The Cost of Ethical Design

Making the argument that ethical design is a zero-sum game

Ethical design comes with trade-offs and costs. One person’s gain is another one’s loss. (Wow, I just noticed that rhymes).

In previous articles, I have covered a number of a crucial areas to understanding ethical design. I build off of those previous article in this one. In order to understand The Cost of Ethical Design, it may be worth visiting those first.

In “The Role of Ethics in Design”, I establish a working definition of ethical design, define the role of designers as facilitators and catalysts for ethical design, and provide UXPA’s Ethical Principles as a starting point for designers to use in ethical design.

In “Levels of Design Ethics”, introduce the Levels of Ethics which is a conceptual model that divides ethics into systems of varying levels of scope—Micro, Meso and Macro. In order to fully achieve ethical design, designers need to consider all 3 levels and how they relate to one another.

In this article, I’m covering the cost of ethical design. Ethical Design is design that is objectively good, helpful instead of harmful, and ultimately moral. Doing what is right comes at a cost. Ethical design is a zero-sum game, meaning one person’s gain is another’s loss. In short, Ethical Design comes with trade-offs.

The Cost of Ethics

Doing what is right and what is good comes at a cost. It is not free. It requires that someone pays that cost. Unfortunately, not everyone can win. Even when everyone wins, it usually means multiple parties will share in the burden of cost. We cannot retreat from Ethics in Design because it’s hard or costly. This is worth pursuing. But we need to understand that there is a cost. If you are going to be an advocate for ethics in design and a catalyst for change, you must understand this cost. Otherwise you will be laughed out (or kicked out) of board-rooms and planning meetings when you try to push people towards costly (albeit good) decisions.

Ethical design does not mean everyone wins or is happy, necessarily. Ethics is about what is objectively good, helpful instead of harmful, and ultimately moral. Ethics is rarely concerned with what is easy or free or makes everyone happy. It is about what is right. This is what makes ethical design so challenging.

Ethical Trade-Off Triangle Theory

I have a model that has helped me to illustrate the shifting costs of ethics. This model tries to highlight that wins at 1 or 2 particular levels will come at a cost to the remaining level(s). Picking 2 levels will cost the 3rd. If you are advocating for an improvement as the Macro, the cost will have to shift towards the Meso or Micro Level. And so on and so forth.

Doing what is right for the environment (macro) and individuals (micro) will likely end up costing an organization (meso) through their profits or a local community (meso) through their taxes.

Doing what is right in legal systems (macro) and socially for specific racial groups (meso) will cost individuals (micro) and clusters of people (meso) — financially, socially, and/or legally.

Doing right by an individual (micro) and a business (meso) could cost the world its future (macro) though.

Let me give you a more tangible example. I want to talk about Ikea.

Ikea has done a great job at addressing Micro and Meso level ethics and it has led to to the success of their business. But this focus has come at a cost at the environment.

Success at Micro

• Physical and digital spaces are easy to navigate and find what you are looking for.
• Little to none anti-patterns or dark patterns in digital spaces
• Invest heavily in user satisfaction and usability
• Good balance in the exchange of value between consumer and business. (Affordable)
• Desirable products that serves needs of individuals and families.
• Products for people at different life stages; single, college, family, etc.Focus on centering around individuals and families has been key to success.

Success at Meso Level

• Ikea doesn’t discriminate based on faith, race, LGBTQIA+, disability, or financial status in their products, marketing or employment.
• Ikea pays their employees well, relative to similar companies and industries.
• Accessibility is a huge focus at Ikea. They are making furniture better for people with disabilities, ensure that their physical stores are accessible to people with physical disabilities, and their digital spaces check all the boxes for accessibility.
• Ikea has a huge emphasis and practices that promote equality, diversity and inclusion in the workplace.

That’s all great! But this does come at a cost. Ikea’s emphasis on doing what is right on a Micro and Meso Level are having a massive impact on a Macro Level — namely the environment.

Cost at Macro Level

• Ikea has become the largest single consumer of wood; 1% of the world’s annual consumption.
• Ikea has sold furniture linked to illegal logging in forests crucial to Earth’s climate.
• Ikea has doubled its wood consumption during the past decade.
• Most of their wooden items feature specialty veneers over particle board which has a short lifespan, is difficult to reuse and difficult to recycle.

Adjusting the Cost

This could be addressed, right? Ikea could replant every tree they chopped down. However, the environment would still suffer, at least temporarily, since trees take time to grow—especially forests that are hundreds of years old like “old-growth forests”. Furthermore, the cost to replace trees would come at a cost to Ikea which they would likely pass onto their customers (micro) through higher costs or employees through lower pay (meso). Ikea could take a hit on their own profit (meso) for the sake of the environment. Or what if furniture was made to last. Consumers would be replacing furniture less often, which would save on tree consumption. This would also help reduce waste in landfills. In that situation, the individual would spend more money (micro) on a longer-lasting product but it would be a great benefit for the long-term impact on the environment (macro).

You see, someone has to absorb the cost of doing what it right. And you can’t always do what is right for everyone. At least not fully. We must still pursue, must still push forward, and must still advocate for this work.