Longer Lasting Products

Longer Lasting Products

This page has been left blank intentionally

Longer Lasting Products Alternatives to the Throwaway Society

Edited by Tim Cooper

© Tim Cooper 2010 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Tim Cooper has asserted his moral right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the editor of this work. Published by Gower Publishing Limited Wey Court East Union Road Farnham Surrey, GU9 7PT England

Ashgate Publishing Company Suite 420 101 Cherry Street Burlington, VT 05401-4405 USA

www.gowerpublishing.com British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Longer lasting products : alternatives to the throwaway society. 1. Product life cycle. 2. New products. 3. Quality of products. 4. Sustainable design. 5. Consumers--Attitudes. I. Cooper, Tim. 658.5'752-dc22

ISBN: 978-0-566-08808-7 (hbk) 978-1-4094-1043-0 (ebk) I

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Longer lasting products : alternatives to the throwaway society / [edited] by Tim Cooper. p. cm. Includes index. ISBN 978-0-566-08808-7 (hbk.) 1. Product life cycle. 2. Product obsolescence. 3. Consumer behavior--Environmental aspects. I. Cooper, Tim, 1957HF5415.155.L66 2010 658.5'6--dc22 2010010155

The cover photograph is of Paul Bonomini’s design for the RSA’s Weeeman Project and the image has been used with his kind permission. The robotic figure is made of scrap electrical and electronic equipment that weighs 3.3 tonnes, the average amount that each person in the UK throws away during his or her lifetime.

Contents

List of Figures List of Tables About the Contributors Acknowledgements Foreword Preface Part 1

Overview

1

The Significance of Product Longevity Tim Cooper

Part 2

Design for Longevity

2

Re-evaluating Obsolescence and Planning for It Brian Burns

3

Subject/Object Relationships and Emotionally Durable Design Jonathan Chapman

vii ix xi xiii xv xix

3

39

61

4

Defying Obsolescence Miles Park

5

Understanding Replacement Behaviour and Exploring Design Solutions Nicole van Nes

107

Adjusting Our Metabolism: Slowness and Nourishing Rituals of Delay in Anticipation of a Post-Consumer Age Alastair Fuad-Luke

133

6

7

Durability, Function and Performance Walter Stahel

77

157

vi

Longer Lasting Products

Part 3

Public Policy and Product Life-Spans

8

Durability and the Law Cowan Ervine

181

9

The Law on Guarantees and Repair Work Christian Twigg-Flesner

195

10

Policies for Longevity Tim Cooper

215

Part 4

Marketing Longer Lasting Products

11

Rethinking Marketing Ken Peattie

243

12

Marketing Durability Tim Cooper and Kirsty Christer

273

13

Can Durability Provide a Strong Marketing Platform? Dorothy Mackenzie, Tim Cooper and Kenisha Garnett

297

Part 5

Product Use and Reuse

14

Consumer Influences on Product Life-Spans Siân Evans and Tim Cooper

319

15

Product Life Cycle Management Through IT Matthew Simon

351

16

There are Times and Places: Systems and Practices in the Domestic Processing and Reuse of Packaging Janet Shipton and Tom Fisher

367

Extending Product Life-Spans: Household Furniture and Appliance Reuse in the UK Anthony Curran

393

17

Index

41

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3 Figure 4.4 Figure 4.5 Figure 4.6 Figure 4.7 Figure 4.8 Figure 4.9 Figure 5.1 Figure 5.2 Figure 5.3 Figure 5.4 Figure 5.5 Figure 5.6 Figure 5.7 Figure 6.1

Product longevity as a means of integrating efficiency and sufficiency Forms of relative obsolescence Aesthetic obsolescence – new, worn-in and worn-out fashion jeans Social obsolescence – an ashtray Technological obsolescence – successive modes of data transfer Economic obsolescence – a sofa that was economically not worth recovering Ephemeral electronics: Lighting Bugs, battery-illuminated confectionery Defying obsolescence: category groupings, from micro to macro iPods, new and not so old Nicks and scratches are aesthetically acceptable on rugged tools A silent performer: demoted within the household but still valued Aeroplane made out of discarded packaging and sticky tape A passionate collector who never threw anything away!  Car boot sale QR code, containing 250 characters The replacement decision as a deterioration of the actual and desired state The three groups of factors that influence the product replacement decision The hierarchy between the three groups of factors that influence the product replacement decision Model of factors influencing the arousal of the replacement need Telecommunication device ‘Teletangram’ Audio set: ‘Sound 2000’ Personal computer Model for design and well-being

14 16 46 47 48 49 80 82 84 85 89 90 92 96 98 110 111 115 117 125 126 127 142

viii

Longer Lasting Products

Rebotijo (summer jug) Tache Naturelle (natural stain) Strategies for extending product:user relationships Making and localization Ways of designing and making From ownership to sharing Evolution of shares in life cycle costs for a car over a 50-year period Figure 12.1 Advertisement promoting longevity, with specific reference to expected life-span – Miele Figure 12.2 Slogan used in marketing campaign to highlight product durability – Marks and Spencer Figure 12.3 Examples of long guarantees – (a) Magimix and (b) Siemens Figure 12.5 Consumer leaflet with technical information and reference to quality standards – Westex Carpets Figure 12.4 Use of brand name to signify product durability – Tilley Endurables Figure 12.6 Life-span label on long life bulb – Philips Figure 14.1 Simplified conceptual framework Figure 15.1 The ELIMA system Figure 15.2 Plot of records from fridge-freezers of number and cumulative duration of door-opening events Figure 15.3 Image of the additional circuit board inserted into a standard Sony PS2 console Figure 15.4 Detailed temperature records and energy transmitted from a fridge-freezer over a 24-hour period Figure 16.1 Cardboard nappy box used as toy box Figure 16.2 Glass wine bottle on display Figure 16.3 Plastic bottle used as cloche in garden Figure 16.4 Space and time matrix Figure 16.5 ‘Nice’ carrier bags Figure 16.6 Sturdy plastic bag used to protect equipment Figure 16.7 Carrier bag made into a hat Figure 16.8 The domestic packaging process flow Figure 16.9 Old Oxo tin Figure 16.10 First design test Figure 16.11 Second design test Figure 17.1 Source of household bulky items, by discard route Figure 17.2 Reuse rates for household bulky items, by discard route Figure 17.3 Source of all reused items, by discard route Figure 6.2 Figure 6.3 Figure 6.4 Figure 6.5 Figure 6.6 Figure 6.7 Figure 7.1

144 144 147 147 148 149 161 277 277 278 279 279 282 325 354 354 355 357 371 372 372 373 375 375 376 380 383 385 386 399 400 403

List of Tables

Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 7.1 Table 7.2 Table 7.3 Table 10.1 Table 11.1 Table 12.1 Table 13.1 Table 14.1 Table 14.2 Table 14.3 Table 14.4 Table 14.5 Table 14.6 Table 17.1 Table 17.2 Table 17.3 Table 17.4 Table 17.5 Table 17.6 Table 17.7

Product characteristics affecting the replacement decision 118 Situational influences upon the replacement decision 119 Consumer characteristics affecting the replacement decision 120 Design strategies for longevity 123 Comparison of design strategies from workshop with lists from literature 124 Expressions of slow activism 137 Slow Design manifesto, 2003 139 Strategies and approaches for extending the product:user relationship 146 Advantages in manufacturing, after-sales services and utilization of component standardization 167 Performance comparison of Volkswagen Golf GTI, 1976 and 2004 170 Selling performance versus selling products 172 Potential policy measures 227 Contrasting the sustainability and conventional marketing mindsets 264 Recommended information on product life-spans 288 Marketing platforms for durability 303 Taxonomy of consumer influences on product life-spans 324 Consumer influences on product life-spans, by product 327 Summary of consumer influences, by phase of consumption 328 Examples of behaviour, by different types of consumer 329 Key factors affecting consumer influence on product life-spans 331 Examples of inconsistent consumer behaviour 339 Methods of discarding bulky items typically resulting in disposal 398 Methods of discarding bulky items typically resulting in further use 402 Consumers’ opinions of the reuse potential of bulky waste 404 Previous potential reuse estimates for bulky waste 405 Items collected for reuse at HWRCs 407 A typical reuse organization 410 An advanced reuse organization 410

