Talking to a few designers who are based in Taipei working in and for global companies, it reiterated the difficulties an individual faces if they want to pursue environmentally oriented design work.

Talking to a few designers who are based in Taipei working in and for global companies, it reiterated the difficulties an individual faces if they want to pursue environmentally oriented design work.

Taiwan has some similarities to New Zealand in that it is an island nation (insert size difference). Its land has alot of mountainous regions with (I quote my taxi driver here) 130 mountains over 3000 metres! With a population over 22 million the small amount of land usable for industrial activity has been highly developed. It is plausible that due to Chaing Kai Shek's expulsion from mainland China and the subsequent freeze in relations between Taiwan and China after the devastation of world war two that it was forced to look outward. In doing so it created a dominant presence in a range of high technology manufacturing industries ranging from computers to bicycles.

Evident also in the Taiwanese artworks and sculpture an incredible attention to detail that would have translated well into the paradigm of modern computing. Foreign local designers also mention the 'can do' attitude of the Taiwanese, that they will give any challenge a go, vs some other producers where it is all too hard (resulting in more innovative products).

One of the inherent problems within a large global organisation is coordination, alignment, and sharing of information. These challenges can dissolve the ambition of the most ardent designer. The distributed nature of modern manufacturing supply chains exacerbates this and diffuses any control and waters down peoples understanding. For instance, is it possible for someone based in Austin Texas to properly understand manufacturing in Taiwan or China? Do they have strong enough relationships to collaborate and improve their products?.

One of the costs passed on with companies moving out of manufacturing has been the environmental obligations. Although this is increasingly coming back into the spotlight, it may require a different approach to how companies work with manufacturers.

Empowering Suppliers & Consumers

The company that controls the brand is a critical and central stakeholder. There needs to be a greater level of evidence, transparency and communication from the central company that 'owns' the product and a different attitude (to both consumers and suppliers). With much of the leading edge research into sustainability now firmly focussed on 'Social Innovation' there is a good case for taking a more socially oriented approach. Conceptually this is about engaging people so they can become an agent of change. Most of the research work has been undertaken in developing economies and not in large corporate on commercially driven projects. But it proves change is not controlled soley by the company, rather it is an 'Active' engagement.

Changing the tone from 'control' to 'empowerment' and 'engagement' seems critical to creating change. Getting suppliers and consumers involved, working with them to get the information so they can make choices to change. There is a degree of trust that people will want to improve the situation. This seems a reasonable assumption as most of the big issues have been bought to the table by consumers and the general population.

Supply Chain Change

Supply chains are an unavoidable part of the environmental problem. They are essential to any credible initiative. Often however the relationships are not true partnerships that do not afford companies the ability to research new materials, manufacturing and process improvements. Empowerment should encourage and reward improvement and change. Empowerment may not yield the lowest cost, but it will yield a better product. Stable long term relationships are what companies need to provide the trust required to create improvements in sustainability. Companies also need to recognise the real cost of doing business and reflect that in their discussions with their supply partners.

Transparency should however be a bottom line as it is a fair assumption that companies need to be prepared to talk about what they are doing (from both sides) of the equation.