Lesson 1.
2: Consumerism and the Learning outcomes
Industrial Revolution
Introduction
The consumption patterns that characterize modern western society are
increasingly considered to be unsustainable. It is suggested that our
consumption of material goods relies too heavily on diminishing resources
and creates intolerable environmental impacts. It is also proposed by many
that these consumption patterns are also unfair. The richest nations enjoy
the benefits of material affluence, whilst the poorest still suffer from
inadequate access to even the basic necessities of life. The poorest nations
bear the brunt of many of the environmental impacts from the
consumption patterns of the richest nations.
From the perspective of the designer this topic is far from straightforward.
For years organisations have trained their designers to develop masses of
products using materials made from finite resources and through
manufacturing processes that create unacceptable amounts of pollution.
Incredibly over 90% of these products are thrown away within 6 months
of purchasing them.
This lesson discusses the concept of consumption and our apparent and
increasing love of material goods. The industrial revolution is introduced
as the point at which material goods rapidly became more accessible
within the UK and throughout the world. The relationship between goods,
wealth and wellbeing is explored along with the consumer’s changing
perception of value and quality. Finally the lesson addresses the role of the
designer and the necessary changes to design practise that need to take
place in the move towards more sustainable consumption.
Lesson 1.2: Consumerism and the Industrial Revolution
By the end of this lesson you should be able to demonstrate:
• Knowledge of how the industrial revolution has shaped today’s society
of consumers;
• Insight into the complex physical, psychological and social
relationship between consumers and material goods;
• The ability to discuss how the role of the designer is changing from the
design of material goods alone to a catalyst in the pursuit of more
sustainable consumption.
1 The Industrial Revolution
The boom of the industrial economy in Britain between the mid-eighteenth
century and mid-nineteenth century is commonly known as the Industrial
Revolution. Jackson (1996) refers to Britain during this time as the
‘workshop of the world’, which provided the foundations for one of the
most remarkable technical, economic and social transformations in
recorded history. Historians tend to identify three characterisations of this
transformation:
1) The rapid growth of certain manufacturing industries leading to
massive increases in output and energy use;
2) A change from an economy based largely on local craftsmanship
and agriculture, using simple technologies and renewable
resources, to an economy based predominantly on factory-based,
manufacturing industry whose raw material basis was increasingly
supplied by mineral resources;
3) A break away from a steady state economy of national income to
an economy of continuous growth and pursuit of profit.
In the space of less than 100 years between the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries, first Britain, then several other countries completely
1 © 2015 De Montfort University
transformed the nature of their economies. The massive increase in energy
use, obtained by burning fossil fuels, powered the development of new
industries, transport and a massive throughput of material.
Although the revolution was lead by the cotton and textiles industries, the
application of the steam engine rapidly stimulated both the coal and iron
industries. From an output of approximately 3 million tonnes of coal, prior
to the industrial revolution, coal production had increased to 36 million
tonnes by 1830 and even produced 70% of the total world coal production.
Figure 1 demonstrates the dramatic rise in manufacturing output in the UK
compared to other growing countries during this time.
Figure 1: Relative Share of Manufacturing Output 1750 – 1900
(www.marketoracle.co.uk)
During this time the size of the population in Britain substantially
increased which added dramatically to the increase in energy use and
carbon emissions. Standing at approximately 5.6 million in 1750 the
population had increased to approximately 38.2 million by 1901
(Optimum Population Trust, 2010). Although it is understandable to relate
these figures to improvement in quality of life and a subsequent increase
Lesson 1.2: Consumerism and the Industrial Revolution
in life expectancy this was not thought to be the case. Basic health services
lagged some considerable time behind the increase in industrial output and
in many industrial towns and villages in Britain, living conditions were
considerably harsher than they had ever been before (Jackson, 1996). It is
more likely that the early increases in population resulted from a rise in
birth rate. Jackson (1996) attributes this to several factors: higher incomes
meant that more people could afford to have bigger families but also the
growth of industry was accompanied by a substantial requirement for
additional labour, more children meant more opportunity to take
advantage of this. At this time it was in the interest of large manufacturers
such as Henry Ford to pay their workers a fair wage so that they could
then afford to purchase their products and in doing so support
organisational sucess.
