RSS

Green Guru Gone Wrong: William McDonough

By: Danielle SacksMon Oct 13, 2008 at 5:45 PM
McDonough at his Charlottesville, Virginia, offices

McDonough at his Charlottesville, Virginia, offices | photograph by Martien Mulder

Green architect William McDonough has been hailed as a water-walking visionary. The truth is far more complicated.

Today, McDonough charges some $50,000 a speech. He's a regular at thought-leadership conferences like TED, the Clinton Global Initiative, and Google Zeitgeist, where he networks with entrepreneurs and politicians, cementing his role in history. He and Brad Pitt cofounded a New Orleans nonprofit and are recruiting architects to help rebuild the Lower Ninth Ward. In May, Vanity Fair, in an adulatory seven-page profile, crowned him "a prophet of the sustainability and clean-technology movements."

"This is how my life works," McDonough says, aglow at his good fortune.

Charlottesville is no Hollywood, no Davos, not even an Iceland. Although the Green Dean is no more, McDonough still calls the small college town home. Housed in a lemon-yellow building that looks more dentist office than toxicity-testing chamber, MBDC is marked by a laminated computer printout tacked to the door. A few blocks away, I meet McDonough at McDonough Consulting, upstairs from his architecture firm, which is now working with NASA to build an office that "operates like an organism" and with Google to make its Mountain View, California, Googleplex more sustainable. As he walks toward me dressed in his signature all-black ensemble, he has a vaporous quality about him, like a mirage coalescing on the spot. The grin on his face recalls what others have told me: You are honored to be in his presence -- and he knows it.

McDonough waves me over toward a wall adorned with a few framed photos, including one of him shaking hands with a Chinese official. "If you gave her a cigarette and shaved her head, she would look just like her dad," he laughs. The official is Deng Nan, Deng Xiaoping's daughter and McDonough's cochair at the China -- U.S. Center for Sustainable Development. In the photo, as he has told many packed conference halls, Deng Nan had just signed a memorandum for China to adopt cradle to cradle. Then McDonough points to a rendering he created of an ecologically correct Chinese city. It is a utopian image of a skyline that looks more like a sugarcane field, he says, with lush foliage in place of conventional roofs. A mother and son are farming on one. "That's what's so great about having an architecture firm," he says. "We can render ideas visible -- it's really fun."

McDonough's office is accented with his own creations: Herman Miller's first cradle-to-cradle-certified chair, the Mirra; Shaw Industries' PVC-free EcoWorx "A Walk in the Garden" carpet; Steelcase's 100% biodegradable nontoxic Climatex fabric. "If you look at most of the people in the environmental movement who talk about the environment, they're telling other people's stories," he says. But what's so compelling about his stories, he adds, is that "I actually create the stories by doing the work. I am telling my own stories." He cites Oberlin College's Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies -- "a building like a tree" -- as a quintessential example. "I made this building. It creates more energy than it needs to operate. That's a great story!" McDonough knows that the more his stories are retold, the more permanent they become.

As someone who believes that "commerce is the engine of change," as he puts it, McDonough has never confined his ambition to the high plains of principle. The virtue of his cradle-to-cradle idea is that it offers a virtuous result -- infinite abundance with no waste -- through an unabashedly commercial channel, namely manufacturing. If he could establish himself in that chain as the arbiter of clean products, there is no limit to what it might yield -- for everyone. "The faster and larger our business grows," he told me, "the better the world gets."

McDonough has struggled, however, to grow that business. He has dabbled with various models in his hope of making cradle to cradle take off. There was the "Ralph Lauren of sustainability" model, in which McDonough would design product lines and become a multimedia personality (abandoned three years ago, after he realized that "really changing the compass of global society is going to require more than a brand"). Then he and Braungart considered selling MBDC to a larger consultancy, only to realize that would mean handing over the intellectual property, a loss of control he couldn't tolerate. Then there was the nonprofit model, which, McDonough tells me, he has studied and "hasn't worked."

McDonough did begin taking steps several years ago to formalize cradle to cradle as an official certification, essentially a LEED-style rating system for product design. He developed 35 criteria -- from toxicity to renewable power to social fairness -- and began charging companies between $5,000 and $20,000 per certification. Every time he certifies a product, whether as simple as a diaper or as complex as a new office cubicle, he records each of its ingredients' "cradle to cradleness" in a master database. Ultimately, his plan is for the data to become a sort of Human Genome Project for chemicals.

