For determining which framework is the best, we have to figure out first what the meaning of “best framework” is. Just for the purposes of this blog post, the way I will define best is a framework that will lead to the disruption that will cause the change. It is not just the best idea to make change, but it will make change that will stick and is quantifiable. We don’t want to make change just to make change. It is important to make change that will stick, and not just be a change that will go away in a few days. We need a method that will cause people to want to make a change. Making a change that will cause a disruption will be hard, but that is how we will define what will be the “best framework.”
Looking at all the options for the frameworks, the “best framework” for causing sustained change would be total beauty framework. This framework has a five prong sustainability outline where each has a way of scoring a specific product. Instead of scoring an industry or a company, it looks at the products specifically and scores the products based on those five prongs. It is a very easy process for designers to use, and you can evaluate existing products much easier than in the past. However, one of the biggest hinderances for the framework is that it is entirely subjective in the scoring. The scoring is based on your own evaluation, and not necessarily on something that you can quantify. But, that is one factor that you can easily look past and make sure that it is worked out.
Having the ability to make a product quantifiably sustainable is something that the other frameworks could not do. Despite it being “subjective,” it gives people that are actually trying to make a change the ability to understand what is necessary to make a change. There are specific equations to determine if a product will be sustainable in an actual criterion in this framework. The scoring may be subjective, but the equations stay the same throughout the framework, and that is the key to this framework. It gives a quantifiable idea of what exactly is necessary to change in the product. For example, one of the criteria is solar, and if a product scores low in that aspect, you know that you must adapt your product to make it more renewable. It may be subjective in scoring, but the criteria that are set in place will usually be in the same scoring range, meaning that the subjective side will go away. The method is the most important part to this framework. A method to determine if a product is sustainable is key to the overall model because now you can point to data on if a product is sustainable. It is no longer just saying a product is not sustainable, but instead giving reasons why it is not the best for sustainability.
Another good aspect about this framework is that it gives options on how to change the framework and reasons why to change the framework. The metrics that are given in the framework are concerns on how to change the overall product, and what specifically needs to be changed. Using the example talked about above, if a product is not using renewable energy or is not as renewable as previously, the company can look into how to improve the product so that it can score higher on the solar aspect and be considered more renewable. It is specifically showing what can be changed in a product, not just saying what can be changed and having to agree with it. Of course, you can look at a product and see what is wrong about it from a sustainability perspective, but with this model, you can give a quantifiable reason why it is wrong. Giving a reason in general could be argued as more subjective than giving a score to the product. You are not just stating what is wrong with a product. Instead, you are giving a reason why based on frameworks that are universally agreed upon. The significance of each concern is shown through the scoring and you can then make the subjective assumption about why each product is wrong. But, the scoring gives you reasoning for why something is wrong and reason for why something must change in a product.
Lastly, and the most important part, is that this framework applies to products and not companies as a whole. In my opinion, the way to make something more sustainable is to cause a disruption in the marketplace. By knowing what is wrong with a product, that is how you can make a change in the market. Once you know exactly what is wrong, you can then adjust it and improve that one aspect so that the product will do much better. We need to see what is wrong with a product in order to make it more sustainable. With models that are more general about what is wrong with a product, we cannot point to the direct issue of the product. People can know it is bad, but not what to change. With this model, you see directly what is wrong with a product. Once you know what is wrong, you can fix it. Changing a product to be more sustainable is not an overnight process. You have to analyze the product continuously and see what to change. That can happen with this model. Once something is change, you can re-evaluate the product to make sure you improved that one aspect. You can use this model over and over, and it will give you the best and most quantifiable results. It gives you a stepping stone to allow you to see disruption in the market, and that is the key to making a more sustainable product or more sustainable company.