Brockmann would've been B-Corp

As part of our ongoing look at the designers who have shaped the way we think at BakerWilcox, it's hard to ignore Josef Müller-Brockmann. Often credited as one of the defining figures of modernist design, his work helped shape how we understand clarity, structure, and visual communication today. For me, he was one of those early influences that stuck. Not because his work was flashy or immediately exciting, but because over time it changes how you think about design altogether.

Students of graphic design, even now so heavily aided by digital tools, should study Brockmann. Of course, most of them won't. But they should.

Brockmann also worked at a time when good graphic designers carried a skill that couldn't easily be replicated. There was no software to fall back on, no templates, no algorithms producing something that looked "about right." What he did required judgement, discipline, and a very clear point of view. Watching him speak in an interview from 1987, what stands out isn't just the work, it's the thinking behind it. There's a directness to him, no theatrics, no over-explaining, just a quiet certainty about what design is, and what it isn't.

In that same interview, he talks about responsibility in a way that feels surprisingly current. He understood that design isn't neutral, that it shapes perception, influences behaviour, and carries weight far beyond the page. Long before ESG was a term anyone was using, he was already making decisions through that lens. He appreciated the power of design, and more importantly, the responsibility that comes with it.

At one point, he speaks about refusing to continue working with a tobacco company once the link to cancer became clear. Not as a grand gesture or a marketing decision, but simply because it didn't sit right. Which feels obvious now, at least for those who share the view that design shapes decisions and that the designer has a direct role in that. But at the time, it really wasn't, and it wasn't without consequence.

As he put it, "I accepted a reduction in income in order to have the freedom to decide who I would work for." That's the part that tends to get overlooked. The freedom to choose comes at a cost, it always has, but it's also where the real value sits. Not just in the work you produce, but in the work you refuse to do. That logic didn't stop with Brockmann.

At BakerWilcox, becoming a B-Corp wasn't a sudden shift, it was more a recognition of something that had been building for a while. We'd worked with brands like Nikwax and Paramo from the very beginning, those with ESG at their core long before it became a requirement or expectation, and it was time for a formal way of saying that the work we do, and who we do it for, matters, because it does.

Designers don't just make things look better, we help things succeed. We give them credibility. We shape how they're perceived, which means, whether we like it or not, we have a hand in what we put out into the world, and at some point you realise that's not neutral.

So the question becomes less about what you can do, and more about what you should do. There's a responsibility there, to look at a brief and not just think about how to solve it, but whether it's something worth solving at all, and when it isn't, to be comfortable saying no, or more accurately, telling the bad ones to jog on. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen, and when it does, it feels slightly strange turning work away, but more often than not, it's also the decision that helps you sleep at night.

This isn't a new idea. Müller-Brockmann was already working this way decades ago. His work is often talked about in terms of structure and clarity, but what sits behind it is judgement, a clear sense of what matters, what doesn't, and where to draw the line.

That's the part that feels most relevant now.

The tools have changed, the pace has changed, and the way design is produced has changed. Speed now enables things that look right to be pulled out of a machine that doesn't care about ethics or moral judgement, but brands that need to prove their ESG credentials still need designers who carry a moral compass.