From Issue 130 | November 2008

Sign in or register to comment.
or

Recent Comments | 47 Total

October 20, 2008 at 7:35pm by Michael Kim

Excellent article! Thank you very much. I learned a lot.

October 20, 2008 at 9:49pm by geeko friendly

It was only last week that I vigorously promoted MdDonough's Cradle to Cradle on my blog...I still believe the C2C concept is more than worth striving for, but this article gave me some serious food for thought on the man behind the idea!

Don't want to believe what I just read, deep down inside had a hunch for a while that something was slightly 'off', but will not jump to any conclusions and wait this one out.

Truly complicated!

October 21, 2008 at 12:55am by Genevieve Taylor

McDonaugh has been a huge inspiration to me as I have learned about sustainable business. All that has been coming out lately about the failed project in China and otherwise - particularly, in this article, about Nike (for some reason, that really cuts to the quik) - is deflating. However, McDonaugh is an idea man. If we were to think of our progress as a species as akin to the eco-system, he might be the "green manure", the rich, nitrogen-fixing component that offers fuel to other designers, thought-leaders, and practitioners for change, those who actually yield the fruit in this new wave of change.
This story?
Deflating, yes. Obstructive, maybe. Deterring, certainly not. see my blog - www.genevievetaylor.com

October 21, 2008 at 3:13am by Daniella Fergusson

Interesting article. I had read about the failed ecovillage in October's Dwell Magazine.

Luckily for Fast Company readers, the Internet Archive (archive.org) has a copy of the China-US Sustainability Center website!

Here's a page that talks about the village: http://web.archive.org/web/20070203020550/chinauscenter.org/initiatives/...

Here's a log of updates of that page: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://chinauscenter.org/initiatives/enterp...

October 21, 2008 at 11:41am by Jane Morley

Why did you take my lengthy response about Bill off????

October 21, 2008 at 11:57am by T KELLY

I was reading Jane Morley's "lengthy response" when it suddenly disappeared from the screen....

October 21, 2008 at 2:32pm by Jane Morley

This response will, no doubt, be taken down quickly, but my "lengthy reponse" was removed because of the remarks I made about the origins and legitimacy of Bill's 13 y.o. son (Mr. Umbrella). I gather that Bill made a quick phone call to the editor of Fast Company by how quickly my response was taken down and the rudneness of the conversation I had with said editor on the telephone. It took me about 10 minutes of *HIS* rant to me to convince him that I am not insane and that he really should listen to more "grass roots" commentary from Bill's former employees and other "little" people Bill has fucked with over the years.
Is is a real testimony to the ignorance and stupidy of American celebrities that the like of Laurie David and Susan Sarandon have been taken in by Bill. Thank God they are voting for Obama.

October 21, 2008 at 3:50pm by Will Bourne

OK, I'll explain this again: We certainly did not receive "a call" from Bill McDonough asking us to take down your offensive post. Why we would be accused of "protecting" him after publishing this story is beyond me, but you're entitled to your delusions. And i yelled at you because you refused to take a breath during your obsessive ranting to let me finish a sentence. Whatever your problems with mcdonough, our website is not the place to throw around allegations about minors who have done nothing to you. Start your own blog.

P.S. I'm not "convinced"

Will Bourne
Executive Editor
Fast Company

October 21, 2008 at 5:35pm by David-Henry Oliver

Green Design holds the distinction of being both a worthwhile endeavor and a catch phrase. As a catch phrase it is often misused and oversimplified. The truth is that it is that an environmentally responsible product is the result of in depth consideration of the supply chain and life cycle of the product. In short, it's hard work and requires interupting business as usual for designers, manufacturers, suppliers, and ultimately consumers.

McDonough seems to grasp the complexity, but is driven by a need to take credit and profit at every turn. Imagine if Al Gore asked for a royalty every time someone referred to Global Warming or claimed to have discovered the phenomenon.

In the end it is up to manufacturers and the designers that work with them to commit themselves to doing the hard work to develop products, supply chains, manufacturing methods, life cycle models, etc.