Significant increases in overall consumption patterns can be directly traced
back to the industrial revolution. From the beginning production led
consumption. Products were largely standardized and corporations began
to compete with each other over the efficiency of their production
processes (Hamilton, 2010). Success and growth became dependent upon
the refinement of production processes. Approaches and terminology such
as ‘mass production’ ‘lean manufacturing’ and ‘value engineering’
became popular as every penny counted. Organisations produced billions
of the same products and therefore designers were encouraged to identify
areas in which pennies could be saved, potentially saving organisations
millions of pounds across their production lines, regardless of any
subsequent environmental impacts. At this time prices of standardized
products were the focus for both the consumer and the producer. It is
reasonable to suggest that dramatically increased access to more and more
products at lower and lower prices ignited our love affair with material
goods.
2 © 2015 De Montfort University
The Story of Stuff (30 mins)
‘The Story of Stuff’ is a 20-minute tongue in cheek web-film by Annie
Leonard that explores the often hidden environmental and social
consequences of America’s love affair with its stuff. The project’s focus is
on systems of production and consumption—in particular the harmful
environmental and social impacts of current modes of producing,
consuming and disposing of material goods.
Watch the Story of Stuff, which you can access here:
http://www.storyofstuff.com/about.php or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GorqroigqM (accessed 10/09/2013)
1. What do you think of the film? Are there any parts of the system that
they have missed out?
2. The Story of Stuff explains the ‘problem’ but what about solutions?
Think about how you would expand on the film to communicate what
happens next.
If you enjoy this film then there are also several other short films on the
website that you may also like to watch.
Please let me know your thoughts on The Story of Stuff by contributing to
the discussion forum on blackboard.
2 Our Love of ‘Stuff’
The previous section traced our changes in consumption behaviour back to
the industrial revolution. Today, however, our relationship with
consumable goods and services goes far beyond an increase in access and
availability. Our ‘love of stuff’ has become part of everyday life and is
Lesson 1.2: Consumerism and the Industrial Revolution
deeply engrained within individual, communal, social and psychological
behaviour. Our ‘stuff’ has the ability to affect our personal identity, our
friendships and relationships, our employability and even whether we are
socially accepted. This topic is complex and complicated, consisting of
multiple factors, but if we are even going to begin to change consumer
behaviour for improved sustainability then it is a topic that designers need
to understand.
2.1 Changing Perceptions of Value and Quality
It has already been highlighted that prior to the industrial revolution the
economy was based largely on local craftsmanship and agriculture, using
simple technologies and renewable resources for manufacture. Coinciding
with this was an appreciation for high quality products that were created
with great care over time. This mentality was reinforced during both world
war one and two where material goods were precious and high value was
associated with sentimentality and one off quality products. As
consumables have become more accessible so have they become more
disposable leading to, what some people refer to as our ‘throw away
society’. Whilst some products, such as carrier bags, are designed to
become obsolete within a short amount of time, others are perceived to be
obsolete because they have gone out of fashion. A vast amount of
electronic products are discarded everyday, the majority of which still
perform their tasks perfectly, but because they are no longer desired by
their owners. The House of Lords report on waste (2007) suggests that this
problem is particularly apparent within the textile industry, where the
culture of “fast fashion” encourages consumers to dispose of clothes
which have only been worn a few times in favour of new, cheap garments
which themselves will also go out of fashion and be discarded within a
matter of months. The National Recycling Coordinator at the Salvation
Army Trading Company commented within the report that these garments
are ‘quick to produce; the turnover is very fast; and the length of time they
are able to be worn is very short’. Furthermore, the rapid production of
cheap clothes involves the use of low quality materials in garments of high
3 © 2015 De Montfort University
complexity, which makes it difficult to capture any value from the
material at the end of the garments’ lives. The National Liaison Manager
at the Textile Recycling Association, commented within the report that
“fast fashion” items were “harder to re-use” and that there was “not much
IKEA CASE STUDY: BUY TO LAST
thought about how recyclable an item is at the end of its useful life”.

