To Grow or Not To Grow, Is That the Question?

Successful companies make money. To make money, you need to sell stuff. To sell stuff, you need to make stuff. To make stuff, you need to take stuff from the planet. We’ve known this for a very long time. Companies have an obligation to shareholders to make revenue and pay dividends, right? I mean, that’s what companies do. So why do we expect companies to be the ones to save the planet? I’m not being cynical or mean here…or even judgmental. I’m just being curious. What do we think is going to happen?

For ever and ever, since the first cave man sold the first wheel, we’ve known that if you want your company to survive, you have to grow. The economy grows. The GDP grows. Personal income grows. Grow grow grow. That’s what defines success. Have we ever congratulated a company for x number of years of negative growth? “Congratulations on your failure over the past few years! And here’s to many more lackluster and mediocre years!”….said no one ever. Growth, when measured by revenue, is very easy to quantify.

Do you see where I’m going here? If we are all truly interested in saving the planet, consuming less, using less and destroying less, don’t you think we need to buy less? And doesn’t this mean companies will be selling less? I think that’s a big deal now. If we are talking about re-purposing furniture, re-using furniture and up-cycling furniture, are the furniture companies going to be okay with this? We have some amazing furniture manufacturers in our industry doing so much to improve the impact their products and factories have on the planet, but are they willing to agree to stop growing? That is very doubtful from where I sit, and I’m not sure we should be asking this of them.

In an earlier podcast episode I had the chance to talk with Brandi Susewitz, founder and CEO of Reseat. She wants to create the first online marketplace for second-life office furniture. Each year 17 billion pounds of office furniture end up in a landfill. Yup, that’s billion with a B. So, this is an awkward sitch, right? Who wants to cheer for Brandi here? Well, I do. By the way, the fashion industry suffers from the same dilemma. Textile waste adds about 92 million tons a year to landfills. Brands want us to update our wardrobes 4 times a year, but is that really sustainable?

I attended a dinner in October with Metropolis Magazine's Avinash Rajagopal and Mohawk Group. We had a nights worth of conversation with about 20 local designers. Many lamented the designer’s insistence on getting a clean white box for every project. Can we muddy the water by trying to re-use and re-purpose? Do tenants want used product, or do they want shiny new? It’s clearly an education game here. I think if a client understands the value of re-purposed furniture, they will be happy to adapt. It tells a great story for their brand.

But what about designers? Is the problem design? Does design create trends and concepts of beauty that cannot be sustained? Design is creative, it’s iterative, it’s responsive, and today, it’s sustainable. Designers can absolutely change our trajectory in this conversation, and many have done amazing work. But know this, our industries carbon emissions has grown every year, (2021 was another record year) and it still represents about 40% of the global carbon emissions. We haven’t moved the needle. Why? Growth. We’re building new buildings, we’re building new homes and we are putting stuff in both of these. What a dilemma!! We need to figure this out. Look at the fashion industry, one that runs very close to ours, as trends can really dictate. According to Vanessa Friedman, fashion director and chief fashion critic, The New York Times, “If the fashion industry continues on its growth trajectory, world clothing sales could increase 65% by 2030. Contrast that by the finding by the Hot or Cool Institute, a Berlin-based sustainability research group, that meeting fashion industry environmental goals would require consumers to buy only five new pieces a year.” Wow. Sustainable fashion has become an oxymoron. Has the same thing happened to the building industry? Gabriela Hearst, a designer who is the creative director of her namesake label and the large French brand Chloé, said unlimited growth is no longer an option. She said that she told her chief executive that she didn’t want to make Chloe the next billion-dollar brand, according to the same article. Wow.

Is the problem consumption, or is the problem how we measure for success? Should revenue growth be the ultimate measure for corporate success, or should it be measured in other areas such as social programs, governance and environmental impact? Just asking for a friend, but a lot of people seem to think so. Should shareholders and corporations be rewarded more for behavior than revenue growth? This is a question I think we’re going to be hearing a lot more in the near future. I’m not suggesting non growth, and I’m not suggesting growth. I just think we need to be talking about this and figuring it out. I think a lot of people think growth is destroying the planet, I think we need to do a better job managing it. Perhaps the companies who best address their impact on the planet will be rewarded with growth, and all the rest who chose to ignore it, will suffer the consequences of their indifference. I think I like that solution best. Let’s go forward and reward those manufacturers who are making a difference. Let’s allow the sustainable marketplace to do its work. Thanks to Ecomedes, Inc. and mindfulMATERIALS Materials we can specify healthier and more sustainable product. Let’s do that and watch the cream rise to the surface.