In the same way that rewards come to those who develop worthwhile products, the hard work will pay off, but not before putting in the long hours.

see my blog entry on a related topic at

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/david-henry-oliver/object-lessons/green-...

October 22, 2008 at 1:35am by Edgar WIlson

A very interesting article on Mr. McDonough, but really!! A world without waste? I think my friend Denny Taylor proved in her fifth grade science project that it is impossible to build a perpetual motion machine. It takes energy to produce work. There will be waste. Certainly waste can be minimized--if it is profitable to do so. Wow.

--
E Wilson

October 22, 2008 at 1:38pm by Bruce Morgan

Green paint does not make for a "green guru". William McDonough is a very successful eco-shyster, but not a green architect in any real sense. His buildings may be efficient, which is a fine thing in itself, but his designs are utterly inorganic and devoid of life. Not even a pidgeon could find a place to live on one of his buildings, except perhaps land on a "green" roof to discover that even though green it is an ecological desert. Mr. McDonough's expertise is in greenwashing, not green architecture.

This is an important issue because the public has already become innured to the buzzword "green" as having any meaning whatsoever. We can and must do better if we are to win the battle for "hearts and minds".

We need substantive change in the way we design our living and working spaces. We need organic architecture that incorporates living ecosystems into public spaces. We need buildings that emerge from a living matrix, not from a parking lot.

The landscapes adjacent to McDonough's buildings are sterile suburban versions of the modernist aesthetic. They harbor no life, are not reflective of time or place, and are ultimately unsustainable despite the token use of native or xeric plants.

Unfortunately McDonough is aided and abetted by the profession of landscpe architecture as it is conventionally practiced. If you think McDonough is full of green hogwash just listen to the same kind of talk issuing from many leading landscape architects who have never set foot in the woods and don't know a pansy from a petunia.

So I say Show me the Green! Not the color or the buzzword, but the real green, the one involving communities of soil, plants, and animals, all of which are absolutely necessary if we are ever to have sustainable architecture that celebrates the beauty of the living earth and enriches the biosphere.

October 22, 2008 at 2:27pm by Jeanine Butler

Given the current political climate where the phrase "burn, baby burn" is repeated like a sacred mantra, why pick on William McDonough. Is he the oracle your writer seems to want? Does it really matter. He has dedicated his career to sustainable issues and we are all the better for it. He deserves our thanks, not our scrutiny.

October 22, 2008 at 2:59pm by Graeme Bristol

I was taken by Shannon May’s remarks: "What troubled me was that it was as if he knew nothing about the way these people lived.” Her observation is as true generally as it is here specifically. There are a number of inevitable problems with this kind of professional hubris practiced by so many architects (and, as Ivan Illich pointed out, all professionals). It is practiced with equal abandon by the World Bank and other agencies. But a few problems jump out at me:

1. There is a wealth of information around people like McDonough and other professional designers and they fail utterly to take advantage of it. Often this information is coming from anthropologists. More often it’s coming from the residents themselves, if we only bothered to listen to them;
2. As McDonough’s China fiasco demonstrates, not listening to the residents or others with local knowledge is a colossal waste of financial, human and material resources. This hardly seems sustainable to me – even if it was cradle to cradle;
3. While technology and business are important aspects in the creation of a sustainable future for the human population of this planet, what seems to me to be more important is the way we think. Heidegger pointed this out 50 years ago in his Question Concerning Technology.

Both in his failure to listen and in his demands about intellectual property (the 9th of the Hannover Principles is about ‘sharing knowledge’ – good principle, but at a price Bill, at a price. There’s a difference between the word ‘sharing’ and the word ‘selling’), it seems evident that McDonough and so many other ‘green’ architects continue to fall short. It’s not just about chemicals, solar arrays and bioswales. You can design a prison that produces more energy than it consumes – but it's still a prison (see ADPSR prison boycott - http://www.adpsr.org/prisons/). You can design a Walmart with all the ecological bells and whistles but it’s still a testament to conspicuous consumption.

The Hannover Principles were a valuable contribution to a change in thinking. Problem is, you actually have to act on those principles.

