CCB Magazine

Panama Papers, Dieselgate, financial scandals - the list of corporate low points is long. The design company Studio GOOD draws a line here: It only works with companies that they consider to be "good". Sounds good, but who are the "good guys"? And can this work as a business concept? We visited Studio GOOD in their office in Kreuzberg and talked to one of the founders, Linnart Unger. 
 

INTERVIEW Boris Messing
 

CCB Magazine: Linnart, your name says it all: Studio GOOD. What is a good company for you?

Linnart Unger:  That's not something you can say across the board. For me, a good company is one whose ethical principles I share and want to support. And we only want to work with such companies. So far, we have succeeded in doing so. Many of our clients are not profit-oriented companies. We work for many organizations in the cultural or scientific field - and for aid organizations.

CCB Magazine: You are a design office and develop design concepts for others. Your portfolio includes companies such as Oxfam, Doctors Without Borders, Welthungerhilfe, the Federal Environment Agency and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation. Who decides who you work with? 

Linnart Unger: We decide that together. Sometimes with passion: it's a matter of pros and cons. With us, everything is put on the table. When the three of us founded Studio GOOD in 2009, it was clear to us that this would not be an easy undertaking. Because from the very beginning, the question was: how do you get clients like that? But they do exist. At some point, Doctors Without Borders approached us, later Oxfam, and we got the opportunity to expand our repertoire to other NGOs, research institutes and cultural institutions. It started running smoothly. 

CCB Magazine: But is it always possible to decide whether a company is acting in a socially responsible manner or not according to this simplified good/bad scheme? Is Bayer, for example, a good company because it produces vital medicines or a bad one because it buys a company like Monsanto, which is accused of making farmers dependent, creating monocultures and producing pesticides that are dangerous for people and the environment?

Linnart Unger:That's right, it's not easy to make this distinction. And for us, it's always a balancing act. It's important for us to get to know people personally, to understand their ideology, their habitus. If Siemens came to us and asked if we could design the brochures for their wind turbines, I would say why not. With Bayer, however, our minds would be divided. But even with NGOs, you can't take it for granted that they will always do good. So we always want to know: how transparent are they really? Do they play fair and do they stand up for something that we personally support? In a small group, we then decide whether to accept the assignment or not. In addition to the content, time and budget also play a role, of course. 

With us, everything is put on the table. And that's not an easy process. Because from the very beginning, the question was: how do you get customers who do good? But they are there

CCB Magazine: But isn't it making it too easy to say: oil industry, arms manufacturers, private television bad, renewable energies, Doctors without Borders, Arte good? Doesn't each of these industries perform different tasks that are relevant for society?

Linnart Unger: Sure, but only in part. For us, it depends on what goals are being pursued with the respective project, where exactly the focus lies. That's not always clear. So we sometimes have debates about where the boundaries lie for whom. For example, many here would not manage a campaign by the German armed forces to recruit new soldiers; instead, we are currently implementing the website for the "Forum Ziviler Friedensdienst" (Civil Peace Service Forum) and have supported them in a campaign for lower arms spending. This is just as important for security. More money for peace, less for armament. There are also divided opinions on the pharmaceutical industry, as I said. On green-washing, the issue is clear. We don't go along with that. That would be the case, for example, if an oil tanker were to leak and the company's top management were to try to divert attention from it with a socially or ecologically oriented marketing campaign. But of course I drive around by car or bus myself - and that consumes oil. A dilemma. The decisive factor for us is that we want to actively support processes and not just passively accept the status quo. Yes, we (still) need the oil companies, the automobile industry and the German armed forces for our security, but that's just not our thing.

Even with NGOs, you can't take it for granted that they will always do good. That's why we always want to know: how transparent are they really?

CCB Magazine: Design aestheticizes processes and products. How great do you see the danger of manipulation here? 

