a kind of freedom.

However, we can not all move away from our problems. Cars represented the "American Dream", but they now represent something vastly different. Ford produce sports utility vehicles, and promise in their advertising "…a return to nature" that is unmarred by other big four-wheeled drive cars. This is selling us a vision, but that freedom does not exist anymore. The advertisements do not tell us about the social and environmental costs of millions of two-tonne vehicles chasing a mythical pristine environment.

So how do you get a company that produces cars like these, along with a range of other vehicles, to address sustainable development? You get to them think outside the box. We need to encourage such companies to see the bigger picture. They need to address their responsibilities, to recognise that there are costs to unprecedented growth. We need to talk to them about what real mobility means to people. Just dealing with technology, or just producing better and safer cars is not the answer. We need them to think about the wider mobility issue.

Where do companies find their inspiration? I think they find it from a number of sources and in a number of ways. There is consumer demand and public policy, representing a growing movement for sustainable development, and there is competition and innovation. There are also companies that make mistakes and Nike is one company that made a mistake. Michael Jordan, the basketball player, was paid $2 million for advertising Nike, but in the same week as that story there was evidence that Nike had been paying Indonesian subcontractors $2.32 an hour to make Nike products. This subsequently led to the boycott of Nike products showing that there is power with the consumer. Since then Nike is doing a range of other things to try to address sustainable development.

So sustainability is a real issue. There are some companies of course that are ignoring sustainability. However, I would suggest companies are going to have to start addressing sustainable development, and there are some that are dipping their toe in the water.

Austin Williams Thank you very much. If you have any questions for the discussion of the theme of Being inspired either address them to individual speakers or ask them more generally please?

Welcome / What's New? / Activity / Services / Books / Shop / Links / Contact /

This website is maintained by abley@audacity.org and all material is Copyright © 2002 Audacity Limited where not copyright of the originator.