As a part of the generation that grew up with the original US Ikeas, back when you had to do a two day road trip or go to Canada to shop at one... I am seeing a new trend in Ikea's design concepts. In an attempt to stay with us, those no longer in college or considering life as a poor artist to be romantic, those of us now with homes and condos of our own and a desire to be morem dare I say, grown up...Ikea is beginning to enter the higher price points and create lines that are seen as less disposable. The Stockholm line is one that I fancy quite a lot. Reminiscent of alot of the 50's danish modern stuff yet more contemporary.... it feels decidedly more lush than the pine framed couch and shelves of our past. However, as many have said before me, they have been pioneers in sustainability for years. Flat packing on it's own saves so many tons of carbon each year because more product can fit in a smaller hold area. So, less trucks are needed to transport items that otherwise, as assembled, would be bulky and awkward, creating wasted space in cargo vehicles. Also, Ikea has been pushing CFL's for years and they created prefab homes in Scandinavia and England that reflect their commitment to smaller/smarter living. http://www.jetsongreen.com/2007/04/do_you_have_ike.html

Oh, and I agree... The current "Greening" of the US is not a trend. It's an inevitable solution that hopefully isn't coming too late.

No, these companies were built on having a ear to the customer. They will evolve and flourish in new and exciting ways.

If "disposable design" were the beginning and end to the Ikea / H & M business model, then I would think they would have some reason for long term concern.

However, their hallmarks (and that of Zara as well), run more along the line of being very good at sensing consumer preference in the goods they produce and then being just as well positioned to design, produce and bring to market products that reflect those consumer tastes.

If green is an emerging consumer preference, I would suggest that they would be better suited to adapt than a majority of their peers.

Must agree that green is more than a trend - we haven't really left ourselves any choice. We think of going green like we tend to everything else - a way to solve a problem. The real solution is to start functioning more like our environment. Everything is a interrelated, so we are in a relationship with all of the elements that make up our environment. It is there to support us and vice versa.
I don't think there is any reason that companies like IKEA and H&M can't continue to produce affordable products. IKEA is already a leader in using sustainable and recyclable materials (yes largely because of the strict requirements of the EU).
H&M is a bit of a different animal. Their competitive advantage comes as much from speed as it does afford ability. They are able to very quickly reinterpret the fashions that walk down the runway and produce them en-mass. Frankly, if they use renewable energy sources and incorporate some sustainable materials, they will be light years ahead of most of the fashion world. In fashion, price is not about quality, its about buzz.

Not if they think outside the box. Ikea should develop a line of products that can be recycled and make it worthwhile to bring things back and buy new ones.

Brian's response echoes the mind of Victor Frankl in the "Man's Search for Meaning". Yes, we are free to make choices and yes, the yes, the one thing we can change or control is our thinking, but the freeing aspect of what Brian said still comes down to application, whether those things are love or freedom. What Lee Solon addresses is the environment. "Important Things" exist in the environment and this relationship between us and our environment was explored by Jiddu Krishnamurti. The problem with such exploration is that Krishnamurti wasn't providing anyone a cue card to deal with this environment - he was essentially saying "explore this yourself, don't take my word for it". What Lee Solon has spoken about serves as a source of competitive advantage for most companies and so if Peter Y. Hong's statement is true, it is only true because we do not understand or put thought to our own environment. Where I would differ from Lee is that it is not upto organizations to free the mind from numbing repetitive processes. Mihalyi Csikzentmihayli has shown in his research that man can achieve flow from what others would see as numbing repetitive processes, but Lee is as right as Brian is, it is all about how we think. The bottom line for me is that if the environment is predominantly about the mechanical, it is about things. If the environment is a biological relationship, it is about people. What is the essence of technology today than a discussion about the mechanical that is disguised as biological. The most mechanical constructs of the environment are discussed by Marshall McLuhan, he called media the "Mechanical Bride" and guess what, it still is. McLuhan was right about how our nervous system has been extended into the environment, and how the electric age has made us tribal. McLuhan's formulation was simple, he said seek to understand this environment, and that was Frankl's refrain and it was Csiksentmihayli's as well as Krishnamurti's. If we are truly biological we can walk away with better thoughts, but if we are still mechanical, then we are not having an intelligent relationship with our environment, we are merely seeking professional acclaim, and so all I am doing here is thinking out aloud and so these are my thoughts and they should not be mechanically read......M.

