Are designers truly responsible for 80% of a pack’s environmental footprint?
The ‘statistic’ that 80% of a pack’s environmental impact is determined at the design stage is repeated so often that it has become accepted as a truism. It’s not only an axiom that has seeped into the design world but it is also quoted by academics, environmental groups and even governments. But start digging into the history of this headline figure and it becomes apparent that things are far from so clear cut.
The 80% claim pops up all over the place, and not just in design circles. Environmental charity Ellen MacArthur Foundation uses it to link the idea of eliminating waste by getting a product’s design elements right.
The claim can also be found in scholarly articles as well (such as this one on product design and the environment from the Technical University of Denmark). It’s even used to justify legislation – the European Union’s Eco-design initiative to reduce the environmental impact of products has the figure front and centre.
There’s one problem though: none of these esteemed organisations provides a source for the claim. So where did the statistic come from? Paul Foulkes-Arellano, founder of Circuthon Consulting, which advises brands on circular innovation and sustainability, recently went looking for an answer.
He traces the idea to the UK’s Design Council Annual Review 2002. But the review doesn’t provide any data to back up its claim. As Foulkes-Arellano points out, how did the Design Council determine that 80% was due to design, while 20% was due to other factors (whatever they may be)?
It’s possible the figure was derived from a 1970s idea (also originating at the Design Council) that 80% of a product’s design determines manufacturing cost. While that may seem more reasonable, it's also dubious what that assertion is based on (back in 1993 a paper from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology questioned the validity of this statistic). Some have traced the idea back to a Ford study, others to a US National Research Council Report, though none cite sources (see this discussion among academics trying to find the ultimate origin for the statistic — and failing).
In the end, it’s impossible to find a reliable source or factual evidence that justifies the claim that 80% of a product’s environmental impact is down to the designer. After all, there are a whole range of socio-economic factors outside of the designer’s control.
For instance, the recyclability of a product designed to be recycled is dependent on whether there is appropriate recycling collection, suitable processing facilities and if there is a market for the recyclate.
“‘Design for recycling’ is a nonsense for many designs. It doesn’t consider the consequences of any post-design decisions made by procurement, operations, management or supply chain.”
Today, there are an increasing number of initiatives aiming to tackle sustainability and recycling issues. Corporations are setting ambitious environmental targets – in a 2022 McKinsey global survey of packaging purchasers, 75% of organisations said they had made commitments to sustainable packaging. Meanwhile recycling rates for paper and paperboard are high (71.4% in 2022 in the EU, according to a Confederation of European Paper Industries report).
So, although designers will have some, design-based say over the potential environmental impact of a piece of packaging, all of the above factors remain clearly, beyond their influence and it’s impossible not to come to the conclusion that the 80% rule is a fallacy. In reality, it’s governments, regulators, business organisations and corporations that have the real power to determine a product’s environmental impact.
