Design for the climate crisis — an updated approach
Driven by the ongoing implementation challenges of solutions addressing the climate crisis, I’ve revisited my DEFT framework for climate design to help designers and changemakers create impactful, sustainable solutions that truly resonate. This updated approach focuses on defining the scope of impact, ensuring accessibility and delight, embedding strong ethical principles, and crafting compelling narratives that not only inspire but also drive meaningful, lasting change in the world.
5 years ago, in August 2019, I shared a design approach I worked on, which I was hoping could help designers and changemakers address the climate crisis more effectively. It was focusing on implementation and driven by the growing attention to the climate crisis, or as I called it “the age of Greta.”
Many things changed over the last five years. Greta Thunberg no longer demonstrates every Friday in Stockholm and the levels of enthusiasm we saw over the fight against climate change back then have subsided due to the pandemic that followed and just the sheer challenge of keeping this fight alive day after day. Yet, two fundamental things haven’t changed: The climate crisis is still very much here, even more present and threatening, and we still fail to address it adequately. Perhaps the best indicators are that global CO2 emissions keep rising, and the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5C now seems now mostly unlikely to be reached.
So, what’s going wrong?
First, I want to be clear that we have also made progress over the last five years, from producing much more clean energy to putting in place more climate policies. Yet, it’s too little and extremely slow and definitely insufficient — the climate crisis evolves much faster than the solutions we apply, and thus this progress has been outweighed by the growing pressures we need to deal with.
Second, just like in 2019, I see this issue as a design challenge, and more specifically a struggle with our sense of practice. Let me explain what I mean by this — in his book, Design, When Everybody Designs, Ezio Manzini describes design mode as “the outcome of combining three human gifts: critical sense (the ability to look at the state of things and recognize what cannot, or should not, be acceptable), creativity (the ability to imagine something that does not yet exist), and practical sense (the ability to recognize feasible ways of getting things to happen).” I don’t believe we have a problem with our critical sense or with ideation. However, we do have one with our practical sense. Another way to put it is that we have a good idea of WHAT needs to be done, but at the same time, we still struggle with HOW to do it.
The DEFT framework I suggested in 2019 was aimed exactly at this point. Focusing on implementation, it offered a potential compass for designers navigating their way while exploring practical ways to make things happen. Five years later, I want to offer a couple of changes to this framework (consider it DEFT 2.0), which I hope will add even more value to those using it.
Who is it for? As I wrote in 2019, while this framework is offered for designers, it is for designers in a broad sense of the word (i.e., “everyone designs who devises courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones,” to use Herbert Simon’s definition of design). It is definitely not only for those who have the word “designer” in their title or job description. Overall, I see it as a framework that can be used by anyone looking to create solutions for the climate crisis, including policymakers, activists, and corporate executives.
What about the age of Greta? While Greta Thunberg may not be at the forefront of the fight against climate change today as she was in 2019, the context of the climate crisis is still very much the same. Therefore, the issue remains the urgency to act and achieve maximum impact, all while doing so in an environment where there are still many people and entities that do not see climate change as the most impactful issue of our lifetime. In all, this is still very much the age of climate disruption and of everyone who is trying to fight it.
So, here are the four steps of DEFT 2.0: Design framework for the climate crisis (2024):
1. Define your scope of impact
The first step in the updated framework is to understand your level of impact. To do so, I suggest four levels of impact that could be considered: materials, business models, experiences, and mindsets. This framing is inspired by the sustainability strategy of the UK-based retailer, Selfridges, which offers a holistic sustainability strategy based on three pillars: Materials (make products, procurement and property more resilient and sustainable), Models (put circular at the heart of revenue and customer experience), and Mindsets (create a retail culture that puts people and planet first).
As I see it, sustainable solutions aiming to fight climate change can be constructed on four levels:
1. Materials: Moving from unsustainable raw materials to ones that are more sustainable. Nike’s use of environmentally preferred materials, such as recycled polyester and recycled nylon for the production of its products, is a good example of a design approach focusing on materials.
2. Business models: Shifting to a more sustainable business model, which in many cases is a circular business model with a lower environmental footprint. One example is the subscription model offered by On for its Cyclon running shoes.
3. Experiences: Creating a better experience around a sustainable solution. Take for example, VEJA and SOJO which work to redesign the repair experience, making it user-friendly, cool, and culturally relatable to the younger generations.
4. Mindsets: Fostering a new mindset that will be more receptive to and engaged in climate solutions. Selfridges, for example, works on changing the mindsets of “teams, communities, and customers to create a truly inclusive retail culture in which people and planet come first in every decision.” This level offers a critical lever of change, encapsulating “the beliefs, values, and worldviews that influence how problems and solutions are perceived, approached and addressed,” as Karen O’Brien suggests.
