I thoroughly enjoyed being exposed to eight primary approaches to sustainability by companies. It was difficult to choose which framework I thought was the “best” because even though there were many to choose from, it was clear that none of them are perfect.
However, I did notice that almost all the trends except “Social Return on Investment” included the environmental component when making measurements, scales, or qualitative assessments. This did not surprise me considering they were all approaches to sustainability, yet I was intrigued by the “Social Return on Investments” approach to thinking of the social sphere as its own environment while applying financial frameworks when developing or improving products or services. I never really thought that could be related to sustainability in thinking of the psychology behind consumer buying patterns based on what they deemed “green,” but now I have this new lens of thinking.
I think that the “Total Beauty” framework is the “best” to use whether a company is in its beginning product/service developmental stages or trying to refine or improve an existing product. I like that it is described as an easy process to use because of its clear layout in addressing social and environmental issues through its five unique categories. At the same time, I acknowledge its inability to perfectly score more complicated products and its more general view of social issues being incorporated but not being specified. Yet this weakness to me is actually a positive because this framework’s mission is not accuracy but instead a general impression of the product, which is really most useful for the development and improvement stages in the sustainability design process.
I think that Edwin Datschefski, the creator of this framework, associating beauty with only sustainability centers this framework to make effective, meaningful evaluations. Something that none of the other frameworks address. The five criteria associated with this approach: “cyclic,” “solar,” “safe,” “efficient,” and “social” all address the idea of having products/services that are truly sustainable and bring meaning and value to consumers’ lives. I respect that all the criteria have a somewhat sound measuring system except social because this can be a bit more of a subjective category, but I am okay with that because of the clear mission to “support basic human rights and ‘natural justice”‘ (Shedroff 162).
Therefore, my definition of the “best” criteria has to do with whether the framework addresses the entire design process, being a more macro approach to company development and improvement, touching on at least two out of the three main categories (social, environmental, economical), and having a commitment toward the minimization or all together elimination of waste from product design, which Shedroff emphasizes is the most crucial thing developers can influence in making the world greener.