Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things

“The tree, among the finest of nature’s creations, plays a crucial and multifaceted role in our interdependent ecosystem. As such, it has been an important model and metaphor for our thinking, as you will discover. But also as such, it is not a fitting resource to use in producing so humble and transient substance as paper.”

Echoing the book’s theme about respecting nature, the authors explain why they did not use tree-based paper in the composition of their book. The authors exalt the tree as the ultimate symbol of eco-effectiveness. Practicing what they preach, the refrain from using wood-based paper in the creation of their book.

“It represents one step toward a radically different approach to designing and producing the objects we use and enjoy, an emerging movement we see as the next industrial revolution.”

Cradle to Cradle, as a physical object, was produced much differently than the majority of books available on the current consumer market. The authors see their book, and the production of books in general, as situated in larger industrial systems. The message of the authors’ book calls for a “radically different approach” to the ways we current produce and consume objects.

“If you are going to help save the planet, you will have to make some sacrifices, share some resources, perhaps even go without. And fairly soon you must face a world of limits. There is only so much the Earth can take. Sound like fun?”

The authors characterize the message that many consumers are given when being told how they can help the environment. The tone of the above quote is negative and berating. The authors, on the other hand, have a much different attitude; they are positive and take a friendly, relatable approach. What’s more, the authors do not see a “world of limits” when it comes to embracing environmentalism. In fact, their eco-effective model would open up many opportunities, for both industry and consumers alike.

“I realized that design is a signal of intention. What is the very best that designers can intend, I wondered, and how might a building manifest that intention?”

In the Introduction, each author gives a brief first-person overview of their background. This quotation is by William McDonough, an architect, explaining how a Holocaust memorial made him realize that buildings always reflect the creator’s intention. The “giant machines designed to eliminate human life” (9) reflected the motivations of the Nazis. In this pivotal moment in McDonough’s career, he realized that he wanted to design buildings with “completely positive intentions” (10).

“Viewed from a design perspective, the Model T epitomized the general goal of the first industrialists: to make a product that was desirable, affordable, and operable by anyone, just about anywhere; that lasted a certain amount of time (until it was time to buy a new one); and that could be produce cheaply and quickly.”

Henry Ford’s Model T is the epitome of the goals of the early industrialists. By examining the case of the Model T, one can see the general values of the early industrialists, which were mostly economic. The authors of Cradle to Cradle urge manufacturers to uphold goals that are larger than merely monetary ones.

“The average lawn is an interesting beast: people plant it, then douse it with artificial fertilizers and dangerous pesticides to make it grow and to keep it uniform—all so that they can hack and mow what they encouraged to grow. And woe to the small yellow flower that rears its head!”

The authors refer to the reigning Western design principle as a “monoculture,” and the typical American lawn is a good example of this. Uniformity is a laudable feature of the “monoculture” (32). American lawns also exemplify how nature is seen as something to be “tamed.”

“For example, reducing the amounts of dangerous toxins and emissions released by industry is an important eco-efficient goal. It sounds unassailable, but current studies show that over time even tiny amounts of dangerous emissions can have disastrous effects on biological systems.”

The authors’ issue with eco-efficiency is that it only reduces, and does not eliminate, toxins from the environment. In this example, they discuss how even small amounts of “endocrine disrupters”—that is, toxins in the environment that affect humans’ endocrine systems—can mimic hormones and wreak havoc on a person’s biology.

“Just because a material is recycled does not automatically make it ecologically benign, especially if it was not designed specifically for recycling. Blindly adopting superficial environmental approaches without fully understanding their effects can be no better—and perhaps worse—than doing nothing.”

One of the book’s primary goals is to show that the current “eco-efficiency” movement is deeply flawed. In many instances, “environmentally friendly” choices are made to assuage industry’s and consumers’ guilt alike, but it does not actually protect the environment. Recycling can actually be more harmful to the environment, the authors note, depending on the materials being processed.

“As long as human beings are regarded as ‘bad,’ zero is a good goal. But to be less bad is to accept things as they are, to believe that poorly designed, dishonorable, destructive systems are the best humans can do. This is the ultimate failure of the ‘be less bad’ approach: a failure of the imagination. From our perspective, this is a depressing vision of our species’ role in the world.”

The authors of Cradle to Cradle offer a more hopeful vision for the future, by doing away with the current “be less bad” approach to environmental issues. By casting off the traditional model of “eco-efficiency” in exchange for “eco-effectiveness,” they suggest that humans can actually leave a positive ecological footprint, rather than a “less bad” one.

“But you might start to envision the difference between eco-efficiency and eco-effectiveness as the difference between an airless, fluorescent-lit gray cubicle and a sunlit area full of fresh air, natural views and pleasant places to work, eat, and converse.”

“Eco-efficiency” is a world of limits; it is being “less bad” instead of being “good,” as the authors see it. On the other hand, “eco-effectiveness” embraces abundance; it uses the natural flows and cycles that already exist in the natural world. The way the authors see it, “eco-effective” design strategies are not only good for the environment, they are more pleasant for human occupants, as well.

“What is the entire system—cultural, commercial, ecological—of which this made thing, and way of making things, will be a part?”

This question is at the heart of “eco-effective” design and manufacturing. Every system is seen as part of an interconnected whole. Immediate and long-term effects are considered. The Industrial Revolution produced a substantial number of unexpected consequences on the environment and industry itself. Knowing this, we can anticipate consequences more accurately with a holistic approach to industry and the environment.

“Sweeping away, shutting out, and controlling nature’s imperfect abundance are implicit features of modern design, ones rarely if ever questioned.”

