Designing for disassembly is parallel to design for repair.

This combination enables ease of disassembly, ease of re-assembly, and the ability for upgrades and modification. Simple considerations to the design such as using standard fixings and printing instructions directly into the material empower users to see their products as fixable rather than disposable.

Whilst elements of the strategy would need to change, for the most part it has the ability to work across all product categories; tech, cosmetics, hard goods & soft goods. Alongside prolonging the use life, designing in a method of modular disassembly also enables high value material to be recaptured.

The Beosounds levels secret to sustainability and longevity is due to its modular design. Made using 60% post-consumer plastic. The modularity of the design also allows for customisation - another design method for building in emotional attachment - upgrade sustainability and extended use.

As a rule, more materials mean more impact.

Design for dematerialisation is a term used to describe a process which reduces the overall size, weight, and numbers of materials involved in the design and is a simple way to reduce the total environmental impact.

One main strategy for dematerialisation is to take a mono-material approach, i.e. make the entire product from one single material. This makes it significantly easier to recycle and generally requires less energy because a ‘pre-stage’ of splitting or dividing the various materials apart doesn’t have to be taken into account. The overall recycling process is, therefore, faster, more efficient, less energy-intensive and more cost-effective. Whilst this is becoming a common practice in packaging, other examples include: Hellyhansen jacket & Mono, A rock climbing jacket.

A product designed to last, when in the majority of uses will only be used for a fraction of the materials lifespan is not sustainable, nor environmentally friendly.

As designers we gravitate towards this sustainability strategy, believing, wanting, the products we create to be used for years and years. However this is naive. There is plenty of evidence indicating that the average use case of products, particularly tech products, are used 2-3 years shorter than design intended.

The example of the Navy aluminium chair, designed to be used on submarines in 1944, was a great use of an industrial strong and robust material, designed to last 150 years. It would be used in a harsh environment, by 100’s of people, for many many years. The material fits the scenario of use and far surpassed all expectations of longevity.

The problem here is when a product like the Navy chair is used in scenarios which only need the product for a fraction of the lifespan, think of a restaurant or hairdressers; who knows of a restaurant that has kept all the same decor for 150 years ago? That has not been refurbed to keep up-to-date with current trends and expectations. The material value, if not recaptured or reused, is then lost, confined to that product, forever.

The opposite of this is designing to degrade. In our article on how to design sustainable tech- products, the example of the Korva headphones showcase how a tech product can use alternative materials as a method for designing for an appropriate life span.

“Housed in a cellulose fungus, similar to the much used Mycelium, they [the Korva headphones] showcase how a tech product can have an appropriate material lifespan, yet still be fully functional.”

Material selection has a crucial impact on performance and environmental impact, and must be simultaneously project, environment and user centric.

Further reading:

-Creating New Markets in the Lifecycle of Connected Things

-Lifespan of electronics 2.3 years shorter than intended by design

-The Long View, Exploring Product Lifetime Extension

Taking something which was once single-use or disposable and re-creating it to be used time and time again is a strategy being adopted more and more in the cosmetics industry.

Wild deodorant, for example, utilises easy-to-use compostable refills, ensuring the outer case, made from aluminium, can be kept and re-used continually. Extended product life through a send-back scheme can be seen in the work of cosmetic brands UpCircle, Lush, and Haeckles. Their customers are given a monetary incentive to either return their products, to store, or to post the packaging back and receive a percentage off their next order.

Outside of cosmetics, brand Hunu have created a pocket-sized cup, attempting to reduce the millions of paper cups that enter landfill each year in the UK alone. Made from a seamless silicone piece, the cup has been designed to be super easy to clean and reuse.

How to design to build in a more efficient use?

For many products, it’s the manufacture, distribution or disposal that has the most impact on our planet. For others, it’s during use itself. This could be in the fuel consumption or emissions of a vehicle, the electricity requirements of a kettle, or even the water volume supplied by a tap. Designing for efficient use is a strategy to lower a product’s potential impact on the environment when in use, whilst ensuring high performance.

There are two routes of action.

01: Designing the product in a way that it automatically is more sustainable.

02: Educating the user to use the product in a more sustainable way.

Take a kettle for example. Following route 1, you might seek to improve the visibility of the cup fill line so the user doesn’t boil more water than needed, increase the efficiency of the heating element and improve the insulation to reduce the need to reboil.

Following route 2, you would aim to educate the user on why overfilling it is bad for the environment and explain how to keep the kettle in good condition for a longer period of time.

Ultimately a combination of the two is the best way to go.

Taking the strategy above a step further is designed for sustainable behaviour change. With different approaches from simple education to forcing users to do the right thing, this strategy should be considered by everyone seeking to create new products. The strategy has been wonderfully explained by Sara Renström and Anneli Selvefors in their Sustainability Guide, and is broken down into four routes; Enlighten Spur, Steer, Force.

User motivated behaviour change

Enlighten: motivate users by expanding their knowledge and understanding through sustainability education and transparency of a product’s life-cycle.

Spur: incentivise better behaviour through money back/money off offers e.g. cosmetic brands who offer a reward for returning packaging; such as UpCircle, Lush and RePack.

Design created behaviour change

Steer: designing products and services so that the least resource-intensive behaviour becomes the obvious choice. This can be seen with through designs of flush systems, offering different amounts of water, instead only having one option.

Force: making the least resource-intensive option the only option. For example washing machines that only wash at low temperatures.

Finally there is a fifth strategy, Match, that reverses the thought process and involves adapting products or services to existing user behaviours so that users automatically act more sustainably without needing to consciously make a change. Cosmetic brand Wild aims to follow this strategy by introducing compromise-free sustainable alternatives to wasteful plastic-full bathroom products.

Emotional attachment is a method for building a strong bond between product and user, so that when a part breaks they are spurred on to find the replacement part and have it fixed, rather than dispose and buy new. It encourages users to unconsciously act more sustainably by caring and keeping products for longer.

​​”When a person feels attached to a product, he/she is more likely to handle the product with care, to repair it when it breaks down, and to postpone its replacement.”

A good way to build attachment is by enabling customisation. Bringing in personalisation to products encourages the user to feel a heightened sense of creation and ownership. Nike have implemented this successfully with their customisable shoe platform. Customisation also offers the ability to change in the future, when needs, or preferences of style change. Prolonging the potential of the product's lifespan.

Products which age with time and use also fall into the category of emotional design. Having an object, which with use, changes, tarnishes or reveals, has strong emotional attachment properties.

Designing for correct disposal has to take many factors into account. Locality, ease of use, local facilities, national facilities, changes in demand and market value of materials etc. Whilst there is no way to guarantee the correct disposal of a product, it’s a designers responsibility to make it as easy as possible through design. Starting with understanding what facilities are likely to be available in your target regions.

Alongside educating the user on how to dispose of the product correctly, easy material separation is key. Yeo Valley yoghurt have a simple material separation of instructions to allow for their yoghurt pots to be recyclable.