Purposefulness Looks Good on Us, Designers
Todd Bracher talks with Marcin Szczelina about paradoxes of design industry, patience required to introduce real change in sustainable thinking and how purposefulness is the basic virtue of any person working in creative industy.

Zdjęcie/Photo: Humanscale
Marcin Szczelina: One of the main issues in our respective fields nowadays is sustainability. As someone who has been collaborating with some of the greatest brands in the world for more than 25 years, do you feel that the market has changed in that respect?
TODD BRACHER: Absolutely, the market has shifted significantly, and much of that change is driven by a generational shift. The industry has become more inclusive, with younger, more diverse voices taking the lead. I’ve noticed a dramatic change in the way sustainability is approached. Pre-COVID, when presenting furniture to architects and specifiers, sustainability was often just a checkbox—something we would touch on briefly without much depth. Many professionals weren’t fully engaged with the subject, and it felt like a novelty. Fast forward to today, and sustainability is now a core expectation. The questions I receive are increasingly detailed and come from in-house sustainability experts who are deeply informed. It’s clear that addressing environmental impact has become a non-negotiable for major companies, which is something I welcome, as sustainability has always been at the heart of my approach.
I agree that it has started to change but, on the other hand, I was at the biggest design fair in the world in Canton a couple of months ago and I could tell that a lot of new companies had started producing nice quality items and designs. We do produce a lot. Do you see this as a paradox?
Yes, I definitely see this paradox. When I attended the Salone del Mobile in Milan, I noticed the same issue. While some companies make gestures toward sustainability, these efforts often lack real depth or commitment. In contrast, there are smaller, innovative businesses that are fully dedicated to sustainability, but they face the challenge of scale—producing only a limited number of items, such as 10 chairs a year. Although the cost of sustainable production is gradually decreasing, it’s still a significant barrier. Larger architectural firms now play a crucial role in tracking their environmental impact, and as they push for higher standards, they have the power to influence the industry toward more substantial and meaningful sustainability efforts.
Everybody said that the pandemic had changed everything. Last year, in Milan, everybody was questioning the future and what was going to happen next. But this year, it feels as if it went backwards. Nobody even talked or asked about it. It was all about production.
I agree, this year didn’t seem to point toward a clear future. And that’s understandable—companies are often hesitant when facing uncertainty. We’re in a transitional phase, much like the shift between seasons. One day it feels like progress, but then we take a step back, and this back-and-forth creates a sense of inertia. I believe we’re still in the early stages of this transition. While it’s been three or four years since the pandemic began, I think it will take at least another 15 years before we fully settle into the new landscape. It’s a long process, but we have to embrace the changes as they unfold.
You have been working with some of the best and biggest companies out there. Do you have some selection process before you decide to collaborate with one? And does caring about the planet have any impact on that decision?
Absolutely, caring about the planet plays a significant role in deciding who we collaborate with. I had a longtime collaborator who was deeply committed to sustainable living—vegan, recycling, conserving water, doing everything she could in her daily life. But one day, she asked me how our work in product design reconciled with those values, since the products we create still exist in the world and contribute to its footprint. That conversation really highlighted the core question: how can we, as designers and companies, genuinely improve the environment?
When we partnered with Humanscale, for example, we knew task chairs were typically harmful to the environment. But by designing a chair like the Path, which is climate positive—not just through offsets like carbon credits, but through its materials and production processes—we were actively making a positive impact. This is how we select clients: we seek out partners who understand that we’re not just here to make products, but to drive meaningful, positive change.
You have mentioned the Path chair, along with the responsibility that creating an object entails. What would you say is the most challenging element during the process of creation of a new product?
One of the biggest challenges in creating a new product, like the Path chair, is that true innovation often relies on technology and materials that didn’t exist just a few years ago. For example, the Path chair couldn’t have been designed five years earlier because the materials simply weren’t available. Humanscale had to develop new technologies and build an entirely new supply chain to make it possible. That’s one of the most demanding aspects—genuinely innovating solutions from the ground up. We’re not outsourcing components from overseas and disguising them in the final product. Every element is engineered and designed in-house, allowing us to maintain full control over quality and sustainability. This ensures that we understand exactly where everything comes from and how it impacts the environment.

