Regrettable Substitution: Life is full of surprises

Caveat:
This post simplifies. A lot. Please keep this in mind as you read it.
It is indented to reinvigorate the discussion about how make decisions and choose ‘better’ material and products at this current moment of time.

Reducing humanity’s footprint on this planet is a journey of decisions.

Some of them tough, some of them very clear. And some of them – let’s just say: with very limited available data.

The journey we’re on, is the proverbial Designer’s Paradox:

The contradiction inherent in
trying to improve the world while
designing products that consume resources and
may well end up contributing to pollution.

Source: Fairs, M.’Should we feel guilty for causing pollution? Oh yeah!’ admit designers. Dezeen (2018).

More scientifically speaking of course, we are faced with the ever lasting conundrum of Regrettable Substitutions, which in its original chemical context is defined as follows:

A regrettable substitution occurs when a material or
process believed to be less hazardous
[eds: or to embody less problematic characteristics]
turns out to have an unexpected hazard
[eds: or problematic characteristics].

Source: Wikipedia, with edits by the author

The concept is though of course much wider applicable than just in chemistry.

In fact, the fundamental idea of Regrettable Substitutions is such an important concept that the German language even has a verb for it:
Verschlimmbessern = The act of making things worse in the genuine intent to make them better.

Because let’s face it: most decisions today, specifically when it comes to responsible business, taking planetary boundaries and SDGs into account, are difficult and far from black-and-white.

Wrapping ones’ head around any such challenge is a real brain squeezer

Example needed? Here we go:

Side note: The following is just an example. In no way I am suggesting to be particularly partial to any one ‘simple’ solution. Yet, the example is evidently one that comes from ‘the real world’ where very heated discussions across a broad set constituencies are being had. Among them animal welfare and rights advocates, advocates for the different fibres and materials groups, those that create the LCAs leading to scientific data, those not believing a gram of any science, and those that try to translate any and all of that into a path and process for a company to follow.
Dare I say it? It sometimes reminds me of the religious wars in the middle ages between Catholics and Protestants …

Now, let’s assume for a moment that you’d like to replace a textile material such as wool, down, leather, silk etc. .

And all that while ensuring all following to the best possible extent:

1. Animal Welfare:
   – No use of materials stemming from industrially farmed animals, as well as
   – Ensuring highest standards of animal welfare at the source of any animal originated material/product if used.
2. Carbon Impact:
   – Lowest possible carbon footprint across the whole life cycle of a product the material is used in: from inception through to its end-of-life, and
   – Independence of non-renewable resources (including, but not limited to, oil derivatives).
3. Ecological Impact
   – Ensuring no negative side effects on any of the planetary boundaries.
   Specifically on key primary resources such as water bodies or biodiversity.
4. Circular Economy:
   Compatibility with circular economy concepts at all times.
5. Just Transition
   – Enshrined fair working conditions and remunerations for everyone touching the product or any of its ingredients during its lifetime, and
   – No negative impacts on worker communities and job opportunities in case of product/material phase outs.

Let us just for once ignore the 5^th point, and focus on the other four:
It becomes immediately clear even with this somewhat reduced set of criteria inherent contradictions exist.

A more specific example

Let’s assume for the sake of the argument we wanted to replace (industrially farmed) merino wool.

Option 1: We could do that through some type of acrylics or (recycled) polyester.

• Upside:
  Both of these materials are easily to get hold of, are fairly cheap, and would lower the final product price point.
• Down side:
  We’d be introducing direct or indirect dependencies from petrochemicals, and hence an increasingly very scarce resource. In the case of recycled polyester we would also downcycled PET bottles into currently non-renewable textile PET varieties. Hence, we’re adding to the every increasing mountain of post-consumer waste. And that is before starting to look into the latest science on textile microparticles, be it air- or waterborn.

Option 2: There is of course the theoretical option of using rough wool.

• Upside: Rough wool is indeed fundamentally an undesired by-product for any sheep breed other than Merinos. Putting such wool to good use, rather than literally wasting it, is in alignment with good resource use and the circular economy. The wool basically costs near to nothing, which is always a nice to have.
• Downside: Unfortunately this does not address the challenges of industrial animal farming. To the contrary … it introduces additional issues related to transport and slaughter. It also requires adaption of product ranges, as this wool is often unsuitable for very fine and light garments.

Option 3: But it does not finish there: We could consider recycled wool of course.

• Upside: An approach that is indeed circular economy compatible. It reduces the mountain of discarded clothing for example.
• Downside: This approach introduces product quality issues that could affect longevity for example.

Option 4: Last but certainly not least: We could be adventurous and use innovation materials.
Examples of which are the brewed protein technology from Spiber or Weganool from Faborg.

• Upside: These materials are often designed with their ultimate end use, and sustainability credentials in mind. There is a high likelihood that they would be a very nice replacement option. In most cases these technologies and materials would be an extremely good replacement candidate.
• Downside: most of these materials are not produced at industrial scale as of yet. As a consequence: economies of scale are not at play just yet. Both; quantitative availability as well as market pricing are hence a challenge to grapple with.

In other words:

Whatever the decision, we probably have to accept trade offs.

And with that the challenge that Regrettable Substitutions presents.

The fundamental question is not: Which is the best possible option.

But: Which is the best possible AND least bad option (combined) at this very moment.