This page has been left blank intentionally

About the Contributors Brian Burns is Associate Professor at the School of Industrial Design, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada. (email: [email protected]). Jonathan Chapman is Principal Lecturer in the Centre for Research and Development Research Centre, Faculty of Arts and Architecture, University of Brighton, Grand Parade, Brighton BN2 0JY (email: j.a.chapman@brighton. ac.uk). Kirsty Christer is Research Associate in the Art and Design Research Centre, Faculty of Arts, Computing, Engineering and Sciences at Sheffield Hallam University, Howard Street, Sheffield S1 1WB (email: [email protected]). Anthony Curran is a member of the Waste Management Research Group within the School of Civil Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ (email: [email protected]). Tim Cooper is Professor of Sustainable Design and Consumption, School of Architecture, Design and the Built Environment, Nottingham Trent University, Burton Street, Nottingham NG1 4BU (email: [email protected]). Cowan Ervine is Senior Lecturer, School of Law, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 4HN (email: [email protected]). Siân Evans is a former Researcher at the Centre for Sustainable Consumption, Sheffield Hallam University, Howard Street, Sheffield S1 1WB (email: [email protected]). Tom Fisher is Professor of Art and Design, School of Art and Design, Nottingham Trent University, Burton Street, Nottingham NG1 4BU (email: tom.fisher@ntu. ac.uk). Alastair-Fuad-Luke is a Sustainable Design Facilitator, consultant, educator, writer and activist. He founded and constructed SLow in 2003–2005, was a

xii

Longer Lasting Products

member of the Board of SlowLab 2005–2009, and continues with his activities in the slow (design) movement (email: [email protected]). Kenisha Garnett is a former Researcher at the Centre for Sustainable Consumption, Sheffield Hallam University, Howard Street, Sheffield S1 1WB (email: [email protected]). Dorothy Mackenzie is Chairman of Dragon Rouge, 1 Craven Hill, London W2 3EN (email: [email protected]). Miles Park is Program Director of Industrial Design at the Faculty of the Built Environment, University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia (email: [email protected]). Ken Peattie is Professor of Marketing and Strategy and Director, BRASS Research Centre, Cardiff University, 55 Park Place, Cardiff CF10 3AT (email: [email protected]). Janet Shipton is Divisional Design and Development Director at Chesapeake Branded Packaging, Hollingwood Lane, Lidget Green, Bradford, West Yorkshire BD7 2RQ (email: [email protected]). Matthew Simon is Principal Lecturer, Department of Engineering and Mathematics, Sheffield Hallam University, Howard Street, Sheffield S1 1WB (email: [email protected]). Walter R. Stahel is Founder-Director, The Product-Life Institute, 7 chemin des Vignettes, Geneva, CH-1231 Conches, Switzerland; also Visiting Professor, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey (email [email protected]). Christian Twigg-Flesner is Professor of Commercial Law and Convenor, Trade and Commercial Law Centre, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull HU6 7RX (email: [email protected]). Nicole van Nes is a Researcher at SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, PO Box 1090, 2260 BB Leidschendam, The Netherlands; she was previously at Erasmus University of Rotterdam and Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands (email: [email protected] or [email protected]).

Acknowledgements This book would not have been possible without enthusiasm, interest and support from the growing community of members of the Network on Product Life-Spans. The creation of the Network was made possible through a series of events held from 2004–2008 and I am grateful to the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council for providing the financial support that enabled it to take place and to Peter Marshall and Kenisha Garnett, in particular, for their assistance in organising the events. I would like to express appreciation to all of the speakers and participants and, looking further back, to colleagues in the Eternally Yours network in the Netherlands, sadly no longer active, whose events in 1996 and 2003 were truly inspirational. I am grateful to all of the contributors not only for providing material for this book but for their patience during the process of editing, their gracious acceptance of my attempts to shape the book into a coherent and consistent whole, and their willingness to offer comments on other chapters. On behalf of all of them I would like to express appreciation to other specialists who provided comments on draft chapters, notably Alice Baverstock, Tracy Bhamra, Marilyn Carrigan, Rose Cooper, Mark Godson, Jennifer Hamilton, Craig Hirst, Caroline Lee-Smith, Poppy Maltby and Ben Shaw. Alastair Fuad-Luke, author of Chapter Six, offers thanks to Martin Ruiz de Azúa for permission to reproduce images of his designs in Figures 6.2 and 6.3, Rebotijo (summer jug) and Tache Naturelle (natural stain) respectively. Matthew Simon, author of Chapter Fifteen, acknowledges the contributions to the ELIMA research made by the project partners Sony, Indesit, De Montfort University, Motorola, Cybernétix, ReUse and SAT. The ELIMA project was part funded by the EC 5th Framework programme (project no. GRD2-2000-30097). I would like to thank the staff at Gower Publishing for their patience, support and encouragement throughout the publication process. I am grateful also to Miles Park for suggesting the idea for the cover.

This page has been left blank intentionally

Foreword There is something odd and at the same time utterly predictable about our failure to design, produce and maintain longer lasting products. The odd thing is that it ought to be – most of the time, at least – in our own best interests to have things that last. Appliances that don’t break down at crucial moments. Laptops and phones that don’t need replacing every year. Clothes that continue to sit comfortably in our wardrobes and our identities for several years. Not to mention the considerable environmental and resource benefits to be had from not filling up our atmosphere with carbon, our rivers with pollution and our landfills with junk. The predictability stems from our implicit understanding that to keep an economy going we are required, almost obliged, to consume and throw away more and more stuff. The ‘throwaway society’ is not so much about thoughtless plundering. It’s not just a confluence of carefree consumers with little or no concern for their own future or the future of the planet. It’s a society locked into perverse consumption practices by its own ineluctable logic. Nowhere was this more evident than in political responses to the recent recession. In the years immediately preceding the crash, consumer debt in advanced economies had reached unprecedented levels and household savings had already plummeted – below zero in some countries. Despite this fact, the almost ubiquitous call from politicians across the spectrum was for us all to ‘go out shopping’. No surprise at all then to find, as Tim Cooper points out in his introductory chapter to this varied and thoughtful collection of essays, that the origins of the term ‘planned obsolescence’, coincided precisely with the Great Depression – an economic crisis of similar proportions. The logic of this is critical. Fast consumption is the inevitable partner of fast production. If we don’t consume, then who is going to produce? And without production who will employ us? Without jobs how will we maintain our ability to go on and on consuming? Indeed the underlying dynamic here is not just about continuing to consume, but about consuming more and more. The stability of the economy itself in the ‘advanced’ consumer societies calls on

xvi

Longer Lasting Products

us not simply to maintain our productive capacity but to pursue a strategy of continuing, exponential growth. The dynamic that feeds this strategy relies on the relentless production of novelty by firms and the relentless consumption of novelty by households. The inevitability with which this leads to a throwaway culture is patent. In principle, of course, it’s possible to decouple this rampant economic expansion from material expansion and perhaps even from the rapid proliferation of products. If our products last longer, they offer enhanced economic value. Could we not produce fewer of them, service them more effectively, invest in their continual renovation and repair and expand our economy by charging more for these longer lasting ‘servicised’ products? This tantalizing possibility has haunted the environmental debate about product durability for at least three decades. But the job of achieving this vision is not to be underestimated. And, as the contributions in this excellent collection make abundantly clear, that task is not just a technical one. It’s not even simply an economic one. What links expanding production to the relentless consumption is an apparently voracious appetite for novelty – embedded in the social logic of the throwaway society. Like it or not, we’re all deeply implicated in that logic. The throwaway society. How quaint that term seems now! I am old enough to remember the shock that attended its arrival as a description of modernity. The wastefulness it implied. The damage it evoked. The erosion it predicted, not just in terms of product durability but in terms of social durability, in the durability of society itself. And yet today the concept is so deeply entrenched in our cultural self-image as to be almost redundant. Very soon, I imagine, there will no longer be a generation that remembers what it was like to live in a society other than this. Was there really ever a time of make do and mend, of repair and reparability, of continuity and durability? Or was it just a dream? A figment of history books and senile imaginations? Our children have already inherited a very different view of the world. In which it is taken for granted that things don’t last. That relentless novelty is the order of the day. And for a few years they may even be able to sustain the belief that things don’t need to last. That today’s fashion is tomorrow’s junk. Today’s functionality is tomorrow’s dysfunctionality. Today’s beauty is tomorrow’s tawdry reject.