PATH Humanscale
How could we convince people to be more conscious when choosing their chairs? Could Humanscale be more visible in the global market?
That’s the real challenge. Most task chairs today are designed with knobs, levers, and dials because they’re built for an ‘average person’—someone who doesn’t actually exist. Designers attempt to address this by making the chair adjustable, but this approach ultimately fails the user. People rarely take the time to learn how to properly adjust their chair, and in today’s offices, where individuals use 8 to 12 different chairs a week, it’s impractical to expect them to make those adjustments every time they sit down.
Humanscale takes a very different approach, rooted in the groundbreaking ideas of Niels Diffrient, who designed the Freedom chair. His vision was to create a chair that adapts to the user, rather than forcing the user to adapt to the chair. The Path chair builds on this philosophy. It’s designed to automatically support the user without the need for complicated adjustments, making it suitable for everyone. While competing products offer hundreds of chairs that don’t work perfectly for anyone, a Humanscale chair—like the Path—works for everyone. That’s a major differentiator, and it’s a message Humanscale needs to amplify in the global market.
For a company to appoint an Art Director is not yet something very popular in Europe. Aside from the ability to create healthier and more sustainable chairs, what made you decide to work with Humanscale specifically?
My work has always been a combination of product design and advisory roles. What attracted me to Humanscale was their incredible legacy of innovation and the positive impact their products have on people’s well-being. I saw an opportunity to help elevate that message and ensure it reached a broader audience. About two years ago, I suggested that Humanscale modernize their communication strategy to reflect the remarkable benefits of their products.
I joined as a Fractional Creative Director and became involved in not only product development but also in shaping their broader communication and collaborations. My goal has been to help articulate the unique story of Humanscale—a brand that creates healthier, more sustainable solutions. I truly enjoy this role because it allows me to work closely with the team, contributing to both their strategy and their vision for the future, in a way that goes beyond the traditional designer’s role.
What is the future for the company? Because, as an Art Director, you need to think in terms of how the market will change in the next few years. A company is not just based on ideas. It is a business. And both have to work together, somehow.
Absolutely, and I’m passionate about the intersection of design and business. If design doesn’t support and drive business success, then it’s not fulfilling its potential. At Humanscale, we’re an ergonomics company at our core, solving problems related to human well-being. But we recognize that work and life aren’t confined to the desk anymore—people are constantly shifting between different environments.
Looking to the future, we’re focusing on creating solutions that adapt to this reality. We’re developing products that extend beyond the traditional workstation to support ergonomic health in a variety of settings. This alignment of innovative design and business strategy is what will keep Humanscale ahead as the market evolves.
In one of your interviews, you said: “I’m not a designer, I just design.” You also mentioned that the process of designing was more important in the end. Could you clarify what you meant?
When I say “I’m not a designer, I just design,” I’m emphasizing that the process is more important than the title. My approach is something I call “design in context.” The real work is in designing the context around the object, not just the object itself. For instance, if I were designing a tree, I wouldn’t focus on the shape of the leaves—that would be arbitrary. Instead, I would consider factors like the climate, rainfall, sunlight, and temperature, which naturally shape the tree.
Similarly, in product design, I look at all the conditions that will influence the outcome—whether it’s limitations, opportunities, intellectual property, distribution, manufacturing, or market demands. The design must support those needs. It’s a more holistic and natural way of thinking about design, where the context defines the solution.
Is there something that makes you uncomfortable as a designer? Something you think could be fixed or should improve?
Honestly, what makes me uncomfortable is seeing design that lacks purpose. Too often, I come across projects that don’t solve a real user need or address a company’s business objectives—design should always do both. Unfortunately, the approach we take, which is deeply rooted in solving meaningful problems, is still quite rare.
Another area that I find concerning is the lack of attention to mental and emotional wellness in the workplace. I’ve been exploring this space for over a decade, but it’s only now starting to get the attention it deserves. It’s disappointing that it’s taken this long, but I truly believe that wellness will be a major focus in the future, and it’s a frontier with immense potential for design to make a difference.

Zdjęcie/Photo: Humanscale
Empathy is a keyword nowadays. In architecture, some say you absolutely need it, while others think that we need to be more radical in our designs. What’s your view on this?
This might sound harsh, but I often say design is a democracy until it isn’t. The same applies to empathy—you can empathize endlessly with every potential need and perspective, but at some point, a decision has to be made. Otherwise, you end up paralyzed, unable to move forward. That said, there has to be a feedback loop. We need a way to gauge whether what we’ve created actually works and serves its purpose.
Design shouldn’t be so rigid. Even with the products we create, there’s always room to retool, adjust, and adapt as we go. In that sense, it’s a bit of a dictatorship with humility—making decisive choices while remaining open to improvement and learning from the outcomes.