Linnart Unger:The danger is there. Take, for example, the countless seals of approval on foodstuffs, which are often invented to suggest something beneficial. These are then some seals on products, on which tested quality is written, best of all still recommended by doctor so-and-so and provided with a leaf, which is to suggest healthy. For example, there is a website - siegelkunde.de - that provides information on what is reputable and what is not. Most of them are not. Another example would be all the freeloaders who move in the haze of the organic trend without actually being ecologically sustainable. You could also call it label fraud. Conversely, attractively designed organic chips made from regionally grown potatoes can also be marketed more effectively. In this respect, design offers many possibilities for manipulating purchasing and consumer behavior - for better or worse. Unfortunately, more so in the bad. Awareness is important here. The educational work must take place at the consumer. I'm against too much regulation. 

Studio GOOD staff concentrates at work. In the background a wall in wood design. Wallpaper or real? @ Studio GOOD

CCB Magazine: The risk of manipulation notwithstanding: How important is branding and corporate design for the green economy sector?

Linnart Unger: The green economy is a broad term. But to stay with the example of food: of course, design has played no small part in making organic sustainability in agriculture and thus healthy, regional food popular. What's almost mainstream today used to be considered a fad of shyly eyed men and women with gunny sacks and tie-dyed shirts. Today, organic is part of the mainstream. LPG-Markt, Bio Company, Demeter and all the others - of course they have benefited from strategic marketing design. 

No one here wants to lift a finger for oil companies

CCB Magazine: Let's talk about money. Studies like the one by Matthias Euteneuer on "ethical entrepreneurship" have shown that acting responsibly in a corporate context often conflicts with the principle of maximizing profits.  Does the decision to work only for socially responsible organizations and companies have economic disadvantages for you or do you even earn money from it?

Linnart Unger: Yes and No. Sure, Mercedes, Bosch or Siemens, of course they pay more, triple! But that is not our philosophy. It may sound a bit pathetic, but we make double the effort for companies and projects that we find convincing but cannot pay well. If they want this and that in addition, a banner more, a design line more, we turn a blind eye. Money isn't everything. We currently have 15 people working for us, and if we were to accept orders from the big companies, we would have to hire more people. But I don't think that would be good. Now it's still clear and everyone can create a work-life balance that suits him or her, work full-time or part-time, even more vacation days are possible. We are a good team. 

CCB Magazine: Do people also come to you who hope that cooperation with you will polish up the image of their company, which has a negative connotation in the public eye?  

Linnart Unger: Yes, we have already had large corporations approach us and ask bluntly whether we could polish up their image, since we are so good at sustainability. You don't have to communicate that to the outside world, etc. Money is not an issue. In principle, it's quite simple: the people who work here don't want that. No one here wants to lift a finger for oil companies. And then there is also the business perspective: if we were to accept such a contract, our NGO partners, who have also chosen us out of conviction, would quit with us. We are now an experienced design studio in Germany with a focus on NGOs. We have developed a great deal of expertise in how to sensitize people to certain humanitarian concerns and how to move them through design.

Studio GOOD staff hanging out in the living room. What's going on here? @ Studio GOOD

CCB Magazine: How do you prepare for designing with companies that deal with complex political processes? For example, how did you prepare for the collaboration with the Federal Foundation for the Reappraisal of the SED Dictatorship?

Linnart Unger: You have to read into the subject. In this case, it was the related documents for which we did the design and presentation. Then you basically have to know who the intended target group should be. Ultimately, the design is based on this. Retro, hip, futuristic, etc. 

CCB Magazine: What you do is self-initiated. Sustainability researcher Stephan Bohle says that self-initiative is not enough. He therefore calls for companies that work sustainably to be given preferential tax treatment - and consequently for those that don't to be taxed more heavily. What do you think of this idea?

Linnart Unger: I like that idea.

CCB Magazine: Linnart, thank you for the interview. 

Do you know it? Our new magazine on sustainability and culture 

You want to have the new CCB Magazine for free? [Click here]