foreword

xvii

They’ve also inherited a future in which society itself has fallen into a very real danger of being ‘thrown away’. There is no such thing as society, trumpeted Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, leaving us bereft of anything other than individual material dreams and aspirations. How convenient this narrow framing of human nature, of social organization! Because it provides us with exactly the kinds of people, the kinds of society that will keep us running to the shopping malls and supermarkets for more and more stuff. It is of course utterly predictable that this logic, however intractable, is leading us in only one direction: towards economic, social and ecological collapse. The odd thing is that it ought to be in our own best interests – and definitely in those of our children – to avoid that collapse. In summary, this timely and provocative volume of essays is not just another academic tome in a longstanding debate – a debate to which its editor and many of its contributors have been worthy contributors for over a decade. On the contrary, the creation of product durability, a long lasting solution to our throwaway culture, emerges as an absolutely vital element in the pursuit of sustainability. Tim Jackson Author of Prosperity Without Growth – Economics for a Finite Planet (London: Earthscan, 2009)

This page has been left blank intentionally

Preface There has long been awareness within industrialized nations that a throwaway culture is environmentally unsustainable and that to move onto a new path of development is inevitable at some future point in time. It has, however, taken a protracted period for this predicament to be properly addressed in depth by academic researchers or those who drive environmental policy: governments, their policy advisers and environmental campaigners. Only recently has a substantial network of researchers interested in exploring product longevity emerged and the policy community’s waste agenda shifted from waste management to waste reduction. My own work in this area began some 17 years ago as a researcher at the New Economics Foundation (NEF), a London-based think tank which has been at the forefront among philosophers, policymakers and practitioners seeking a more environmentally sustainable and socially just model of economic development. Concern at large and ever-rising volumes of household waste had, by the early 1990s, led to considerable attention being given to the potential for increased recycling. Improved waste management was clearly necessary but, in the context of long term sustainability, appeared inadequate: managing postconsumer waste is, after all, acting after much damage has already been done. The response at NEF was to embark on a research project that was intended to reconfigure the waste debate by exploring the possibility of increasing the average life-span of consumer durables and, ultimately, prevent unnecessary waste from being created. The primary output of this project, a report entitled Beyond Recycling, attracted a significant amount of national media coverage when published in 1994. The Secretary of State for the Environment at the time, John Gummer MP, requested and received a personal briefing, a headline in one popular daily newspaper referred to the relatively short life-span of washing machines manufactured in Britain as a ‘scandal’, while a leading white goods manufacturer, Miele, took the unusual step of citing the NEF report in a national advertising campaign. Nonetheless these signs of interest in product life-spans within influential circles ultimately proved to be a false 

Daily Mirror, 29 November 1994.

xx

Longer Lasting Products

dawn. The report made no significant impression on subsequent government policy and there was no noticeable shift in the consumer goods sector towards longer-lasting products. Similarly, environmental organizations, while welcoming the report, retained their focus on recycling and did not prioritize the theme of waste reduction through increased product longevity in their campaigning. Beyond Recycling was published only two years after the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, which in 1992 brought together over 100 world leaders to discuss the state of the planet. Since then, the need for strategies to bring about sustainable development has become far more widely recognized. In particular, the potential implications for industrialized nations have become more apparent. The World Summit on Sustainable Development held in 2002 promoted greater awareness of sustainable production and consumption and since then there has been a substantial growth in expertise in this field: networks and conferences link together hundreds, if not thousands, of researchers with the aim of developing the knowledge and evidence necessary to underpin appropriate government policies. Meanwhile significant progress has been made within the more specific area of product longevity. One of the aims of this book, to which many of the most significant contemporary thinkers in the field have contributed, is to consolidate the growth in knowledge. Its origins lie in a series of seminars and workshops that brought together several hundred academics, policy specialists and representatives from industry and civil society organizations over a fouryear period and led to the formation of a research network, the Network on Product Life-Spans. During this time it became apparent that many of the ideas, research findings and other forms of knowledge were of relevance to the broader debate on sustainable development and would be of interest to a wider audience: hence this book. The complex range of issues associated with product life-spans demands a multidisciplinary approach and this is reflected in the contributions. The historical context, design, engineering, marketing, law, politics, consumer behaviour, technology and systems of provision are all covered, although critics will note that other fields, notably human geography, anthropology and economics, are perhaps inadequately represented in the current volume. Contributors are from three continents (North America, Europe and Australasia), highlighting the international significance of the topic, although a majority of chapters are written by authors from the UK, reflecting the origins

preface

xxi

of the Network. Several, notably those on consumer law, relate specifically to the UK but nonetheless will, it is hoped, be of wider interest. The primary focus of the book is on consumer durables such as vehicles, kitchen appliances, audio-visual equipment and other domestic electrical products, furniture and floor coverings, hardware, garden tools, clothing and footwear, household textiles, recreational goods and DIY goods, although the reuse of packaging is also addressed. The life-span of buildings, infrastructure and industrial goods are, of course, of considerable environmental (and social) significance, but beyond the scope of this particular book. Even within its limited remit, readers will be mindful of the risk of generalization, both in terms of geographical location and type of product. The book is structured in five parts. The first of these, Overview, comprises an introductory chapter by Tim Cooper, ‘The Significance of Product Longevity’. Starting from a premise that sustainable development will only be possible if the throwaway culture is challenged and there is an overall increase in the life-span of consumer products, Cooper provides a conceptual and theoretical overview of the topic, reviewing the influences upon product life-spans, the case for (and against) longer lasting products, and possible implications of increased product longevity for industry and consumers. Noting that product longevity is influenced not only by the intrinsic durability of products but by consumer behaviour, Cooper concludes that progress away from a throwaway culture will require change across society: in public policy, design and marketing, consumer attitudes and behaviour, and socio-cultural norms. The second part comprises six chapters on the theme Design for Longevity. Chapter Two, ‘Re-evaluating Obsolescence and Planning for It’, by Brian Burns, focuses on the end of the product life-span, the point at which ‘obsolescence’ becomes reality. The end of a product’s life, he argues, represents an opportunity to assess the value derived from utilization during its useful life against the costs of manufacture and use and against environmental and social impacts. Contrasting the life expectancy of products such as stainless steel dining forks with products based on fast-changing technologies, Burns explores the state of obsolescence with the aim of supporting more effective and sustainable product development. Waste may be seen as a symptom of a failed subject/object relationship. In Chapter Three, ‘Subject/Object Relationships and Emotionally Durable Design’, Jonathan Chapman considers the potential role of design in the creation of longer