The authors quip that, if the Industrial Revolution had a motto, it would be “if brute force doesn’t work, you’re not using enough of it” (86). The cradle-to-cradle strategy rejects the idea that nature must be controlled or tamed, the complete antithesis of most modern design. Even the suggestion to work with natural flows seems radical—that’s how entrenched modern design is with this idea.

“Wouldn’t it be wonderful if rather than bemoaning human industry, we had reason to champion it? If environmentalists as well as automobile makers could applaud every time someone exchanged an old car for a new one, because new cars purified the air and produced drinking water?”

One of the primary messages of Cradle to Cradle is that, in order for humanity to thrive, we must recognize that we live in interdependent systems. A major obstacle to making that message widespread is the notion that industry and environmentalism are at odds with one another. The authors show a vision for the future where this is not the case.

“Should manufacturers of existing products feel guilty about their complicity in this heretofore destructive agenda? Yes. No. It doesn’t matter. Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. Negligence is described as doing the same thing over and over even though you know it is dangers, stupid, or wrong.”

The authors offer an ambivalent message to current manufacturers, about whether or not they should feel guilty about contributing to the destruction of the environment. On the one hand, they do not let them off the hook, maintaining that they should, indeed, feel guilty about the state of the environment. However, the authors conclude Chapter 4 by urging manufacturers to not dwell on their guilt, but instead to find new solutions to environmental problems. This kind of positive, forward-thinking message is seen throughout Cradle to Cradle.

“Against the tide of sameness, we advance the principle ‘respect diversity.’ By this we mean to include not only biodiversity but also diversity of place and culture, of desire and need, the uniquely human element.”

Chapter 5 calls for the value of diversity to be embraced by modern design and manufacturing processes. Using the example of industrial laundry detergent, the authors make the point that locations and cultures are diverse and subsequently have diverse needs. They posit that the idea of “sameness” does not ethically apply to all, as it concerns the environment.

“In planetary terms, we’re all downstream.”

Sewage treatments are often placed outside of communities. However, the authors want to emphasize the point that toxic waste never truly goes away. The waste returns to us, in one form or another, whether it takes on the form of pollution in our rivers or pollution in our soil via landfill. Thus, their point that we are all “downstream,” in a larger sense.

“Imagine a building like a tree, a city like a forest.”

Trees serve as a meaningful symbol for the way the authors think about design. In their ideal world, cities would be as productive and helpful to the environment as a forest. If buildings were designed to model trees, cities would no longer be problematic to the environment.

“Eco-effectiveness sees commerce as the engine of change and honors its need to function quickly and productively. But it also recognizes that if commerce shuns environmental, social, and cultural concerns, it will produce a large-scale tragedy of the commons, destroying valuable natural and human resources for generations to come. Eco-effectiveness celebrates commerce and the commonweal in which it is rooted.”

The authors are firm believers in both industrial and environmental ideology. Their concept of “eco-effectiveness” rejects the idea that industry and commerce are opposed to once another—which is a radical departure from traditional thinking, in both business and environmental circles. Dovetailing with their philosophy itself, their idea of “eco-effectiveness” celebrates a diverse range of idea, uniting them together under one cause.

”We can build factories whose products and by-products nourish the ecosystem with biodegradable material and recirculate technical materials instead of dumping or burying them. We can design systems that regulate themselves. Instead of using nature as a mere tool for human purposes, we can strive to become tools of nature who serve its agenda too.”

Using the authors’ eco-effective methods, a “creative, prosperous, intelligent” industrial system reigns. In this chapter, diversity is the primary focus. So, in summarizing their system here, the authors highlight the diversity of buildings, systems, and people who will be celebrated with “eco-effectiveness.”

“Once Bill Ford opened the door to the new thinking, hundreds of employees across all sectors of the company—in manufacturing, supply-chain management, purchasing, finance, design, environmental quality, regulatory compliance, and research and development (not only at River Rogue) began to come forward with ideas.”

The renovation of the River Rouge factory in 1999 is used as an example of a successful eco-effective manufacturing facility. The authors discuss the initial stages of the renovation, when Bill Ford, the chairman of Ford at the time (and grandson of Henry Ford), opened up to a new mode of thinking. They believe embracing a diversity of opinions that considers every department’s perspective leads to the kind innovation that the eco-effective approach supports.

“Considering, for example, that the company alone owns approximately 200 million square feet of roofing around the world, successful innovations could be quickly implemented at industry-transforming scale.”

Ford Motor Company, and many other corporations like it, are worldwide conglomerates. If even a few of these international companies would change their practices, it would have an enormous impact on the health of our planet. When framed in this way, in the authors’ classically optimistic way, transforming the entire manufacturing industry to produce a dramatic effect on the environment does not seem so out of reach.

“We improve the existing product in increments, changing what we can without fundamentally reconceiving the product. In looking at a car, we might help (as we have) a manufacturer switch to upholstery and carpeting that are antimony-free, but we are not yet rethinking the fundamental design of a car.”

In calling for such a radical change in industry, the authors are still measured and practical in their approach for how to implement these changes. To ease the transition, they give concrete steps for doing so. Also, as in the above quote, they note that small changes can be made along the way, to improve the overall eco-effectiveness of a company.

“Innovative design takes time to evolve, but rest assured, in ten years the ‘perfect’ vehicle of today will be a thing of the past, and if you don’t have the new new thing, one of your competitors will.”

This is one of the guiding principles that the authors offer to innovators and business leaders, namely in their “understand and prepare for the future” principle. The authors stoke the flames of competition—a mainstay in capitalism—to drive innovation. Even while embracing environmentalism, the authors support capitalistic values, as well.