Graeme Bristol
Centre for Architecture and Human Rights

October 22, 2008 at 4:24pm by Paul Duane

McDonough's "story" and delivery of it has been compelling. It seemed to have depth, logic that one couldn't refute. Evangelical! - you could not argue his lofty rhetoric, and you didn't want to. No, I wondered how could I deliver that message with half the style, effective examples, and in-the-gut "pull". Now, I have to say, following the two times I heard Bill speak, I always commented to others that, aside from my being impressed with the totality of the pitch, this guy sure had a massive ego.

To me, the message is still fundamentally valid and I agree with others here that have suggested there should be credit given for making people think - differently, freshly, positively. But one hates to feel "taken" - now we're all part of an angry mob glad to see him get his. In the Editor's Letter (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/130/editors-letter-comedy-and-traged...) in this issue Robert Safian nicely comments on how we can't look back too harshly on our own bad judgement in elevating McDonough. It happens.

Two final points:
1)The Big Lesson: As with many complex topics (like politics, government, and education), idea-generation and implementation are very different activities. Impressive are those who can really do both, but also those who know they can't.
2) Nitpicking: The commentary in the article about McDonough struggling with the umbrella was uncalled for, really a mean-spirited personal belittling that was not truly relevant to the story. Yeah, I get the can't-button-his-own-shirt connection and attempt to be smugly humorous. But it failed and tainted the piece. The well-presented criticism of his real failings should be enough.

October 22, 2008 at 7:48pm by Austin Williams

Great journalism, revealing story... and all the better because it is actually examining issues and individuals that are generally deemed to be off-limits. Pulitzer prize-winning stuff.

October 22, 2008 at 7:49pm by Casey Quinlan

A cautionary tale about how the intersection of ideas and celebrity can create a naked emperor - you start reading your own press, particularly in places like Vanity Fair, and it's heady stuff. One might be distracted from the original idea, and its execution.

Fall in love with the sound of your own voice at your peril.

October 23, 2008 at 4:00pm by nancy hirshberg

Ah how the media loves to create celebrity deities – and then topple them! Yes, as your title says, Bill McDonough is a "mortal" messiah. Anyone who has worked with him (as we have) knows that he has strengths and weaknesses. But what a tragedy if you let his shortcomings overshadow his phenomenal gift to the world. In a world desperate for hope and a vision of what we could become, there is no better messiah than Bill McDonough. He is a poet able to capture the imaginations of people unlike anyone I have ever seen. He reached our employees and touched them in ways unparalleled by any other. Bill helps us all feel that we CAN figure out how to turn this ship around. The role of a visionary is to inspire and engage us. If it were as easy as most visionaries make it seem, we would have solved many of the world’s problems. We take the vision of Bill McDonough and try to apply it to our day to day work to figure out how to make healthy food in a way that does not destroy the planet and in fact as Bill has taught us, asks if we love the birds!

October 23, 2008 at 4:57pm by Chaula Kothari

What's most disturbing to me is how readers are talking about McDonough's "gift to the world." Gift?? The whole idea of one person saving the world or giving back much more than what he gets from the world is so repulsive. For someone who's clearly made a pile of money from "gifting" and admits that in all these decades he hasn't done much to live by his own principles (ordinary folks have spent more on at least trying to build a green home than he seems to have), I am amazed that people think we should thank him for putting this concept on everyone's radar. Cradle to cradle has been around for generation and centuries - ask any third world country where a scarcity of resources forces one to be creative. If William McDonough was simply interested in promoting this I'd be fine. But to make obscene amounts of money and try to portray yourself as a visionary and creator of this concept is deceitful. Thank you Fast Company for this article.

I was going to cancel my subscription because I was getting tired of all the stories about green entrepreneurs and VC demi-gods but good to know that FC aims to do more than act as a PR mouthpiece for self-styled changemakers. I will renew my subscription this month and hope you'll feature more honest stories in the future.

October 23, 2008 at 6:54pm by Sarah Wechsberg

For an innovator, I am shocked that McDonough didn't see beyond himself and see that his work could bring epic sustainable success in multi-national businesses and heightened "earth in mind" in business if he had opted for open innovation and transparency rather than demanding lofty intellectual property royalties on top of the consulting fees.
After being so loyal to his work and vision for years...this article provides insights to McDonough that break my heart.
Thinking critically, I must go back to a quote from the article from one of his colleagues in Charlottesville, "His job in the world is to convince people that a positive future is possible, and it doesn't help his cause to admit there are hiccups and failures along the way"
So, is this really what we should think after reading this whole article?

