Choosing a material is important in design. It's clear that products and services become more sustainable when we contemplate on matters such as how we process materials in their original state and the way we dispose materials after we have created a product from that material.

 Generally, it's easier to return something back to nature if it is closer to its original state. The properties of a matter change when it goes through a chemical reaction, and it sometimes creates a material that cannot be decomposed naturally. Plastics and vinyl products are an example. A significant amount of plastic waste is disposed in our oceans and land without being recycled. And many of us are familiar with photos of sea turtles suffering from plastic straws, which sparked controversy.

 Is plastic good material or bad material?
In 2017, D Museum in Seoul held an exhibition shining a light on plastic as a material that is a source of artistic inspiration under the theme 'PLASTIC FANTASTIC'. And this year, exhibition Intolerable Beauty by Chris Jordan shocked audience by raising the issue of plastic pollution. Both exhibitions gained a lot of attention from viewers, which shows how much we are ambivalent about plastic.

 There is a sentence in Susan Freinkel's book Plastic: A Toxic Love Story that shows how people viewed plastic when plastic was first introduced as a material in everyday items after World War II. It says, "Synthetics could substitute for, or even precisely imitate, scarce and precious materials. Plastic, admirers predicted, would deliver us into a cleaner, brighter world in which all would enjoy a 'universal state of democratic luxury'." In fact, if we were to get rid of all the plastic from the face of the earth today, we will not be able to use most of the products in our lives such as planes, clothes, computers, toilets, cars, and pens.

 When we start the discussion on the problems with plastic, saying that we shouldn't use plastic because sea turtles are suffering may be meaningful in that it raises people's awareness and vigilance. But we must also be cautious as it may obscure the issue with plastic. It is more specific to say that it's a problem because plastics don't decompose and are left floating in the oceans for a long time, but is staying on earth for a long time truly always and only a bad thing?

 Diamonds symbolize everlasting love because of their hardness, but why is it a problem that plastic lasts forever? The answer is simple. It is because plastic is 'cheap and convenient to use'. If something is cheap and convenient to use, the quantity of it being consumed grows. This is shown in the fact that the production of plastic, which was 0kg in the 1940s, increased to 320million tons in 2015. The volume of consumption is enormously high, while the service life is short and lasts for a very long time after it is disposed, harming surrounding organisms. Imagine diamonds were used for only 10 minutes a day like disposable plastics only to be disposed and left abandoned, threatening marine life. There will surely be people who say that diamonds are a bad material. This is the reason why I question the things that are considered 'too cheap and easy to use' and the ways we react to and handle such things.

 Kartell is an Italian furniture and lighting company. It's no exaggeration to say that the company was founded with the purpose of designing awesome furniture pieces using plastic from the start. Kartell has pursued plastics projects for the past three generations. It is a brand that has improved the utilization of plastics and made products made of plastics into products valuable and collectible by collaborating with well-known designers. The brand, of which its identity is based on plastics, currently is also committed to developing plastic made from plants, including marine plants.

 What we should note here is the way we respond to issues related to a material. The fact that a certain material is being used proves that the material has utility. So, if we were to solve an issue associated with using a material, there are about three approaches that come to mind.

1. Supplement the weaknesses of the material.
2. Use an alternative material.
3. Develop a way of service that does not require the use of the material.

 The motive for approach number 1 becomes clearer when the weakness of the material can be supplemented and when the reward of developing the remedy measure is meaningful. An example of this approach would be Kartell's research into developing degradable plastics. One would be able to decide on whether to pursue approach number 2 after comparing opportunity costs from choosing an alternative material. And approach number 3 is a more comprehensive approach that requires a new social consent.

 Let's consider the three approaches by applying them to the straw example.

1. Use recycled plastic or develop and use plant-based plastic straws.
2. Make straws from alternative materials such as silicon, stainless steel, or bamboo stems.
3. Create a culture of drinking beverages without using straws.

 There are multifaceted matters to consider when it comes to the perspective on the most problematic material, plastic, and on issues that arise from plastics. As a designer, there is a burden of having to consider so many aspects regardless of whatever material you choose in order to meet the requirements of sustainability which emphasizes taking a holistic view. And it is almost impossible for a person to know everything about all materials. It is not easy to study and learn about every material that exists in this world. Then, how can we mitigate the known risks and, furthermore, make a better choice when we choose a material in design?

 Greenwashing is a marketing term that means to promote something as being environmentally friendly without grounds. For those of us who are no longer persuaded by products simply claiming to be 'eco-friendly', there are environmental indicators that objectively certify something to be 'good for the environment'. Let's take a closer look.