Whilst products may be desirable and attractive at the point of sale,

people still get fed up with them. Perceptions of value have changed
dramatically; a product such as a table that was once bought with thought
and given a life expectancy of 20 – 30 years is now bought on the spur of
the moment to fit in with the latest décor, colour scheme or fashion. The
value that we give products has changed, replacing a working television
after 5 years with the latest model is no longer a significant decision, we
no longer develop emotional attachments to products in the way that our
grandparents did. Subsequently, this has also impacted upon our
perception of quality. We are willing to buy the latest fashions from
Primark knowing that they are made from cheap materials and are not
high quality garments. Hamilton (2010) highlights that shopping is now EVERYONE LOVES A BARGAIN, as long as we believe it’s in good
an activity undertaken for the thrill of the purchase and ‘mood taste. And nobody does low-price, high-style better than IKEA, the
enhancement’ rather than for the anticipated pleasure to be gained from world’s largest furniture retailer. IKEA passes as the anti-Wal-Mart: a
owning or using something. As one marketing strategist suggests: “we are company where value and good values coexist. It uses design as a proxy
beyond satisfying basic demands and we have moved on to a tertiary level for quality, and its brand—embodied by all those smiling, white-teethed
where consumption becomes leisure. Even the stores that appear to be for Scandinavians standing next to smooth, shiny modular furniture with
basic needs are really about leisure” (Hamilton et al., 2005). Subsequently unpronounceable names—as a passport to a guilt-free world of low prices.
many of the purchases we make are more about the feeling that we get or
the perceived emotional or social benefits that accompany products rather But put down your 59-cent Färgrik coffee mug and ask yourself: Can we
than the basic function of the product itself. afford to keep shopping at places where an item’s price reflects only a
Figure 2 presents a magazine article written around IKEA’s successful yet fraction of its societal costs?
controversial approach.
IKEA designs to price, challenging its talented European team to create
ever-cheaper objects, and its suppliers—most of them in low-wage
countries in Asia and Eastern Europe—to squeeze out the lowest possible
price. By some measures the world’s third-largest wood consumer, IKEA
proudly employs 15 “forestry monitors.” Eight of them work in China and

Lesson 1.2: Consumerism and the Industrial Revolution 4 © 2015 De Montfort University
Russia, but illegal logging is widespread in those vast countries, making it
impossible to guarantee that all wood is legally harvested. (The company
declines to pay a premium to ensure that all timber is legally harvested,
citing costs that would be passed along to the consumer.) IKEA furniture
made of particleboard and pine is not meant to last a lifetime; indeed,
some professional movers decline to guarantee its safe transport. But to be
fair, creating heirlooms is not IKEA’s goal. Nor, despite a lot of self-
serving hoopla, is energy conservation: the company boasts of
illuminating its stores with low-wattage light bulbs but positions outlets
far from city centers, where taxes are low and commuting costs high—the
average IKEA customer drives 50 miles round-trip. Cleverly, IKEA
transfers transport and energy costs onto consumers, who are then handed
the additional burden of assembling their purchases. Designed but not
crafted, IKEA bookcases and chairs, like most cheap objects, resist
involvement: when they break or malfunction, we tend not to fix them.
Rather, we buy new ones. Wig Zamore, a Massachusetts environmental
activist who was recently recognized for his work by the Environmental
Protection Agency, is working with IKEA and supports some of the
company’s regional green initiatives. But as he put it, “IKEA is the least
sustainable retailer on the planet.” And in real costs—the kind that will
burden our grandchildren—that also makes it among the most expensive.