October 24, 2008 at 3:52pm by jon Dougal

This is a story that should have been told 3+ years ago. As someone in the "Business" we have known about his flaws and screwed up porjects that someone else had to come in and correct at greater expense to the client for some many years. The fact is he has a reputed $500mil in contracts for archtecture projects, if you're in the business you can't afford to criticize him.
Greenlinkup.com

October 28, 2008 at 2:04am by Ian Leong

The guy seems hackneyed from the start. Bow-tied architect?
Charging fees for so-called IP that he stole from elsewhere? Registering 'cradle-to-grave' is as ludicrous as registering 'end-to-end'...
The guy is delusional, conceited and into self-promotion and self-profiteering, a total antithesis to sustainability.
Having said that, he is not unique in being a 'celebrity guru'...

October 28, 2008 at 6:12am by Gareth Banks

We're currently working with the European version of MBDC; Michael Braungart's EPEA, on the development of our new product range. I would have to say that progress has been slow to date but when your dealing with supply 'chains', this I think is certainly to be expected to a certain extent. Bill and Michael are most definitely "ideas" men and my experience tells me that the reality of the implementation of a great idea is often as difficult as coming up with it in the first place. Whatever way you look at it C2C is a great concept and worth a bit of effort in realising - David Henry Oliver's comments summed it up for me perfectly. Our organisation is coming to the conclusion that C2C has to be handled with a more open source approach if it is to scale up effectively and maximise the potential difference it could make.

October 29, 2008 at 4:11pm by Michelle Dildey

So Bill McDonough has feet of clay.
Just like Frank Lloyd Wright!

This is a well written article, but it tells us nothing useful. Those of us "in the trenches" helping these ideas bear fruit only need the message he gives and it is of immense value.

Designers with an ego the size of Alaska, is par for the course in the design world. But the way in which he approaches the problems we all are struggling to address, the way in which he is able to articulate the issues, that is cannot be undervalued. Though I'm no "acolyte," I try to hear him speak any time he's in my area, despite knowing half of it I will have heard before. His perspective helps me get back on track with why we're all trying to turn the Titanic. REad Cradle to Cradle, listen to his TED talk, read the Hannover Principles. There is value there, if we're skilled enough to make use of it.

November 9, 2008 at 12:19am by Darren Murtha

During ww2, a book was published- 100 scientists against Einstein...his response, "why 100. If I were wrong, 1 would be enough". Why is a 9 page article necessary to discredit someone? I read c2c, but I had no knowledge of Mcdonough's rock star status. I found this article to be an exercise in splitting hairs, contriving facts, and quoting anonymous sources. The author doesn't provide the name of the ghost writer for c2c. She blames Mcdonough for the reluctance of companies to "go green"- an absurd argument. The author tries to discredit Mcdonough's claim that he designed "the first green office"- but she provides a college, not an office, as the first green office. She calls him a theorist, but names plenty of examples of his work. She quotes many anonymous sources, and I couldn't find an article in the Oberlin Review (a college newspaper- great source) online archives which claims one of his works is a failure- a claim the college doesn't support. The author claims he charges for information that he provides for free. I respect Mcdonough, but I am no way a disciple, and I understand that a lot of green ideas are impractical. Even if Mcdonough is uncompromising and difficult to work with, and some of his projects fail, he has made some green successes, which the author tries to de-emphasize. It is a Sean Hanity, junkyard dog-style attack.

November 17, 2008 at 11:27pm by Susanna Schick

no wonder I found that book horrendously pompous! Just like it's "author." I wish this guy would quit being so damn greedy and just stick to what he does best- dreaming.

November 22, 2008 at 11:31am by Russell Flinchum

After reading this, I was reminded of no one so much as Bucky Fuller.

Right down to the bow tie.

December 2, 2008 at 9:26am by SAMUEL BAUTISTA LAZO

The question is do we need certifications to promote sustainable products?

Isn't that certifications are another kind of regulation? Certifications sounds like Regulations another sign of design failure, a more transparent and public way of communicating what products contains is needed, may be something more open-source wiki style.