xxii

Longer Lasting Products

user:product relationships. Sustainable design methodologies, he argues, have attended almost exclusively to the bodily survival of manufactured objects, to ‘after-effects rather than causes’. Chapman proposes strategies for emotionally durable objects, including new, alternative genres of objects, which engage users on deeper levels and over longer, more rewarding, periods of time. This, he suggests, will demand models of sustainable design capable of empowering consumers to transcend the ‘superficial urgencies’ of conventional consumerism and forge deeper connections with their possessions. In Chapter Four, ‘Defying Obsolescence’, Miles Park considers a range of product attributes, consumer behaviours and societal factors associated with prolonged product life-spans in order to identify lessons from design and consumer behaviour that might enable products to defy obsolescence. He presents a collection of examples, mostly drawn from the consumer electronics sector, and notes that these were often informal responses to impending obsolescence and not planned or anticipated by the designer or manufacturer. Park concludes that new and collaborative approaches between designers and users are needed in order to meet the challenge of engaging with obsolescence effectively. The fact that many products are still functional when discarded means that to understand the determinants of product life-spans it is necessary to investigate replacement decisions. In Chapter Five, ‘Understanding Replacement Behaviour and Exploring Design Solutions’, Nicole van Nes reports on qualitative and quantitative research aimed at a better understanding of replacement decision making. Van Nes argues that people’s motives for replacing goods are diverse but in essence what they want are well-functioning and up-to-date products that meet their changing needs. She suggests that this will require the development of products that are dynamic and flexible and proposes strategies that include designing products for reliability and robustness, repair and maintenance, upgradeability, product attachment and variability, illustrating these through practical examples. Chapter Six, ‘Adjusting our Metabolism’, by Alastair Fuad-Luke, discusses the emergence of a new movement of ‘slow activists’ and its implications for design. Fuad-Luke examines ‘slow design’ activities and considers how slowing the metabolisms inherent in product:user relationships might generate improved relationships and experiences for the user while helping to create positive social, environmental and economic change. He concludes that slow design and co-design offer fresh approaches for revitalizing thinking about

preface

xxiii

product life-spans and novel ways of designing, making and producing that could encourage new visions of enterprise and improved human flourishing. In the final chapter of this part, ‘Durability, Function and Performance’, Walter Stahel explores the potential for product durability and longevity as economic objectives in a ‘functional service economy’ focused on selling performance. He argues that the traditional industrial economy, is focused on producing goods for sale and in such an economy producers operating in saturated markets may regard durability as an undesirable quality, as it represents an obstacle to replacement sales. By contrast, in a functional service economy product ownership remains with supply-side actors, which will provide an economic incentive to the prevention of waste. Producers will exploit the existing stock of goods in order to make more money with less resource input. Meanwhile the ‘consumer’ becomes a ‘user’ as ownership is replaced by stewardship. The third part of the book, Public Policy and Product Life-Spans, reviews the current state of legislation in the United Kingdom relating to product lifespans and considers a range of measures that governments might take in order to encourage product longevity. In Chapter Eight, ‘Durability and the Law’, Cowan Ervine explores the contribution which the law makes to the durability of goods. He argues that it has become clearer that durability is a characteristic consumers may expect from goods as a result of an amendment in 1994 of the law relating to the quality standards implied in contracts for the supply of goods. He notes, however, that the limited case law on the reform does not suggest that in practice it has made a dramatic difference. The chapter’s main focus is the role of contract law in relation to durability, although Ervine also addresses the role of tort law and safety legislation. In Chapter Nine, ‘The Law on Guarantees and Repair Work’, Christian Twigg-Flesner analyses the law relating to guarantees and repair work. Although recent legal changes have the effect of introducing repair as a consumer right, its availability is restricted and consumers are more likely to be given a replacement or refund when goods are faulty. If a product is under a guarantee consumers may ask for a repair, but there is no legal requirement to provide a guarantee nor to include repair as one of the remedies offered. Twigg-Flesner argues that obtaining repair is made difficult by the absence of any legal requirement on a retailer or manufacturer to stock spare parts or

xxiv

Longer Lasting Products

to make available appropriate servicing facilities. He concludes that the law on repair work is unsatisfactory and examines the approach taken in other jurisdictions in considering possible ways forward. The next chapter, ‘Policies for Longevity’, by Tim Cooper, addresses possible options for governments to promote increased product longevity, most of them applicable to any industrialized nation. The case for public policy intervention to optimize product life-spans is based on potential benefits to the economy, the environment and consumer satisfaction. Cooper argues that the policy measures necessary to transform a throwaway culture have not been introduced because it has hitherto been politically expedient for governments to succumb to the electorate’s apparent desire for more (and newer) consumer goods. He presents a framework within which to assess specific measures to encourage longer lasting products and, drawing upon policies advocated by past and present critics of planned obsolescence, proposes a range of potential regulatory, market-based and voluntary measures. The fourth part comprises three chapters on Marketing Longer Lasting Products. Chapter Eleven, ‘Rethinking Marketing’, by Ken Peattie, sets the context by proposing that the quest to develop longer lasting products will demand changes in how people think about marketing. Although marketing has been under pressure to become more environmentally orientated, materially efficient and sustainable for most of the last 20 years, the conventional marketing paradigm has proven resilient, acting as a barrier to change. In order to progress towards a more sustainable economy, it is necessary to address systems of consumption and production, which are driven in part by the management discipline of marketing. Peattie concludes that what is needed is a new, sustainable marketing paradigm. In order to select products with life-spans that are environmentally optimal and appropriate for their requirements, shoppers need to be adequately informed about the design life of their prospective purchases. The findings of a research study that assessed the quality of information on product life-spans available in retail environments are presented in Chapter Twelve, ‘Marketing Durability’, by Tim Cooper and Kirsty Christer. The study included visits to retail outlets that revealed few specific examples of life-span labelling but uncovered a variety of means by which consumers might predict the durability of products. A review of information available on the design life of 10 types of product was undertaken and an assessment made of the potential value of lifespan labels. Cooper and Christer’s conclusion is that the quality of information

preface

xxv

on product life-spans currently available is inadequate. They propose a range of measures to address this, including an increase in life-span labelling. As consumer societies have evolved over the past century, many products have been sold less on the basis of their functional characteristics alone and more on the strength of an image, association or lifestyle preference. A shift towards longer lasting products would demand a reappraisal of this trend and require marketers to identify strategies by which to promote products on the basis of durability. Chapter Thirteen, ‘Can Durability Provide a Strong Marketing Platform?’, by Dorothy Mackenzie, Tim Cooper and Kenisha Garnett, presents a range of marketing platforms through which the durability of products could be highlighted as a positive attribute. These would need to be attractive to consumers in order to add to brand strength. The authors identify some potential risks and opportunities in adopting such a strategy. The fifth and final part addresses Product Use and Reuse from a variety of perspectives. In Chapter Fourteen, ‘Consumer Influences on Product LifeSpans’, Siân Evans and Tim Cooper present results from research on the influence of consumer behaviour on the life-span of three types of household product: everyday footwear, large household appliances and upholstered chairs. Their findings demonstrate that consumers exert considerable influence upon product life-spans but reveal substantial differences in behaviour between the three types of product and across the different stages of consumption. Evans and Cooper classify factors affecting consumer behaviour and create a theoretical framework within which to explore the influence of consumers in order to identify barriers to optimizing product life-spans from a consumer perspective and propose possible solutions. In contrast with the previous chapter, Chapter Fifteen, ‘Product Life Cycle Management through IT’, by Matthew Simon, focuses on the potential role of technology in optimizing product life-spans. Simon describes a research project which sought to explore some technical, economic and social aspects of life cycle management, an element of producer responsibility, and draw conclusions on its future. Life cycle management enables producers of electrical and electronic products to intervene to educate users, persuade them to behave in a particular way, monitor products and their usage, advise consumers on positive action and receive their feedback. Results from two project trials are used to illustrate the potential value of product life cycle information, both for understanding user behaviour and aiding repair and design.