No, consumers will adapt. Products from above manufacturers will not be viewed as short term [use] designs. What's wrong with adhering to furniture >10 years?

Am I the only one who has IKEA furniture that is way more than 20 years old? Also "green' is not a trend. It is a new direction that will stay.Interesting suggestion to bundle IKEA and H&M. Zara and H&M might be a better combination and then discussion would be about "disposable clothing" in general. Overall, my view is that greenness won't hurt these companies.They'll find a way to get greener, just like everyone else will.

Assumption: This question is posed with the implication that the ‘green’ trend will lead to products that last longer, challenging IKEA and H&M’s current ‘disposable design’ model.

NO-
The easiest position to take is that innovative companies like IKEA and H&M will find ways to make their designs more robust and raise price to adapt to changes in consumption and turnover.

However, developing robust products and focusing a company around decreased consumption/turnover is not the optimal solution for both the ‘green’ trend and the global challenges of the coming decades.

It is more likely that these companies will find ways to design more recyclable characteristics into their brands, and use renewable energy to produce the products. They should also plan to support increased consumption, not design to slow it.

For the benefit of economic stability and peace worldwide, we should focus on renewable energy, mandate that supply chains primarily use recycled materials, and increase consumption of products worldwide.

To satisfy an economy based on recycling, different infrastructures and reverse supply chains must be developed. When manning and equipping these return supply chains, its likely that employment rises and traditional, mechanics based industry will be revitalized. (Good yes?)

American consumer is unlikely to change, and the difference between recycled and virgin should be next to nill. Disposing of an old chair should be the same regardless of if it is made from recyclable material or not. The difference should be that the chair's material will be on the floor of IKEA the following year, not in a landfill.

As far as the consumer is concerned there is little difference between disposing and recycling, as long as the infrastructure is in place. Mandating recycling and increasing the amount of recycled materials allow for higher consumption rates, not less.

In contrast, if we suggest that the green movement make things more robust and longer lasting (decreasing consumption), then we create a negative force on international economies that are not able to make anything other than simple goods. To believe in 'green' long-term durables without paying attention to the poorest of the poor and the requirements for their advancement is hypocritical and shortsighted.

The emerging markets we rave about emerged because they were able to produce simple goods that now lie in landfills, replaced in the household by other similarly cheap products that had a different color. This consumption driven economic development funded, among other things, higher education opportunities in undeveloped countries. These higher education levels enabled the technological advancement required for a country to emerge.

Basically, middle class America created modern China. What other countries' names are you wearing?
There are many areas of the world now learning from China and India's advance, and planning their progress in their steps. What do they have without our consumption?

If you look at global demographic change, it is apparent that consumption will only increase, and more people will need jobs and education. Herman Miller and IKEA are perfectly placed to maximize these low-cost production opportunities and new markets.

Our goal should be to increase consumption, but do so without creating further damage. We can't stop the progression of emerging markets (and companies' interest in obtaining their growing wealth). So why not leverage the demand and awareness future challenges by demanding innovation in energy production and ‘return’ supply chains?

IKEA and H&M will be better off in the long-run. Our ‘green’ trend should ensure they can produce responsibly. The question ought to be: “What will happen to one-use energy and dead-end plastics?”

Other significant questions include:
Is the consumer psychologically able of change?
Will businesses whose profit depends on turnover and short product life-cycles even market designs that encourage consumption patterns to change?
Given the international economic upheaval that would occur if consumption decreased drastically, should governments allow consumption to slow?

It might if people interpret being "green" as buying products that are slightly more expensive but built to last, so that we wouldn't have to manufacture as much. But who's really thinking about that when they're at H&M? Plus, as Saabira points out, "disposable" products actually can last a good while if you take care of them.