Having patents and trademarks i a way to slowing down progress just to assure that some people could reap the profits, it they invented something they should be smart enough to invent a way to make a living out of it without slowing down progress. This is part of why our current production and consumption system is Destroy-Able.

Let's take all the good contributions of McDonough and Ignore his Ego, he inspired and thought me a lot in his talks, and I hope to contribute making the present and future world a better place to live, to move from Sustain-Ability to Grow-Ability where growth is good, just like in Nature :D

Cheers

December 18, 2008 at 5:24pm by Sean Thomas

Jane Morley is bat sh** insane, and her absurdist rant above proves it. She is a well known crank around Charlottesville, and her personal vendettas against people who have, in her mind, crossed her over the years, are infamous - threatening their lives, making fun of deaths in families, etc. real classy stuff. She should not be given a mouthpiece on this board.

January 20, 2009 at 12:09pm by Wendy Jedlicka

Though McDonough takes a bit of a hit, the article is useful as it shows that green is not a magic wand, it's not a religion, it's not 87 other things people "want" it to be. It means too that finally green the "religion" is maturing into sustainability the paradigm shift. McDonough's sin may have been being too cocky, but would people have paid any attention at all if he wasn't? Business had been ignoring eco-pioneers for generations, to push the thing over the tipping point, people demanded a prophet. They wanted the easy button and McDonough was willing to give it a go. The fact that some people feel "cheated" that he's not the eco-messiah are sort of missing the bigger picture. As the article points out, for those of us in the trenches, no matter what one may think of McDonough, he has made our jobs easier by helping to get sustainability brought into the boardroom and on people's to-do lists.

For those interested in understanding a variety of systems thinking ideas, of which Cradle to Cradle is one -- letting people see what's been going on in design and business eco-thought from Buckminster Fuller on (plus where he got his inspiration too!), was the core idea behind our book Packaging Sustainability (http://www.PackagingSustainability.info). Beginning with the idea that to make an eco-product you have to start with an eco-company, then working through consumer psychology, eco-marketing, laws and economics, materials and processes, and of course systems thinking, the book provided a platform for working eco-practitioners to share their insights -- and -- their resources and inspirations. We do not single out one school of thought, but instead provide a banquet of ideas. Because ultimately, it doesn't matter which path we take to shift this paradigm, as long as we're all moving in the same direction -- forward.

July 5, 2009 at 5:06pm by George V Corr

What an excellent and informative article! Im not 100% convinced that the author has no affiliations, as it does seems a little one-sided, but overall, it offers some valuable insights into how McD monetises a concept that he promotes as being the saviour of our planet and all of its inhabitants. I wonder what Michael Braungart thinks of this. I wonder if he has some issues with how the concept has been rolled out, or not as the case so clearly is.

We have added the "Waste=Food" documentary to our site recently>
http://www.blatantnews.com/documentary/waste_equals_food.html
But after reading this article, I can see a few extra paragraphs that could have been added regarding McD's selfishness with the C2C concept. Maybe we will run a story relating this, because this man needs to see how upset the world is towards his hoarding. He should be more charitable towards his fellow humans, because his ideas could be eternally valuable.

August 11, 2009 at 9:53pm by Neil Kiernan

I am glad I found this article before I tried to get this person involved in the Venus Project.

October 22, 2009 at 1:55pm by George Inashvili

I know it's been a year, friend of mine just pointed me to this article. Sad, deflating, and dissapointing for sure, BUT the ideas in Cradle To Cradle book are truly revolutionary, visionary, and optimistic in every sense of the word. Sadly Bill is a pretty greedy enterpreneur, and is sabotaging his own great goals. Despite this article, I think Cradle to Cradle is the GREATEST DESIGN BOOK I EVER READ.

October 22, 2009 at 1:56pm by George Inashvili

I know it's been a year, friend of mine just pointed me to this article. Sad, deflating, and dissapointing for sure, BUT the ideas in Cradle To Cradle book are truly revolutionary, visionary, and optimistic in every sense of the word. Sadly Bill is a pretty greedy enterpreneur, and is sabotaging his own great goals. Despite this article, I think Cradle to Cradle is the GREATEST DESIGN BOOK I EVER READ.