xxvi

Longer Lasting Products

The focus of Chapter Sixteen, ‘There are Times and Places’, by Janet Shipton and Tom Fisher, is on the reuse of packaging by consumers. Shipton and Fisher use the findings of a research study to explore how ideas, actions and objects together result in the reuse of packaging items. Their study identifies examples of when and where this happens in people’s homes and draws out the principles behind reuse practices. These principles are then tested in practice as the basis for packaging design that may facilitate extending the life of packaging and thus reduce domestic waste. The final chapter, ‘Extending Product Life-Spans’, by Anthony Curran, provides an overview of household bulky waste disposal and reuse activities in the UK and, specifically, the contribution made by furniture and appliance reuse to extending product life-spans. Curran considers different methods for discarding bulky household items and assesses the potential to increase the number of items diverted for reuse, with particular reference to the role of furniture and appliance reuse projects in the voluntary and community sector. He highlights the social dimension to reuse, noting that, while reuse helps to tackle increasing waste generation and virgin resource consumption, these environmental benefits are often regarded within the sector as secondary to the social benefits to volunteers employed by reuse organizations and low income households provided with essential furniture and appliances.

Part 1

Overview

This page has been left blank intentionally



The Significance of Product Longevity

1

Tim Cooper

Abstract Consumption patterns across the industrialized world are widely considered to be unsustainable, not least because they demand an excessively fast throughput of materials and energy. It follows that sustainable development will only be possible if the throwaway culture is challenged and there is an overall increase in the life-span of products such as vehicles, appliances, furniture, clothing and footwear. This introductory chapter traces the origins of the debate on planned obsolescence and identifies a recent revival of interest in the lifespan of consumer products: their longevity. After providing a conceptual and theoretical overview, it reviews the many influences upon product life-spans, the case for (and against) longer lasting products, and possible implications of an increase in product longevity for industry and consumers. Although the intrinsic durability of products is the result of design and manufacturing decisions, product longevity is also influenced by consumer behaviour such as the discarding of functional items. Progress away from a throwaway culture thus requires change across society: in public policy, design and marketing strategies, consumer attitudes and behaviour, and socio-cultural norms.

Introduction Consumption is rapidly changing as increasing numbers of people throughout the world strive to acquire the ever-greater number and range of products that are available. Some of these products are less environmentally destructive than in the past: they are more energy efficient, easier to recycle or contain fewer



Longer Lasting Products

toxic materials. One attribute, however, has improved little, if at all. Few of today’s products will last longer than those of an earlier era. A century ago most products were designed and manufactured to last as long as possible within the prevailing constraints of cost and technology; nowadays this is less often true. Some observers blame producers faced with saturated markets and under pressure to generate replacement sales for ‘planning’obsolescence into products. Planned obsolescence, the outcome of a deliberate decision by suppliers that a product should no longer be functional or desirable after a predetermined period, remains entrenched in industrialized economies despite criticism over many years (e.g. Packard 1963; Papanek 1972; OECD 1982; Cooper 1994b, 2004; Kostecki 1998; Slade 2006). It takes a variety of different forms. For example, companies may seek to reduce prices by cutting production costs even though they are aware that this will require compromises in quality (as in the case of budget range household goods and goods sold by discount retailers). Such products, in particular, may lack the potential for repair. Producers use changes in fashion to encourage consumers to replace functional items (for example, watches, spectacles and clothing accessories) and, in the market for consumer electronics, in particular, exploit technological developments to the same end. Many items formerly available only as consumer durables are increasingly sold in ‘disposable’ form on grounds of convenience or hygiene (examples being disposable pens, razors, tableware, nappies and single-use cameras). Even so, consumers are at the very least compliant. Many products that still function are replaced in order that their owners can obtain a pristine new item in the latest style or with the most advanced function (Campbell 1992; Cooper 2004). The likely life-span of the replacement is often not considered by consumers to be a major concern. Although there is often no shortage of high quality products with potentially long life-spans, many reasonably affluent consumers are unwilling to pay a premium price for such items, preferring instead to use the money thereby ‘saved’ to purchase other goods and services. The outcome of such a throwaway culture is that the current throughput of materials and energy in industrialized economies is unsustainable. Although many countries have achieved a relative decoupling of materials and energy use from gross domestic product in recent years, resource use remains  

Obsolescence is defined as ‘to fall into disuse’. Gross domestic product, or GDP, is a measure of a nation’s economic output.

the significance of product longevity



undiminished in absolute terms and the relocation of resource intensive industrial production to developing countries means that many environmental impacts are merely being exported (European Environment Agency 2005). It has been estimated that the equivalent of three planets would be required to provide the necessary resources if people throughout the world had lifestyles similar to those in a country as affluent as Britain. These environmental impacts are varied. As consumption has increased, not least in countries such as China and India whose large populations increasingly aspire to lifestyles observed in the industrialized West, resource scarcity has reemerged as a potential threat to future generations (Gordon et al. 2006). The growth in global consumption also has implications for climate change, because consumer goods ‘embody’ carbon, the energy used for their manufacture and distribution being mostly sourced from finite fossil fuel supplies (Kejun et al. 2008). Finally, discarded products provide a legacy of waste which first has to be transported and then either landfilled or managed through recycling or energy recovery, the latter processes having negative environmental impacts even though preferable to landfill (Cooper 1994b). This opening chapter commences with a short review of the historical debate on product life-spans. Different meanings of ‘product life’ will then be discussed and, following a discussion of the economic context, some causes of obsolescence identified. Arguments in favour of increasing (and, exceptionally, reducing) product life-spans are examined with particular reference to potential implications for industry and consumers. The focus of the chapter is on four types of product:



•

large consumer durables (including vehicles) that have a substantial impact on the environment due to their volume and weight

•

consumer durables that have unnecessarily short life-spans due to design decisions relating to fashion, technology or reparability

•

short-lived products of low quality that, while relatively cheap, represent poor value for money

•

disposable products that are purchased primarily for convenience.

This has led to the development of the concept of ‘One Planet Living’ by WWF-UK and BioRegional. See http://www.wwf.org.uk/oneplanet/ophome.asp



Longer Lasting Products

Emerging Debate The emergent debate on product life-spans is beginning to raise important questions about the future nature of products and services in a sustainable economy. How much does product longevity matter in relation to other environmental concerns? If products are increasingly scrutinized for their environmental impact and improved, should consumers perhaps be encouraged to replace ageing products that may be inefficient in energy use or contain toxic materials? Would there be negative implications for the economy if consumer durables were to last longer, such as lower incomes and increased unemployment? Public discussion surrounding product life-spans has historically centred on the concept of planned obsolescence. This debate first surfaced in America during the consumer boom of the 1950s, although it had been foreshadowed around 25 years earlier, during the Great Depression, when shorter product life-spans to be achieved by regular changes in style were advocated as a means of stimulating economic activity (Packard 1963; Slade 2006). The controversy was prompted by frustration among some industrialists at a perceived decline in the quality of products (Stewart 1959; Mayer 1959) and stoked by a popular critique of the consumerist culture by Vance Packard (1963), The Waste Makers, which also expressed concern at the environmental implications of planned obsolescence for resource use and waste. The debate faded but was renewed during the 1970s as fears grew concerning the threat of resource scarcity and rising levels of waste, culminating in an investigation by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). This had a clear environmental motivation, its remit being to consider ‘the contribution that extended product life can make towards reducing the waste management and other environmental problems of member countries and towards savings of primary materials’ (OECD 1982: 7). Noting that it would be hard to obtain independent evidence of companies deliberately reducing the technical life-span of products, the report instead drew attention to the development of non-repairable and non-maintainable versions of durable goods (such as ballpoint pens and disposable razors) and examples of life-lengthening innovations that had apparently been suppressed by manufacturers (most notably, light bulbs). It also highlighted the influence of 