Designers (and changemakers in general) should consider at what level or levels they operate, as it defines the scope of impact they create. If they work, for example, only at the materials level, they create some impact, but it is likely to be limited. If they move to consider not only materials but also the second level of business model change, they are likely to expand their impact quite significantly — this is the difference, for example, between making single-use bottles from recycled materials and offering a refillable system with reusable bottles. At the same time, changing the business model without considering the customer experience can end in a failure, as we can learn from the example of Asda in the UK. Therefore, adding a focus on the experience level increases the likelihood of the solution succeeding and thus increases the scope of impact.
If and when you aim for the mindsets level, as the city of Copenhagen does this summer with its CopenPay initiative, then you add more value to the experience level by using the experience not only to show how a sustainable option could be a better experience, but also by doing so in a way that provides people with food for thought and inspires them to rethink their current worldview. In the case of the CopenPay initiative, it wasn’t just about providing tangible rewards for tourists for taking sustainable actions like cycling or participating in cleanup efforts, but also to “inspire visitors to make conscious green choices and help bridge the large gap between the desire to act sustainably and their actual behaviour.”
2. Explore Your Solution
After articulating the solution’s scope of impact, it is time to explore a number of key dimensions of the solution you’re designing, or in other words to ask some difficult questions about the expected outcome of your work.
While there are many appropriate questions that should be explored, in my opinion, there are three key elements that need to be integrated into every climate-centered solution and thus raised as questions: access, delightfulness and culture. From my point of view these elements represent three principles that are key to designing effective solutions, increasing the likelihood that the solutions will not only make sense on paper, but will actually succeed in reality.
Is it accessible?
It’s time to make access a core tenet of any climate solution. Designers should keep in mind that if a solution is not accessible, it should not be considered as a solution for the climate crisis. This point is beautifully articulated by Prof. Rachel Beth Egenhoefer in her chapter Sustainable Design is Not Sustainable in the Routledge Handbook of Sustainable Design, which she also edited:
“Looking at designer brands that market the solution to sustainability as buying their “eco products” — either as goods from recycled materials or high-cost, ethically produced wares, the question of who can afford them and who is consuming them must be asked. More often than not, it is white, affluent, upper-middle-class consumers in the Western world. In a way, these “solutions” become another kind of greenwashing — telling us that “sustainability” is only for those who can afford it and have access to it.”
Access does not refer only to the question of affordability but also to feasibility and convenience. Sustainability solutions, from repair to composting to second-hand items, should be easy to use and within reach, whether it is physically or digitally. Otherwise, they are likely to be ignored by most people and continue to be pursued only by a small niche of affluent individuals who have ample time and money so they can ignore higher levels of friction.
Examples like Beni, the browser extension that makes secondhand clothes purchasing far easier to get to, wardrobe apps that help people shop in their closet for free, Radical Clothes Swap which organizes free clothes swapping, and Algramo working with its partners to offer discounts on the use of refillable packaging, show how accessibility can be prioritized. Even more so, it can be not only a consideration, but also a key driver of innovation as we can see, for example, in the case of Beni, Algramo or Radical Clothes Swap.
Is it delightful?
While prioritizing delightfulness may sound strange, in reality, we don’t really have a choice. As I pointed out back in 2019, “if there’s one thing we’ve learned from the numerous efforts over the years of companies, organizations, and governments to offer sustainable solutions, it is that no matter how sustainable these solutions are — if they’re not delightful, they fail. This really goes to the need to disrupt and delight — BBMG’s idea that in order to disrupt the unsustainable status quo we need innovation that is based on delightful experiences.”
We live in a world where (too) many unsustainable brands, such as Shein and Temu, master the art of delighting their customers. Interestingly, Amazon, a company that knows a thing or two about making its customers happy, is focusing on this exact point as it tries to fight back against Shein and Temu by launching soon “a new section on its site dedicated to low-priced fashion and lifestyle items that will allow Chinese sellers to ship directly to U.S. consumers.” An Amazon’s spokesperson told CNBC, “we are always exploring new ways to work with our selling partners to delight our customers with more selection, lower prices, and greater convenience.” The lesson is clear: If you want to beat unsustainable competition you do so applying a disrupt-and-delight approach (and yes, this is in addition to fighting the policy fight).
Ask yourself what experiences and/or products and services bring you joy and pleasure, and then consider which of these could be compatible with 1.5°C lifestyles. The idea is not just to focus on the need to win over the Sheins, Temus, and Amazons of the world, but also to learn from them. They may be doing many things wrong, but they are also doing something right when it comes to creating delightful experiences, and designers should pay attention to this. After all, no innovation is created in a vacuum, and we cannot overlook the importance of creating enthusiasm as a key factor for success.