Figure 2: IKEA Magazine Article (Ellen Ruppel Shell, 2009)
2.2 Consumption and Wellbeing
“Advertising design, in persuading people to buy things they don’t need,
with money they don’t have, in order to impress others who don’t care, is
probably the phoniest field in existence today. Industrial design, by
concocting the tawdry idiocies hawked by advertisers, comes a close
second” Victor Papanek (1972)
Lesson 1.2: Consumerism and the Industrial Revolution
One of the key aims of a democratic government is to promote a
flourishing society in which citizens are happy, healthy, capable and
engaged – in other words with high levels of well being. But what is
wellbeing? Some argue that well being is best understood in terms of our
overall happiness or satisfaction with life. But people want to lead rich and
fulfilling lives; developing their capabilities, fulfilling their potential and
leading socially useful lives. According to New Economics Foundation
(2004), well being has two personal dimensions and a social context:
• Everyone’s satisfaction with their life which is generally measured
by satisfaction, pleasure and enjoyment;
• Peoples personal development for which there is not yet one
standard psychology indicator – the concept includes being
engaged in life, curiosity, ‘flow’ (a state of absorption where hours
pass like minutes), personal development and growth, autonomy,
fulfilling potential, having a purpose in life and the feeling that life
has meaning;
• People’s social well-being – a sense of belonging to our
communities, a positive attitude towards others, feeling that we are
contributing to society and engaging in pro-social behaviour and
believing that society is capable of developing positively.
These dimensions of well-being are supported by Jackson (2009) as
demonstrated in Figure 3. Given the personal and social nature of the
factors that influence well-being or happiness most significantly it is
confusing as to why consumers have developed such a strong relationship
between the consumption of material goods and well-being.
5 © 2015 De Montfort University

Partner / spouse and
family relationships (47%)
Money and financial
situation (7%)
Religious / spiritual life
(6%)
Community and friends
(5%)
Health (24%)
Don't know / other (1%)
Figure 3: Factors influencing subjective well-being (happiness)
(Jackson, 2009)
Consumption of goods and services is now a common and constant
activity in daily life, the outcomes of which are diverse ranging from
nourishment to amusement, from living long to living well, from isolated
fulfilment to interactive socialization. Our consumption patters offer a
complex yet telling picture of the kind of society we live in and of our
relationship with material goods. Consumption has long ago surpassed the
fulfilment of basic needs such as food, water and shelter. The evidence on
consumer behaviour suggests that consumer goods and services play a
huge variety of different roles in our lives. Amongst these roles Jackson
(2006) suggests that we need to consider: the satisfaction of functional
needs, the construction of identity, the pursuit of status and social
distinction, the maintenance of social cohesion, social and / or sexual
selection and the pursuit of personal and collective meaning.
Lesson 1.2: Consumerism and the Industrial Revolution
Consumer spending was first transformed by a means of acquiring the
necessities of life to an activity aimed at acquiring status through displays
of wealth and happiness or wellbeing. It appeared that the more ‘stuff’
people surrounded themselves with the wealthier and happier they would
become. Consumption then became a way of creating the self through
identification with certain products and brands. Organisations and
designers have become accustomed to utilising the relationship between
products, wealth, wellbeing and perceived happiness. Apple, for example,
is an organisation that has dramatically taken advantage of the consumer’s
love of image and identity enhancing products. Apple has a strong
branding strategy that focuses on the emotions. The Apple brand
‘personality’ is about lifestyle; imagination; liberty regained; innovation;
passion; hopes, dreams and aspirations; and power-to-the-people through
technology. The Apple brand personality is also about simplicity and the
removal of complexity from people's lives; people-driven product design;
and about being a humanistic company with a heartfelt connection with its
customers. The Apple brand is not just intimate with its customers, it's
loved, and there is a real sense of community among users of its main
product lines. Now when you buy an Apple product you instantly become
part of that community and your identity becomes aligned with all that the
Apple brand stands for. Buying an Apple product therefore goes way
beyond owning a product for its superior functionality and practicality.
Owning an Apple product is about how people perceive you, the way it
makes you feel and the community you now belong to.
6 © 2015 De Montfort University
Consumption, Branding and Sustainability (15 mins)
Apple are an extremely successful organisation and this is largely due to
their strong branding and marketing strategies that have been carefully
developed over the last 25years since the launch of the Apple Macintosh.
They now have a strong following of devoted consumers who eagerly
anticipate the launch of the next I-phone or the next step in state of the art
technology such as the I-Pad.
What is your opinion of the Apple Brand?
Look at the things around you and consider your own ‘stuff’. How does
owning that ‘stuff’ make you feel? How much has your relationship with it
been influenced by brands and marketing?
Now think about more sustainable design. How could designers utilise the
relationship between consumers and their products to encourage more
sustainable consumption?