Strasser (1999) traces the public debate to an article published in Business Week in 1955 which referred to the widening application of planned obsolescence, from automobiles to other consumer goods. See also Footnote 18 below.

the significance of product longevity



consumers through their purchasing, retention and discard decisions. Having reviewed the state of theoretical and statistical research on product life-spans and noted its limitations, the OECD recommended that further research be undertaken on the macroeconomic effects and energy implications of longer product life-spans and on the potential benefits of significantly longer and more stringent warranties. It concluded that particular attention should be directed to automobiles due to the scale of resource throughput in that sector. Another significant development during this period was the emergence of a body of research which sought to explain why and how people dispose of products and their replacement behaviour (Jacoby et al. 1977; deBell and Dardis 1979; Hanson 1980; Box 1983; Bayus 1988; Antonides 1990; Harrell and McConocha 1992; Cripps and Meyer, 1994). This extended consumer behaviour theory beyond its traditional focus on purchasing and resulted in a greater understanding of the influences upon disposal behaviour and the development of typologies for disposal routes. One key finding was that while many products were purchased and used by a single owner until broken and irrepairable, others passed through various stages which affected their lifespans, such as being stored, lent, donated, sold or traded in. It also became apparent that owners’ decisions concerning their unwanted possessions were subject to a range of influences. Awareness of environmental threats grew throughout the 1980s, culminating in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 which raised sustainable development up the public policy agenda and, in its Agenda 21 report, explicitly recognized a need to address consumption in industrialized countries. This led to far greater attention being given to the environmental impact of consumer products, which in turn stimulated discussion on longevity in the context of sustainable design (Burall 1991; Fiksel 1996; Charter and Tischner 2001; Lewis and Gertsakis 2001; Vezzoli and Manzini 2008), the utilization of products (Stahel and Jackson 1993; Stahel 2010; Barbiroli 2008; Mont 2008; Weaver 2008) and waste reduction (De Young et al. 1993; Coggins 2001; Runkel 2003; OECD 2004; King et al. 2006; Eunomia et al. 2007). Eternally Yours, a network originating in the Netherlands, broke new ground in bringing together design researchers and specialists in life-span   

No evidence of subsequent research on the macroeconomic implications of longer product lifespans has been found, and only a few studies have been undertaken in the other areas. These included the nature of the product (and, perhaps, the replacement options), their personal characteristics and the situational context. The conference, popularly known as the Earth Summit, was attended by over 100 heads of state or government.



Longer Lasting Products

issues from a range of other disciplines (Van Hinte 1997, 2004; Muis 2006). In Britain the Network on Product Life Spans has continued the debate. A series of research studies have explored the design of products capable of meeting people’s changing requirements and products towards which users feel a long term emotional attachment (Van Nes 2003; Mugge et al. 2005; Mugge 2007; Chapman 2005; Van Nes and Cramer 2005, 2006; Odom et al. 2009). Interest in waste-related behaviour has continued (e.g. Barr, Gilg and Ford 2001, 2005; Barr 2007) and has included studies on second-hand markets such as car boot sales and eBay (Gregson and Crewe 2003; Ellis and Haywood 2006). Most recently, interest in planned obsolescence has resurfaced in the context of business ethics (Guiltinan 2009).

The Language of Life-Spans As in any discourse, use of precise terminology is important. The attribute of durability, alongside others (such as functionality, reliability, usability and aesthetic appeal), distinguishes consumer durables from other types of product. Durability is ‘the ability of a product to perform its required function over a lengthy period under normal conditions of use without excessive expenditure on maintenance or repair’ (Cooper 1994b: 5). It is a measure of how long a product will continue functioning as intended and withstand ‘wear and tear’ and decay (or, more technically, resist stress or force) before it develops a defect that is deemed irrepairable. A product’s longevity describes its life-span (or ‘lifetime’)10 and is thus a somewhat different measure, being partly determined by factors other than attributes formed through design and manufacture. These factors include user behaviour towards a product and wider, socio-cultural influences. Deliberate effort needs to be made to utilize fully a product’s potential life-span, through careful use, regular maintenance, repair, reconditioning (e.g. upgrading) and reuse of functional items (rather than disposal). Attempts to lengthen product life-spans, whether by improving intrinsic durability, influencing user behaviour or promoting wider socio-cultural change, are described as product life extension (Conn 1977; OECD 1982; Heiskanen 1996).  

See http://extra.shu.ac.uk/productlife/ A distinction is sometimes made in official statistics between ‘durables’ and ‘semi-durables’. The latter refers to items that typically last more than a year but a shorter period than products categorized as durables; they include clothing, footwear, household textiles, tableware, small appliances, games and toys. 10 The term lifetime is generally used synonymously with life-span (cf. Bayus 1998).

the significance of product longevity



A product’s life cycle is a related concept that is used in several different contexts. In the context of consumption it distinguishes the successive phases of acquisition, use and disposal. It is also used in a marketing context, to describe the tendency for specific products (or brands) to pass through a series of stages (development, market introduction, growth, maturity, decline), and in life cycle assessment, a technique used to calculate the overall environmental impact of a product from raw material extraction to waste disposal.11 There are several definitions of product life-spans that need to be distinguished (Cooper 1994b). A product’s ‘technical life’ is the maximum period during which it has the physical capacity to function. This upper threshold is rarely reached, either because repair or maintenance work is prohibitive in terms of cost and effort or consumers choose to discard a functional product for another reason. A more commonly used definition is ‘service life’, a product’s total period in use from initial acquisition to final disposal as waste. The term reflects the idea of products as physical objects that provide a ‘service’ to the user. The service life of products may either be calculated retrospectively, by measuring the life-span of items that have been discarded, or predicted, in which case there will be a degree of uncertainty due to the many variables that determine when an item is discarded by the final user.12 A third definition, the ‘replacement life’ of a product, is the period from initial sale to the point at which the owner purchases a replacement, regardless of whether or not the original product still functions, and is of particular relevance to retailers.13 Finally, the point at which maintaining a product becomes more expensive than replacing it is its ‘economic life’ (Heiskanen 1996; Kostecki 1998). The most appropriate unit for measuring product life-spans will depend on the type of product and its pattern of use (e.g. duration, frequency and intensity). The norm is years, but other units may be equally (or more) relevant for certain types of product. Thus operational cycles may be used for items such as washing machines, dishwashers or toasters in order to take account of intensity of use. Hours in use may be most relevant for light bulbs,14 while for

11 An emerging trend in life cycle assessment is also to address social impacts. 12 For example, consumers will have different attitudes to the level of expenditure on repair and maintenance that they consider reasonable, particularly when the residual life of a product is unknown. 13 The original product, if functional, may have been sold as a second-hand item, given away or kept as a spare. 14 Current industry practice for ‘long life’ bulbs is to assume a certain daily usage and label bulbs with the equivalent number of years.