One example that shows the importance of delightfulness is the latest trend of “underconsumption core” on TikTok, which “romanticizes buying and using only what you need.” As Jade Taylor, a TikTok creator who posts about sustainable fashion, told a NYT reporter: “Something like sustainability and ‘underconsumption’ almost isn’t worth engaging with unless it’s romanticized.” At the same time, it should be noted that delightfulness is not necessarily about being trendy, which actually could have downsides as well. Delightfulness can also be about the joy of meeting with other people when you do peer-to-peer clothing rental or exchange, learn to fix a broken toaster at a repair café, get a great bag of food that you didn’t expect (and save food waste at the same time) via Too Good to Go, give/receive great second-hand items through your local Buy Nothing New group, or even find your own path to financial independence. No matter what form of joy or pleasure designers are embedding in their work, they must pay attention to it when designing climate-centered solutions.
Is it Ethical?
This perhaps should be the most intuitive question when it comes for designing climate solutions, but nevertheless, it should be brought up and emphasized to ensure designers and changemakers pay sufficient attention to it as this is another critical challenge too many are failing when it comes to implementation.
What does ethical mean in this context? While it is difficult to reflect on the rich literature which already exists on ethical design in general and on sustainable design in particular, I’d like to suggest three key elements that capture the essence of what designers should have in mind.
The first part is about the designers themselves — their agency and responsibilities on the work they produce. Mike Monteiro’s 2017 code of ethics for designers is a good starting point to understand these points. In his book Ruined by Design, Monteiro suggests that “we need to fear the consequences of our work more than we love the cleverness of our ideas. Design does not exist in a vacuum. Society is the biggest system we can impact and everything you do, good and bad, is a part of that system. Ultimately we have to judge the value of our work based on that impact, rather than any aesthetic considerations.”
This part is very much about your posture as a designer, which is emphasized by the Transition Design framework offering to see “the designer’s own mindset and posture as an essential component of transition designing.” As Irwin, Kossoff and Tonkinwise write: “Designers’ mindsets and postures often go unnoticed and unacknowledged but they profoundly influence what is identified as a problem and how it is framed and solved within a given context.”
The second part is about considering the implications of what is designed holistically, across the whole value chain. When it comes to products, for example, it means having in mind the product’s full lifecycle, from start to end, including extraction of raw materials, production, use, and end of life. The same is true for services with the needed adjustments. Veja is a good example of a company that has adopted such a holistic approach to ethics across its whole value chain.
The last part is to ensure the consideration of both humans and non-humans. While the consideration of the former is a non-starter, on every part of the value chain, the latter may be a dimension that may receive less attention. It is best encapsulated in the life-centered design (LCD) framework, which “allows designers to include all life forms and advocates for biological ecosystems and non-user communities. LCD moves away from creating value for the end user & shareholders towards adding value for nature, communities and the economy.” One example of it is putting nature on the board of a company, as we could see in the case of Faith in Nature, which enables a regular consideration of the impact of decisions on the natural world.
3. Figure out your audience’s jobs-to-be-done
One critical part of implementation, especially in the case of climate solutions, is the need to figure out and focus on people’s jobs-to-be-done. Climate design presents unique challenges, as it requires solutions that not only meet functional needs but also align with deeper social and environmental (where “environmental” refers to the broader systems in which we operate) preferences and considerations.
The concept of jobs-to-be-done is pretty straightforward. Here’s how Christensen et al. explain it:
“When we buy a product, we essentially “hire” it to help us do a job. If it does the job well, the next time we’re confronted with the same job, we tend to hire that product again. And if it does a crummy job, we “fire” it and look for an alternative. (We’re using the word “product” here as shorthand for any solution that companies can sell; of course, the full set of “candidates” we consider hiring can often go well beyond just offerings from companies.)” This idea is critical in climate design because climate solutions need to successfully compete with other unsustainable offerings that people are already hiring or considering.
Jobs-to-be-done have multiple dimensions, mainly functional (the core tasks customers want to get done), social (how customers want to feel or avoid feeling), and environmental (how customers want to be perceived by others). Tony Ulwick points out that “as a customer uses a product to get a functional job done, they often want to feel a certain way and be perceived in a certain light by their peers and/or friends and others. The way they want to feel and be perceived constitutes their emotional and social jobs-to-be-done.”
In essence, this framework is essential for designers working on climate solutions to understand what people value and then effectively connect the dots between the solutions they develop and the customers’ jobs-to-be-done, so customers will “hire” their 1.5°C-compatible solutions to get the job done at scale. Scale is important because getting the job done for a small audience is not as challenging but also not as impactful.