The structural transformation represented by the shift from production to
consumption has been reinforced by other social changes. Hamilton
(2010) argues that the social movements of the 1960’s and 1970’s, which
rejected traditional standards, expectations and stereotypes were, a
manifestation of the deeper human longing for self determination.
Changes wrought by the social movements, including the removal of
educational and workplace barriers for women, for the first time provided
the opportunity for the mass of ordinary people to aspire to individuality
and the freedom of choice. The desire for an authentic sense of self is
pursued by way of substitute gratifications, external rewards, money and
material consumption. The increase in freedom and the sense of creating
ones identity through association with different products and brands has
resulted in a shift from production leading consumption to consumption
leading production. Consumers are no longer satisfied with mass
produced products and instead require products that can be customised
and changed to suit character and mood. Designers and manufacturers
Lesson 1.2: Consumerism and the Industrial Revolution
such as IKEA are well aware of changing patterns in consumption and are
more than willing to provide multiple products of different sizes, colours
and styles to full fill this growing trend. Additionally, marketers have also
seized on consumer’s desire for authentic identity in order to sell more
gym shoes, cars, mobile phones and home furnishings.
According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the better off we are in the
social pyramid, the more we want to set ourselves apart from others
through travel, fine clothes, cars, sports, knowledge, special skills, a large
circle of friends, etc. This supports more recent patterns of consumption in
which not only are material goods readably accessible and available but
goods, services and ‘experiences’ that were once seen as ‘luxury’ and
‘unobtainable’ are increasingly more obtainable and affordable. Air travel
was once only achievable by the wealthy, however, gradually it has
become more accessible and affordable and today companies such as Ryan
Air offer flights for as little as 1pence.
What was once viewed as ‘luxury consumption’ now reaches down to
many more consumer groups, a phenomenon that has lead producers and
marketers of luxury goods to put their brands on a wider range of items.
This has seen the emergence of relationships between, what were once
unobtainable luxury products, with more achievable high street brands; for
example fashion designers with stores such as Topshop and celebrities
with local supermarkets and underwear ranges. The growing requirement
for luxury consumption has again led production. Arguably the
affordability of luxury is accompanied by prosperity; an increase in
knowledge and cultural awareness due to travel and a diminishing
perception of classes in society, among other factors. However, the
working classes ‘taste for necessity’ cannot be sustained when nearly
every consumer has acquired a taste for luxury.
Despite substantial increases in consumption and an apparent quest for
wealth, wellbeing and happiness through the indulgence in more and more
material goods, perhaps unsurprisingly, there is literature to suggest that
material wealth has not delivered consistent improvements in well being,
even for those who benefit from its cornucopia of modern goods and
7 © 2015 De Montfort University
services (Jackson, 2006; Durning, 2006). Richard Layard, the previous UK more to the psychology and sociology of human behaviour than to
government’s ‘tsar of happiness’ argued ‘We are richer, healthier, have technical considerations or physical constraints (Jackson, 1996). The
better homes, cars, food and holidays than we did half a century ago. apparent link between material goods and wealth, wellbeing and happiness
Unemployment and inflation are low, and yet so are levels of reported discussed throughout this section is not straightforward to overcome.
happiness’ (Jefferies, 2008). Having more ‘stuff’ does not always make us
happy and material aspirations do not always deliver well-being. At the
same time it appears that wealth and income also bear little influence on
our overall happiness. It is understandable therefore that GDP (Gross
Domestic Product) is no longer seen as an adequate measure of progress.
There has, however, been significant debate surrounding the intentions of
the UK’s new coalition government to introduce a ‘welbeing index’. The
Prime minister David Cameron has suggested that ‘we will start measuring
our progress as a country not just by how our economy is growing, but by
how our lives are improving; not just by our standard of living, but by our
quality of life’ (Mullholand and Watt, 2010). Tim Jackson points out
however that such a measure was put in place by the last government and
that the Office of National Statistics has been measuring wellbeing since
2005. He also insists that it is pointless to have such a measure unless it
becomes a strategic tool for changing government policy and is seen as a
real challenge to the primacy of growth (Confino, 2010).

