Last night at the San Francisco headquarters of Adobe, a few dozen leaders within the sustainable design industry sat down with tapas and wine for an open discussion about our experiences. Emceed by Josh Ulm of Adobe, the evening consisted of two open conversations, one focusing on the role of the designer, and one on the state of design as an industry. Valerie Casey of IDEO and the Designers Accord, Gaby Brink of Tomorrow Partners, and Brian Dougherty of Celery Design led the sessions, and attendees including myself, Phil Hamlett of the Academy of ArtAcademy of Art, John Bielenberg of Project M, and many others, chimed. My favorite sound bite came from John Bielenberg, who declared "Sustainability needs rebranding."

The theme of sustainability as poorly-worded, boringly-branded, and generally negative in its connotation, was common. Beginning the night, Brian Dougherty presented a "four-seed" approach to sustainable design, including line items Be A Systems Designer, Design For Change, Effectiveness Matters, and Less Bad Does Not Equal Good. With that, the conversation opened up to the tables of forty-or-so very opinionated individuals, who weighed in on their own experiences, failures, successes, and practices within sustainable design.

Valerie Casey of the Designers Accord described the "language of sustainability" as being all wrong, too firmly based in decades of shaming environmentalism and a subtractive rather than additive design process and lifestyle. I chimed in (with the Project H social design perspective) that it's often difficult to weigh the environmental with the social, but that they are inherently and inextricably linked. A water transport device, though made of plastic, should not be written off as "unsustainable" merely because of its materiality, nor should a bamboo coffee table be dubbed sustainable just because of how it is manufactured.

At this point the conversation turned to how we as practitioners maximize our "zone of control and zone of influence," as put by Valerie Casey, and more specifically, how our role is defined, limited, or expanded by the added value of sustainability.

Many agreed that sustainability in some ways runs counter to the very essence of design, which is rooted in creation and the "making of stuff." Phil Hamlett from the Academy of Art, along with a few others who agreed, noted that sustainability is often viewed as using less, doing less, conserving, and taking away, rather than something that adds value, and is more additive and generative than we realize. John Bielenberg chimed in declaring that "sustainability needs rebranding" in order to become a more attractive idea that is unignorable and opportunity-based, rather than limiting.

After a quick break the crows reconvened, the second session kicking off with rousing presentations by both Valerie Casey and Gaby Brink. Valerie spoke of the "Super Normal," great design that is inherently beautiful, important, and personal. She also spoke about the individual and collective responsibilities toward a movement that has tangible and measurable impact.

The following discussion touched on the problem with (and potential of) industry standards and certifications like LEED, and the role of big brands (like Adobe) in the shaping of consumer behaviors. Josh Ulm from Adobe noted that while Adobe's products may not be obviously green, they are tools for designers who employ sustainable design practices. Adobe's goal was to optimize the tools they provided so that designers to make more informed, sustainable decisions within their own processes.

The entire night was a rousing discussion that I hope will continue beyond the scope of the evening. Adobe hopes to host similar events in the future that bring together like-minded leaders and spur ongoing action and discussion.