Symposium – November 14, 25

This is particularly true in light of international climate policy and the insufficient momentum to date surrounding the 2015 Paris Agreement. To meet the 1.5-degree target—which more than 190 countries consider desirable—the world must become greenhouse gas neutral by 2050. In fact, however—setting aside extreme events such as the COVID-19 pandemic—global emissions continue to rise. In 2024, the 1.5-degree threshold was exceeded for the first time in a single year. The national emission reduction roadmaps currently required under the Paris Agreement point to a warming trajectory of approximately 2.6 to 2.8 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.

Against this backdrop, a fundamental change of course is necessary. Together with the Club of Rome, Manfred Fischedick describes this necessary shift in direction as a “Giant Leap”—a major leap rather than gradual, small adjustments. Such a major leap is still necessary for Germany as well, even though Germany has already reduced its emissions by 48 percent since 1990. At least a doubling of annual reduction efforts is necessary to achieve the goal of climate neutrality by 2045, as stipulated in the national Climate Protection Act.

He identifies short-term political thinking, social conflicts, disinformation, and the complexity of multiple crises as key obstacles. Nevertheless, he remains optimistic, as he believes that transformation is possible, though it requires courage, continuity, and new alliances between academia, politics, and business. Increased engagement with the arts and culture plays a central role in this process. Crucial to this is the development of a culture of empowerment that structurally facilitates sustainable action for as many people as possible and strengthens social participation. In this context, climate and resource protection are not a luxury but, especially in today’s world, are associated with tangible added value, as most of these measures simultaneously lead to a reduction in vulnerability to geopolitical crises and dependencies.

Reference was made to studies from the film industry that show that neither pure dystopia nor naive utopia can sustainably motivate audiences. Stories that highlight existing solutions and embed them in realistic visions of the future are more effective. Transformation must be portrayed as a process involving uncertainties, contradictions, and a loss of control. Others argued that we should not only show the “showroom” of the finished world, but also the chaos of the transition. After all, transformation is also a kind of loss of control.
Processuality also plays a central role in art and theater practice. Projects in public spaces were described in which supposed trash became a resource and new alliances emerged. Art opens up spaces of possibility and allows us to tolerate contradictions rather than hastily resolving them. It was emphasized that, from a curatorial perspective, the power of interdisciplinary exhibitions lies in making scholarly topics such as climate change or capitalism emotionally accessible, thereby creating new spaces for understanding.

A central theme was the issue of language and accessibility. It was emphasized that abstract concepts should be presented in an understandable way and linked more closely to people’s everyday realities. This would also allow us to highlight that “transformation” stands for change for the better and thus help develop an inclusive language. After all, the goal is to move from an individual focus to a collective perspective.
In closing, the panelists outlined what we need to dare to do in the future: more humor, more interdisciplinary collaboration, more international perspectives, and above all, the courage to “stop explaining and start telling stories.” For it is only through stories that touch people’s hearts that change becomes imaginable—and thus possible.

The eight stations, with their respective examples, covered a broad spectrum—from raw material processing to office design, from landfill repurposing to the construction transition. Helga Kühnhenrich presented the Zukunft Bau pop-up campus. This campus brings together research, teaching, and urban life in one central location. Verena Hermelingmeier and Bianca Orboi presented the Maarwerk project: a family-run commercial space in Beuel-Ost that is to be gradually transformed into a real-world laboratory for regenerative, local economic activity. Andreas Kalweit described how he is transitioning the long-established Niederrheinische Formenfabrik Janssen GmbH into the digital age in a socially just and environmentally responsible manner. Malene Saalmann presented the FatTex research project, an initiative that reimagines the process chain for local sheep’s wool—from wool washing to recyclable textile products. Monika Lichtinghagen-Wirths described the transformation of the Leppe landfill into the innovation hub :metabolon. Max Godelmann introduced the GDM Klimastein, a climate-positive concrete block through which his family business aims to become Europe’s greenest concrete block plant. Jochen Stiebel presented Circular.Office, which develops circular product prototypes and new business models for sustainable office design. Finally, Tilo Schulz reported on his project at Pradtke GmbH in Bochum, where he is using workspace design to foster a sustainable corporate culture.

At each station, participants worked together using the Map/ing Sustainability method. This is an impact analysis approach that makes the positive impact potential of projects and initiatives visible and open to discussion in line with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The starting point is the specific activities of a project.From there, chains of social impact are gradually built up: from immediate outputs through medium-term outcomes to far-reaching social impacts. The method highlights how ecological, social, and economic dimensions are interdependent and reinforce one another. At the same time, it creates a shared framework for understanding.Through dialogue among practitioners from the business sector, researchers, and other participants, a shared understanding emerges of where and how a project intervenes in comprehensive transformation processes. This revealed just how complex and multifaceted even seemingly clearly defined projects can be: A water-retaining concrete block, for example, simultaneously affects the areas of health, urban life, and natural resources. Jointly exploring these interconnections served as both the goal and the method—as a practical contribution to the development of a collective sustainable design literacy.