10

Longer Lasting Products

vehicles a combination of mileage (intensity of use) and age (years in operation) is generally used to determine resale value. Attempts to obtain data on product life-spans are fraught with difficulty. Simple functional tests to measure the technical life-span of products may not accurately reflect actual in-use conditions as it may be hard to simulate real situations. Accelerated functional testing15 could be used but is also subject to error. The service life of products is perhaps more relevant for government, industry and consumers but, again, measurement is not easy. Data obtained from consumer research, sales information or surveys of discarded products will relate to a historical situation and thus not necessarily be applicable to products currently on sale, the design of which may well have changed.16 Estimating a product’s life-span is especially problematic when a faulty product has been repaired. If, for example, after five years of service a prong on a garden fork breaks and is replaced and then, five years later, the wooden handle is damaged and replaced, providing five more years of service, how old was the fork at the time of disposal? The lack of product life-span data in the public domain, long recognized as a problem (Pennock and Jaeger 1957; Conn 1977; OECD 1982; Antonides 1990; Cooper 2004), is thus not surprising.17 Trends are uncertain. The review of international studies by the OECD (1982) found evidence that during the late 1960s and 1970s the average life-span of televisions and washing machine had increased while that of vacuum cleaners had decreased; it also noted significant variations between countries.18 There have been anecdotal claims in Britain of declining life-spans for various household appliances (March Consulting Group 1990; Market Transformation Programme 2005). Overall, however, a lack of published longitudinal data means that it is impossible to substantiate claims 15 Accelerated functional testing is a repetition or cycle test on a product that is performed under increased electrical, mechanical or thermal severity. 16 One method to estimate life-spans is to use survival rates by identifying the median for product survival from a benchmark year. Another is to use actuarial tables that identify the probability of a product of a particular age being discarded within the following year. Source data for such estimates may be derived from sales figures or self-reported figures from households (OECD 1982). 17 Increased government regulation of electrical and electronic waste has, however, led to studies in this sector (e.g. Cooper and Mayers 2000; Oguchi et al. 2008). 18 In the USA an early study by Pennock and Jaeger (1964) concluded that there appeared to have been an increase in the life-span of washing machines, cookers and refrigerators, although the increase was not statistically significant. Subsequent research which used this study as a benchmark (Ruffin and Tippett 1975) concluded that the average life-span of items purchased new had subsequently remained broadly unchanged but that there had been a decline in the life-span of items purchased second hand.

the significance of product longevity

11

that product life-spans have been falling; it would, in any case, be unwise to generalize.

The Economic Context The relationship between product longevity and the state of the economy has long been recognised. A recent historical study by Slade (2006) traced planned obsolescence, as a strategic goal, to events in the USA shortly before the 1929 stock market crash, when J. George Frederick, editor of Advertising and Selling, proposed the ‘progressive obsolescence principle’ whereby people would be encouraged to replace products that had not worn out.19 According to Frederick, people should be ‘buying for up-to-dateness, efficiency and style ... rather than simply for the last ounce of use’ (Slade 2006: 58). He was supported in such thinking by his wife, Christine, who promoted stylistic obsolescence in her highly popular book Selling Mrs Consumer. Such logic was soon applied to the economy as a whole. In 1928 investment banker Paul Mazur noted how ‘if what had filled the consumer market yesterday could only be made obsolete today ... that whole market would be again available tomorrow’ (Slade 2006: 60) and by the early 1930s designers Roy Sheldon and Egmont Arens were promoting ‘obsoletism’ as a ‘device for stimulating consumption’ (Slade 2006: 66). The expression ‘planned obsolescence’ first appeared in a pamphlet by Bernard London in 1932 entitled Ending the Depression through Planned Obsolescence which proposed government-imposed maximum product life-spans in times of widespread unemployment, at which point ‘people would turn in their used and obsolete goods to certain government agencies’ (Slade 2006: 75). In the midst of the Great Depression such sentiments appeared persuasive to many people and, indeed, the idea of obsolescence as beneficial to the economy has retained a degree of support. Thus in the latter part of the twentieth century planned obsolescence was regarded by some scholars as a means of enabling more efficient resource use (Grathwohl 1978)20 or the motor that drives the economy: ‘an engine of technological progress’ (Fishman et al. 1993). In the global recession that began in 2008, several governments introduced vehicle scrappage subsidies in order to increase car production and thereby stimulate economic growth.21 The relationship between product longevity and the

19 It was popularized rather later, in 1954, by designer Brooks Stevens. See Chapter 2 (Burns). 20 Grathwohl (1978: 340) argued that, in fields where technology was advancing, ‘for many products a short life policy would permit a reduction in excess quality.’ 21 See Chapter 10 (Cooper).

12

Longer Lasting Products

economy has become more complex, however, as the debate has shifted in focus from concerns relating to product quality and value for money to waste generation and other environmental impacts, and is poorly understood. Government policy in industrialized countries such as Britain has sought to decouple economic growth (with, by implication, rising consumption) from environmental impacts, in part through measures to increase resource productivity (Cabinet Office 2001; Defra 2002, 2003, 2005). This demands a transformation from a linear economic model to a circular economic model (Pearce and Turner 1990; Jacobs 1991).22 Economic activity has historically been based on the linear model, which assumes at the outset of any production process that the Earth has an unlimited supply of raw materials and energy and, at the end, an infinite capacity to absorb pollution and waste. No such assumptions are made in the circular model, which thus requires that the throughput of materials and energy be minimized by optimizing product longevity, reusing or reconditioning products and their components, and recycling (alongside other measures such as increasing energy efficiency). The use of these ‘loops’ in the circular economy reduces environmental impacts by utilizing resources more fully (Stahel and Reday-Mulvey 1981; Stahel and Jackson 1993; Cooper 1994b; Stahel 2010), perhaps ultimately leading to a ‘cradle to cradle’ approach to resource use (McDonough and Braungart 2002).23 Recycling has long been used by governments as an indicator of their environmental commitment and is an important element in the transition from a linear economy to a circular economy. Despite this positive portrayal, however, recycling has negative environmental impacts that are not always fully recognized and as such offers only a ‘least bad’ solution to waste: Energy is consumed as waste products are collected, sorted, cleaned and separated into their constituent materials. Pollution is caused, both as a by-product of this energy consumption and, more directly, by materials reclamation processes. The subsequent manufacture and distribution of products made from re­cycled materials also has an impact on the environment. (Cooper 1994b)24 22 The extensive academic literature on ecological economics addresses this shift. 23 McDonough and Braungart’s ‘cradle to cradle’ model proposes that resources used should either be synthetic materials that have no negative effects on the natural environment and are used in continuous cycles (‘technical nutrients’) or organic materials that, once used, can be disposed of in any natural environment and decompose into the soil (‘biological nutrients’). Consequently there is no waste. 24 No pagination; the quote is taken from the front cover.

the significance of product longevity

13

The reduced throughput of materials and energy required in industrial economies thus demands a strategy which goes beyond recycling and includes longer lasting products (Conn 1977; Cooper 1994b, 2000; McLaren et al. 1998). In other words, resources need to be used as efficiently as possible before products reach the point of disposal. In proposing the ‘Factor Four’ principle, that resource productivity should be quadrupled to enable a doubling of wealth while halving resource use, Von Weizsäcker et al. (1997: 70) argued that ‘durability is one of the most obvious strategies for reducing waste and increasing material productivity.’ A circular economy is a prerequisite for sustainability but may not be sufficient if resource throughput remains high. Nor will sustainability be achieved if improved efficiency is offset by increased consumption: in the case of energy, for example, overall electricity consumption in the Netherlands rose over a 20-year period despite significant efficiency improvements to appliances (OECD 2002). A complementary approach would be to slow down the rate at which raw materials are transformed into products and the products ‘used up’, a process which has been described as ‘slow consumption’.25 The language of ‘slow consumption’ may be problematic for politicians and economists used to portraying increased consumption as a sign of success. Even ‘sustainable consumption’ is subject to different interpretations: some United Nations representatives have proposed that it means consuming differently but not less, whereas critics have argued that ‘green consumerism’ is inadequate and radical lifestyle changes are required. In other words, sustainable development demands both efficiency and sufficiency (Fuchs and Lorek 2005). Astrategy to promote increased product longevity would unite these contrasting approaches which, if applied alone, could be problematic (Cooper 2005). Greater efficiency through increased resource productivity will not adequately reduce the environmental impacts of consumption if it results in ‘green growth’ and the environmental gains are offset by the ‘rebound effect’ of additional consumer spending (Chalkley et al. 2001). Achieving sufficiency by restraining consumption and thereby slowing down the throughput of materials and energy may lead to an unmanaged decline in economic activity that reduces environmental impacts but also results in unemployment and other social injustices. A trend towards longer

25 The term, derived from the ‘Slow Food’ movement, was cited by Christine Ax in Charter and Tischner (2002) and subsequently explored in Cooper (2005). The ‘slow’ philosophy has been popularized by Honoré (2004). See Chapter 6 (Fuad-Luke).