 Environmental indicators can largely be categorized into indicators that certify certain items of a company and indicators that are based on official certification of external organizations. Indicators issued by external organizations can again be categorized into indicators issued by international organizations that aim to be used as a standard across the world and indicators issued by governmental organizations that are closely related to the environmental laws and regulations of each country. For example, FSC®, which was mentioned in the previous edition of this column on Gucci's sustainable design, is a fairly well-known environmental indicator in the area of forest products certified by the international organization Forest Stewardship Council. And the Eco-Label (on the right) is an indicator granted by the Ministry of Environment of Korea. As paper products are the most closely related material in my work, I've restricted the scope of indicators to introduce in this column to environmental indicators related to paper products.

 Each website of different paper producing companies introduces various environmental certifications issued for different types of paper. There is a table that provides a good overview of such certifications below.

 The table shows a collection of several environmental indicators related to paper products. And yet, there are already indicators that certify same items differently. Comparing ECF to PCF, you can see that PCF is an indicator with a more stringent regulation on chlorine. For indicators on using secondary fibers, recycled paper content is indicated on the paper product in Korea, while Green Seal certifies a product as Green Seal certified after reviewing the method and content of recycled paper in a product.

 This can differ depending on the nature of the market per country and the area of interest per organization. Anyone dealing with imports and exports would know that regulations and standards are different across different countries. And the two different types of environmental marks focus on different areas and have different acceptable standards. Therefore, you can use different certifications as basis for judgement when choosing paper products certified with certain indicators as a more appropriate choice in the face of the task at hand if there is relevance to a certain region.

 There is the Gmund ECO Certification indicator as an example of an indicator developed internally by a paper company. Gmund is a paper manufacturer famous for producing luxury paper, especially, cushion paper and paper products of unique texture and beautiful colors. The company developed the Gmund ECO Certification mark, demonstrating that it places an importance on eco-friendly process. It is an effective way to deliver and share that there is a certain standard on the environmental aspect held by the company.

 Of course, if we think a bit more deeply into environmental indicators, it is difficult to claim that a product is 100% eco-friendly by just being certified with certain indicators. And there are a few reasons for that.

 First, there are too many different types of indicators that it is difficult to take the time to learn all of them or identify them unless they are environmental indicators that are very well-known. The above Ecolabel website alone has listed 463 indicators, which gives you some idea of the quantity of indicators. One can search for major certifications such as FSC®, but indicators like the Mohawk wind power designation in the above table aren't even on the website. There being too many indicators lowers the awareness on each of the indicators and lowers the value of the indicators as a result. And this threatens the sustainability of the indicators itself.

 The first reason is directly related to the second reason, which is the credibility of the indicators. Indicators can only be credible when they are transparently managed – for both company-developed indicators and indicators issued by external organizations. But a system or a mechanism that can monitor or supervise all of the many indicators does not exist, which is why some say it is difficult for an indicator to gain credibility.

 Third, the way a certain material is used can sometimes remove the 'eco-friendliness' value in the product. That is because a product can lose meaning or value of the indicator if the material it uses is manufactured in an eco-friendly manner, but non-sustainable properties are added to the material in the processing stage.

 Lastly, some materials hold the value of sustainability but have not obtained any certification. An example is the traditional approach to producing paper that hasn't necessarily obtained an indicator from a certification organization but manufactures products through an eco-friendly process.

 Fundamentally, there are limitations to environmental indicators. However, it is important and meaningful that we create a social consensus on the importance of what the indicators symbolize. And creating social consensus requires having a holistic view on all related matter and a slightly stubborn attitude and approach to the problem. If you are making something with paper materials, using paper materials of a company that reduces the number of trees cut down in order to produce the paper materials while at the same time replants trees to offset the amount of trees that are cut down to protect the forest can be a more sustainable way of using the material. And it would be more helpful if a company has a system that emits less greenhouse gas in its factories where paper is produced or uses alternative energy. Another way to create the value of sustainability can be to not laminate the end paper product so that the material can be recycled.

 As you can see, there are so many different environmental indicators that are applied to paper alone and you can easily understand that there is truly an enormous amount of relevant environmental indicators for other materials too. Much like how there are so many environmental indicators related to the finishing materials or furniture materials that you can consider in spatial design.

 It is not easy to prioritize using only eco-friendly materials in everything we do. But we can always consider these indicators as meaningful grounds for selecting a material. A comprehensive decision-making is essential in completing a design and attaching significance to the environmental indicators as part of items to consider in the decision-making process is something that requires value judgement. That is because using high-tech materials that have been certified for its eco-friendliness costs more and are difficult to handle compared to the materials used in the past. Despite such challenges, a rational businessperson would advocate for the value of sustainability if choosing a certain material is believed to contribute to sustainable economic activity in the long term. Very much like the words of the CEO of Kering, François-Henri Pinault. Stay tuned for my next column.