The event kicked off with a concise round of introductions: In brief presentations, the networks outlined their goals, working methods, and visions. Despite the time constraints, the diversity of the network landscape became clear—ranging from institutionally anchored initiatives to self-organized, local groups. What they all had in common was a commitment to actively shaping sustainable transformation and connecting diverse stakeholders. In the moderated Q&A session that followed, key topics were explored in greater depth: What role do networks play in sustainable development in art, culture, and design? Where does their potential lie, and where do they encounter limitations? And what do they need to be effective in the long term? Among other things, the discussion addressed questions regarding resources, structural support, visibility, and political framework conditions. Areas of tension such as “competition versus cooperation” or “openness versus commitment” were also addressed.
A recurring theme was the idea of “complicity”: conscious, solidarity-based collaboration across disciplinary boundaries. It became clear that sustainable alliances require trust, ongoing nurturing, and shared values. At the same time, the need to deal productively with differences and to view networks as open, learning systems was emphasized.

“Sustainability by Design” at the Folkwang University of the Arts uses workshops, mobile labs, and participatory publications as its outreach format. Here, sustainability becomes a tangible experience through collective action.

In the concluding discussion, it became clear that such laboratory structures require not only time but also openness and institutional flexibility. They were viewed as workshops for possible futures—places where the interactions between design, research, and society are reflected upon and new synergies are explored. It was also emphasized that well-designed research projects do indeed enable a different form of knowledge production—one that combines the acquisition of knowledge with active participation in shaping processes of transformation. There was consensus that profound transformations require time, transdisciplinary openness, and innovative forms of documenting and communicating results. In this context, labs function not merely as test environments, but as spaces where knowledge, action, and social imagination converge.

Moritz Ahlert presented the Berlin-based project “Kiosk of Solidarity,” a kiosk that serves as the centerpiece of a mobile infrastructure and has been deployed at various locations throughout the city since 2023. The kiosk functions as a platform for social interaction, knowledge exchange, and public outreach. Initiatives by marginalized groups, in particular, can use it to raise awareness of their causes. In public spaces, collaborations between civil society initiatives, students, and researchers are fostered, and solidarity is practiced as a central social norm. In the ensuing discussion, the panelists agreed that solidarity is the very fabric of communal life that cannot be imposed from above.

Katharina Maderthaner presented the Kunsthalle Barmen in Wuppertal, an experimental learning and exhibition space operated by the University of Wuppertal. Using the exhibition *Fertile Structures* as an example, she showcased an open laboratory for collaborative processes. Mushrooms served as both a central resource and a metaphor for networked thinking and action, as students, established artists, designers, and researchers alike produced their own works and created accessible educational programs. During the discussion, Maderthaner emphasized that collaborative processes require an initial impetus but then need space to unfold independently.

Rebekah Rota, opera director at the Wuppertaler Bühnen, described the processes of transformation within a large cultural institution on three levels: on stage, within production structures, and in relation to the audience. While efforts are simultaneously underway to establish more open communication structures within the organization and to create low-barrier access opportunities for the audience, new modular stage sets are being developed behind the scenes to support a more sustainable approach to production. Rota thus emphasized that transformation is only credible if it does not stop at the surface but, as an internal process, includes all those involved.

Eva Kraus explained that the Bundeskunsthalle Bonn used the COVID-19 pandemic as an impetus for a profound realignment. With a diversity-sensitive reopening strategy based on the “6 Ps”—program, framework, staff, audience, PR, and premises—the institution is undergoing a gradual transformation. The program is shaped by socially relevant themes such as democracy, environmental sustainability, and social issues. In the ensuing discussion, the panelists critically questioned whether the much-discussed cultural openness is already being genuinely practiced or is currently merely being proclaimed.

The panel demonstrated that cultural venues can serve as important platforms for social negotiation processes. At the same time, the central question remains: How can genuine participation be achieved, and how can institutions create long-term structures that incorporate diverse perspectives and truly enable people to participate? A common thread that emerged from the debate was the desire for spaces for action and engagement in which decision-making power at cultural venues is more broadly distributed. This involves both sharing common challenges and benefits, as well as critically examining one’s own institutional and personal biases.

Another key focus of the discussion was collaboration across different sectors. Representatives from academia, politics, foundations, and cultural institutions emphasized that sustainable transformation can only succeed through the collaboration of these stakeholders. Art, culture, and design play a special role in this regard: they can delve into complex issues, make them tangible, open up new perspectives, and help shape visions of society’s future. At the same time, critics pointed out that art and culture are too often viewed merely as a side event in political debates on sustainability. Instead, they should be recognized as an independent voice and an integral part of the agenda.

In the run-up to the symposium, wpn2030 and transform.NRW held preparatory virtual workshops on the topic of “Challenging and Supporting.” These served to specifically prepare the panel’s content, narrow down the focus of the topics, and identify and involve relevant stakeholders. The results are currently being compiled into a joint position paper. The paper will be published shortly on the websites of both initiatives and is intended to serve as a basis for further discussions on funding policy.