A good example is Too Good to Go, the online service connecting customers to restaurants and stores that have surplus unsold food. Its success can be attributed, among things, to its ability to effectively connect multiple jobs for both businesses and people, while emphasizing the economic benefits of its use as a key functional job for its users. Another example is Patagonia, which masterfully addresses both the social and environmental jobs of its customers.
The key takeaway here is that the core of a climate solution should not be driven by the generic notion of ‘sustainability/climate change is important to customers.’ Instead, it should recognize the specific jobs that customers prioritize in their daily lives and address them in ways that are more sustainable and climate-centered. In other words, designers must understand what is truly important to their customers and build solutions that add real value, not just in terms of functionality but also, and perhaps even more so, in how they resonate with people’s broader environmental and social concerns.
Weber Shandwick released a very interesting report in March based on global research entitled “The Primacy of the Personal,” which alludes to the importance of understanding what people value. “If you want people to care. If you want them to buy from you, invest in you, vote for you, work for you, believe in you. You have to contribute value to their lives,” they write, and you cannot do so without clarity on what your customers’ most important jobs-to-be-done are.
One key finding in the report is that personal emotional value holds the greatest importance for people. According to the report, it is connected mainly to personal safety, security, health, and happiness, as well as, to a lesser extent, entertainment, excitement, and empowerment. Designers should ask themselves to what degree they are actually prioritizing these factors when designing 1.5°C-compatible products, services, and business models. If not, they won’t win this game.
4. Turn your solution into a compelling story
Similarly to DEFT 1.0, the final step in the updated DEFT framework also focuses on storytelling and narratives. As I pointed out in the past, to win the battle over climate change, you need first to win the battle of narratives.
The idea is pretty straightforward — the designed solution may be a preferred situation in theory, but unless it also expresses a narrative that manifests an exciting vision that is relatable and meaningful to your audience, it is unlikely to be successfully realized. As Futerra pointed out in its report Sell the Sizzle: “Without being incentivised, excited or inspired by an aspirational ideal of where we might go as a society, few of us will act. We need to enthuse people about the potential benefits of a better way of living and overcome the vocal voices of delay and denial.”
The majority of 1.5°C-compatible solutions do not entail such narratives. For the most part, the fight over sustainability has been strong on facts and weak on narratives. “All too often progressives succeed in winning the battle of the facts only to lose the battle of the story, let alone the broader war of ideas,” Canning and Reinsborough write in their book Re:Imagining Change: How to Use Story-Based Strategy to Win Campaigns, Build Movements, and Change the World. This is also the case when it comes to sustainability. It’s time to change that.
This notion of the importance of narratives of change is perhaps best captured in the brilliant short film More Flames, which was created by Yellow Dot Studios and Climate Spring and is part of the #FlipTheScript campaign aimed at changing “the narrative around the climate crisis, from doom to possibility.”
Here is a small part of the dialogue between Phoebe Dynevor, who plays the lead actress in a fictional film, where she challenges the narrative of the film in a conversation with their director, who is played by Amar Chadha-Patel:
Dynevor: I just feel like we’re letting this character make a terrible decision when they’re capable of doing something better.
Chadha-Patel: But this, this is the narrative.
Dynevor: Well, let’s rewrite the narrative.
Chadha-Patel: No, it’s not possible. No, it’s a whole thing. It’s, it’s lots of paperwork and admin. It’s much easier and way less stressful for everybody involved if we just keep doing the same thing that we’ve been doing. Trust me.
Dynevor: Why are you so afraid of change?
Chadha-Patel: Afraid of? I’m not afraid of change. Change is great. We love change. We had a meeting about change last week actually.
Dynevor: And?
Chadha-Patel: Ultimately we felt that change was, like, super interesting, really cool. Just not for us.
I assume this fictional conversation reflects many real conversations, where the suggestion is to stick to the current safer storytelling and narratives attached to climate solutions, no matter how impactful they actually are. Above you can see my suggestions for principles that could guide the work on narratives and on this post you can find more explanations on each one of them.
One point I want to emphasize is the need to overcome our current failure of imagination, when we can’t, for example, imagine a happy and convenient life in a world without single-use cups or short-haul flights. To that end, I would suggest that narratives should open the doors for new possibilities, rewilding people’s imaginations. Sam Knights writes in This Is Not A Drill: An Extinction Rebellion Handbook: “We must all learn how to dream again, and we have to learn that together. To break down the old ways of thinking and to move beyond our current conception of what is and what is not possible.” Effective narratives are the ones enabling us to do exactly that.
Raz Godelnik is an Associate Professor of Strategic Design and Management at Parsons School of Design — The New School. He is the author of Rethinking Corporate Sustainability in the Era of Climate Crisis. You can follow me on LinkedIn.