Figure 4 presents the findings of a study conducted by Inglehart and

Klingemann (2000). The chart plots life satisfaction and happiness against
data on national income across a variety of countries and shows a strong
correlation between the two but only at lower incomes. For countries with
average incomes over $15,000 there is very little correlation in results
implying that happiness and life satisfaction does not increase with
income. In fact in the UK average incomes have almost doubled since the
Figure 4: Income and Happiness (Inglehart and Klingemann, 2000)
early 1970’s yet life satisfaction over the same period has not changed at
all (Jackson, 2006).
These findings have significant implications in the pursuit of more
sustainable consumption and likewise for designers. The obstacles that
now stand in the way of a reorientation of the industrial revolution relate

Lesson 1.2: Consumerism and the Industrial Revolution 8 © 2015 De Montfort University
3 Moving towards more Sustainable
Consumption
Although concern surrounding resource consumption can be traced back to
the mid-nineteenth century, the concept of sustainable consumption and
the associated terminology stemmed from Agenda 21. Agenda 21 was the
main policy document to emerge from the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and
referred to the need for change in consumption patterns. More specifically
the document called for action to:
1) Promote patterns of consumption and production that reduce
environmental stress and will meet the basic needs of humanity;
2) Develop a better understanding of the role of consumption and
how to bring about more sustainable consumption patterns.
Agreement, surrounding the definition of sustainable consumption and
how to reach it, however, proved to be not so easy to achieve.
Subsequently, a variety of different definitions have been adopted by
different organisations, some of these are presented in Figure 5.
The use of goods and services that respond to basic needs and bring a
better quality of life, while minimizing the use of natural resources, toxic
materials and emissions of waste and pollutants over the life cycle, so as
not to jeopardise the needs of future generations (Ofsted, 1994).
The special focus of sustainable consumption is on the economic activity
of choosing, using and disposing of goods and services and how this can
be changed to bring social and environmental benefit (IIED, 1998).
Sustainable consumption is not about consuming less, it is about
consuming differently, consuming efficiently, and having an improved
quality of life (UNEP, 1999).
Sustainable consumption is consumption that supports the ability of
current and future generations to meet their material and other needs,
Lesson 1.2: Consumerism and the Industrial Revolution
without causing irreversible damage to the environment or loss of function
in natural systems (OCSC, 2000).
Sustainable Consumption is an umbrella term that brings together a
number of key issues such as meeting needs, enhancing quality of life,
improving efficiency, minimising waste, taking a lifecycle perspective and
taking into account the equity dimension; integrating these component
parts in the central question of how to provide the same or better services
to meet the basic requirements of life and the aspiration for improvement,
for both future and current generations, while continually reducing
environmental damage and the risk to human health (UNEP, 2001).
Sustainable consumption and production is continuous economic and
social progress that respects the limits of the Earth’s ecosystems, and
meets the needs and aspirations of everyone for a better quality of life,
now and for future generations to come (DTI, 2003).
Sustainable consumption is a balancing act. It is about consuming in such
a way as to protect the environment, use natural resources wisely and
promote quality of life now, while not spoiling the lives of future
consumers (NCC, 2003).
Figure 5: Defining Sustainable Consumption (Adapted from Jackson,
2006)
Jackson (2009) comments that many organisational definitions of
sustainable consumption take different view points on the extent to which
sustainable consumption involves changes in consumer behaviour and
lifestyles. Some definitions are quite explicit in their reference to
consumer needs and aspirations and the constraints imposed on these by
environmental limits. Other definitions focus on consumer products and
production processes and infer that the route to more sustainable
consumption lies mainly in the more efficient production of more
sustainable products.
Jackson (2006) makes the point that essentially the dominant institutional
view is one in which sustainable consumption means (more) consumption
9 © 2015 De Montfort University
of more sustainable products. This is to be achieved primarily through
improvements in the efficiency with which resources are converted into
economic goods. This viewpoint was supported by the former UK Trade
and Industry Secretary, Patricia Hewitt (DTI, 2003):
“There is nothing wrong with rising consumption, indeed it is to be
welcomed as a symptomatic of rising living standards in our communities.
And it is quite right that the poorest in the world aspire to escape poverty
and enjoy those standards. But we need to make sure the products and
services we consume are designed not to harm our environment. We can
enjoy more comfort, more enjoyment and more security without
automatically increasing harmful and costly impacts on the environment.
But it requires a re-thinking of business models to make more productive
use of natural resources”.
It is clear that more needs to be done to reduce the environmental
impacts of our lifestyles. It would be overly simplistic to say that
consumers must be encouraged to rein in their consumption, as the
purchasing patterns which members of the general public display are
now ingrained within the fabric of society. However, there is scope for
providing consumers with more information about the sustainability
of the products they purchase, so that they can make more informed
decisions. Much of this responsibility increasingly lies with designers.
4 The Role of the Designer
‘There are professions more harmful than industrial design, but only a
very few… by creating whole new species of permanent garbage to clutter
up the landscape, and by choosing materials and processes that pollute
the air we breath, designers have become a dangerous breed… In this age
of mass production when everything must be planned and designed, design
has become the most powerful tool with which man shapes his tools and
environments (and, by extension, society and himself). This demands high
Lesson 1.2: Consumerism and the Industrial Revolution
social and moral responsibility from the designer.’ (Victor Papanek,
1985).
As Papanek states, being a designer is arguably one of the most
environmentally detrimental careers. Designers have traditionally been
trained to design products to be mass manufactured and sold in their
billions, regardless of how much energy is consumed in their production
and use and despite the fact that they are likely to end up as land fill in 6
months or less. However, this also means that from the perspective of
environmental sustainability, the designer now has one of the most
important and potentially influential roles. Designers hold a great power
and capacity to make positive changes to the multitude of products that fill
our lives. Designers are in a unique position to solve problems through
creativity. As a core part of the design process, the social and
environmental impacts that come about as a result of our creative problem
solving need to be understood and minimised.
It is easy to deflect the responsibility onto other players in the product
development process, and while every person involved should take
responsibility for the resulting product, designers have the innovative
capacity to make a real difference to a product’s environmental footprint.
Most consumer goods are capable of having their carbon footprints
reduced by as much as 60 per cent, if manufacturers adopt better eco-
design philosophies and commit to improving their supply chains and
production methods; processes that could actually save them money
(Green Click, 2009). Most designers are aware of their role in cultivating
consumer desire, and of design's (sometimes dominant) marketing
function (Thorpe, 2009). Therefore they need to embrace this power in
cultivating consumer desire for environmentally aware products and to
create solutions that encourage improved environmental behaviour.
This lesson has already highlighted the fact that consumption is no longer
aimed at meeting material needs but instead is more closely related to
psychological and social factors that create an individual’s identity.
Consumption behaviour and the sense of personal identity are now so
10 © 2015 De Montfort University
closely related that a challenge to someone’s consumption behaviour may
be a challenge to their sense of self. Therefore, as well as working towards
the development of more energy efficient products designers need to use
creativity and innovation to persuade consumers that there is a more
authentic and fulfilling alternative to their consumer lifestyles. Designers
need to explore ways of how to lead consumers on a journey toward more
sustainable lifestyles and towards demanding better value rather than
resource intensive ‘stuff’ (Krantz, 2010).
Methods and processes of how to succeed in the challenge of significantly
influencing consumer behaviour are not yet clear. However, designers
clearly play an important role in creating solutions and experiences, as
well as products, which begin to change the way in which consumers think
and behave.
5 Summary
This lesson has highlighted that current consumption patterns are
unsustainable. The discipline of design is not only responsible for
consumer’s reliance on material goods but also has a significant
responsibility for identifying ways in which these trends can be reversed.
Identifying the Industrial revolution as the instigator and vehicle through
which our relationship with ‘stuff’ has evolved is an important starting
point. Historically we are able to observe how increased access to, and the
availability of, material goods has brought about changes in the way we
perceive value. Additionally, the significant role that products play in our
every day lives and the emphasis consumers put on products to provide
personal identity and psychological wellbeing is a significant factor and
challenge in designing for the future.
Research efforts that focus on assessing the factors responsible for the
current impacts generated by an increasingly globalised consumer society
Lesson 1.2: Consumerism and the Industrial Revolution
are, without doubt, and important line of inquiry and the industrial ecology
community should vigorously continue to pursue this work (Tukker et al.,
2010). However, the consideration of potential pathways to ‘realise
change’ toward more sustainable systems of consumption and production
has received limited attention. Subsequently it is recommend that
researchers and designers are in an important position and are responsible
for reorienting the focus of their work toward the challenges of fostering
societal change toward more sustainable consumption and production.
Related lessons
Lesson 3.2: Envisioning Sustainable Futures
Lesson 5.1: Design for Sustainable Behaviour
Recommended reading
Jackson, T., (2006) Sustainable Consumption. London: Earthscan
References
ClickGreen. (2009) Staple products need better eco-design. Available at:
www.clickgreen.org.uk/product/directory/121117-stapleproducts-need-
better-eco-design,-says-study.html Accessed on: 11th August 2013.
Confino, J. (2010) ‘Sustainability depends on breaking free of our
consumerist fixation’ Guardian Sustainable Business Article. Available
from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/consumerism-
sustainability-short-termism. Accessed on: 14th December 2013.
Durning, A. (2006) Chapter 8 ‘The Dubious Rewards of Consumption’ in
‘Sustainable Consumption’. Earthscan, London, UK.
11 © 2015 De Montfort University
Hamilton, C., (2010) Consumerism, self-creation and prospects for a new
ecological consciousness. Journal of Cleaner production Vol. 18, Pp. 571
– 575
Hamilton, C., Denniss, R., Baker, D., (2005) Wasteful consumption in
Australia. Discussion Paper 77. Canberra: The Australia Institute.
House of Lords science and Technology Committee (2007). Waste
reduction. 6th Report of Session 2007 – 2008. London: The Stationary
Office Limited.
Inglehart, R., Klingemann, H-D., (2000) Genes, culture, democracy and
happiness, in Diener, E., Suh, E., (2000) Culture and Subjective well-
being. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackson, T., (2009) Prosperity without Growth. London: Earthscan
Jackson, T., (2006) Sustainable Consumption. London: Earthscan
Jackson, T., (1996) Material Concerns. London: Routledge
Jefferies, S. (2008) Will this man make you happy? Guardian Article,
Available from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/jun/24/healthandwellbeing.sc
hools Accessed 24th June 2013.
Krantz, R., (2010) A New Vision of Sustainable Consumption. Journal of
Industrial Ecology. Vol. 14 (1) pp. 7 – 9.
Leonard, A. (2008). ‘The Story of Stuff’. Available from:
http://www.storyofstuff.com/about.php Accessed: 24th June 2010
Market Oracle Manufacturing Output. Available from:
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2009/June/us-economy-
4_image008.gif. Accessed 29th June 2010 Accessed on: 11th August 2010.
Mullholland, H. and Watt, N. (2010) David Cameron defends plans for
wellbeing index. Guardian Article. Available from:
Lesson 1.2: Consumerism and the Industrial Revolution
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/25/david-cameron-defends-
wellbeing-index. Accessed 14th December 2013.
New Economics Foundation (2004) Well-being Manifesto for a
Flourishing Society. Netherlands: New Economics Foundation, Erasmus
University Rotterdam. Available from: http://www.neweconomics.org
Accessed on: 12th August 2013
Optimum Populatio Trust. Available from: 3.
Papanek, V., (1985) Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and
Social Change. London: Thames & Hudson.
Shell, E. (2009) ‘Buy to last’. Available from:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/07/buy-to-last/7513/
Accessed: 24th June 2013.
Thorpe, A. (2009) ‘The Context of ‘Low-Product’: How designers can
help articulate a new social language’. Core 77 Magazine Article.
Available from:
http://www.core77.com/blog/news/_the_context_of_low_product_how_de
signers_can_help_articulate_a_new_social_language_by_ann_thorpe_136
23.asp. Accessed on 29th June 2013.
Tukker, A., Cohen, M., Hunacek, K., Mont, O. (2010). Sustainable
Consumption and Production, Journal of Industrial Ecology. Vol. 14,
Number 1.
Welsh Assembly Government (2009) ‘Towards Zero Waste: One Wales,
One Planet’. A consultation report on a new waste strategy for Wales.
12 © 2015 De Montfort University