14

Longer Lasting Products

lasting products may prevent such problems, as seen in a simple model (Figure 1.1) described below: Increased product life spans, whether through greater intrinsic durability or better care and maintenance, may enable ... problems to be overcome by providing for both efficiency and sufficiency. They are a means by which materials are used more productively (i.e. the same quantity provides a longer service) and throughput is slowed (i.e. products are replaced less frequently). Meanwhile a shift to more highly skilled, craft-based production methods and increased repair and maintenance work would provide employment opportunities to offset the effect of reduced demand for new products. The model thus indicates that longer product life spans provide a route to sustainable consumption whereby reduced materials and energy throughput arising from eco-efficiency is not offset by increased consumption, while the economy remains healthy because products are carefully manufactured and maintained and there is less dependence on rising consumption for economic stability. (Cooper 2005: 55)

D R I V E R S

Efficiency

ECO-EFFICIENCY more productive use of materials and energy

INCREASED PRODUCT LIFE SPANS

‘Green growth’

Sustainable consumption

Sufficiency SLOW CONSUMPTION reduced throughput of products and services

Figure 1.1

O U T C O M E S

Recession

Product longevity as a means of integrating efficiency and sufficiency

Source: Cooper (2005).

Sources of Obsolescence The causes of inadequate product longevity in industrialized countries are complex. Obsolescence, when a product falls into disuse, has been categorized in various ways. Packard (1963) distinguished obsolescence of function, quality

the significance of product longevity

15

and desirability. He considered obsolescence of function, through which ‘an existing product becomes outmoded when a product is introduced that performs the function better’, to be acceptable. His criticism was reserved for obsolescence of quality, whereby through deliberate intent ‘a product breaks down or wears out at a given time, usually not too distant’, and obsolescence of desirability, whereby ‘a product that is still sound in terms of quality or performance becomes “worn out” in our minds because a styling or other change makes it seem less desirable’ (Packard 1963: 58–59).26 The OECD (1982) report differentiated between the influence of producers and consumers upon product life-spans. Describing the influence of producers, it argued that many technological improvements to products were minor and that cosmetic changes were used to encourage people to replace functional products, which it described as a form of psychological obsolescence.27 Noting that these strategies were reinforced by advertising, it contrasted this with the failure of producers to provide equivalent marketing information on product durability. The OECD’s criticism was not only aimed at producers, however. Its report noted that ‘it is the replacement of adequately functioning goods by consumers that causes the waste, rather than the production of the goods’ (OECD 1982: 25). Thus it also described the influence of consumers upon product lifespans through their behaviour, such as their responses to prices (specifically, the cost of repairs in relation to replacement), comparisons made between their possessions and those of neighbours, and their reactions to cosmetic changes in design and to special offers (including trade-in allowances). Clearly a range of typologies for obsolescence are possible. Cooper (1994b) summarized the key influences on product life-spans as fitness,28 function and fashion, while Heiskanen (1996) categorized obsolescence by failure, dissatisfaction (as a result of the improved quality of new products, new styles and fashion) and changes in consumer needs. Kostecki (1998) took a different approach, classifying determinants of durability, rather than obsolescence, and distinguishing the functional, economic and symbolic. Cooper (2004) drew attention to technological, psychological and economic obsolescence (Figure 1.2). Van Nes and Cramer (2006) identified a typology for replacement motives, which consisted of wear and tear, improved utility (safety and economy in use), 26 Packard also used the term ‘psychological obsolescence’ to describe obsolescence of desirability. 27 Strasser (1999: 192) argued that Packard oversimplified the distinction between style and technological advance: ‘In practice, stylistic and technological obsolescence have gone hand in hand throughout the twentieth century.’ 28 A product is ‘fit for purpose’ when it functions as would reasonably be expected by users.

16

Longer Lasting Products

Figure 1.2 Forms of relative obsolescence Source: Cooper (2004). improved expression (comfort in use and design or quality concerns) and new desires. In short, there is no definitive typology of the causes of obsolescence, which are complex and interrelated. In exploring the sources of obsolescence an expedient starting point is to distinguish factors relating to the product, the consumer and the situational context (including the economic and socio-cultural system). These are addressed briefly in turn below. An important distinction to make is between the failure of a product to function, absolute obsolescence, and the falling into disuse of a functional product, relative obsolescence.29 Absolute obsolescence occurs when a product reaches the end of its technical life because its durability is expended and it is no longer able to withstand wear and tear from use, perhaps because of

29 There is not always a clear distinction, however, as owners make subjective judgements concerning whether broken products are repairable and worn products are suitable for reconditioning. For example, they (subconsciously) estimate and compare the performance/ cost ratio for repair or reconditioning with that for replacement.

the significance of product longevity

17

material degradation.30 A product’s durability will depend on the materials used, the quality of design, manufacture and assembly, process quality (e.g. consistency), ease of maintenance, reparability and, perhaps, upgradeability. Although these result from decisions made by manufacturers, they will also be influenced by the market structure and conditions, including consumer demand and, perhaps, the mode of supply (i.e. rental or sale). Once in use, a product’s durability may also be influenced by its operating environment (due to the potential impact of moisture, light or heat) and by how intensively and carefully it is used (including any necessary maintenance and the use of related consumables such as fuel or water). Relative obsolescence occurs when a functional product is discarded, at which point ‘discretionary replacement’ may take place. Rational choice theory might suggest that owners carefully apply objective cost-benefit considerations linked to product functionality in making such decisions, but in practice a multitude of influences are likely to be involved. Little research has been published on the influence of consumers upon product life-spans. Although the OECD (1982) uncovered evidence that people’s age and life stage (e.g. marital status and age of children) influence product retention rates,31 Evans and Cooper (2003a, b) found that demographic and socio-economic variables offered only weak explanations for behaviour relating to product life-spans and concluded that psychological variables are more important.32 People became aware that they were dissatisfied by a product, perhaps because it had lost its initial symbolic or esteem value33 or its aesthetic attraction, or no longer needed it. Consumers’ decisions to replace functional products are often prompted by new product development. The styling of many consumer durables changes frequently, often incrementally but sometimes in a more substantial transformation. Functional attributes may change as a result of advances in technology or new manufacturing capability. As a consequence, existing products may be considered inferior to new models that offer additional features (perhaps incorporating increased information or communication capability), greater reliability or improved energy efficiency.34 30 For example, rubber dries and cracks, iron rusts and wood rots. 31 The evidence indicated a positive correlation, one explanation being that items such as washing machines were used more intensively in younger households. 32 See Chapter 14 (Evans and Cooper). 33 Its ability to meet needs relating to the owner’s self-image. 34 One of the aims of marketing is to change owners’ perceptions of their possessions in relation to newer models (Bayus 1988).

18

Longer Lasting Products

Lastly, the situational context has an important influence upon consumers’ decisions at each stage in the consumption process: acquisition, use and disposal. The situational context includes the home setting, and economic and socio-cultural influences, notably the effect of market forces and social norms. Moving house, for example, particularly to one of different size, may prompt a clear-out of unwanted or unsuitable items. Product prices are established through the market mechanism. The original and replacement cost of products, together with the rate at which products depreciate in value over time (and thus any second-hand value), will influence the point at which owners consider them no longer worth maintaining.35 The rate of depreciation over time will depend, in part, on the nature of the product: products subject to technological change are liable to depreciate rapidly, whereas good quality furniture may not depreciate and, indeed, may appreciate in value over time. Other economic factors that influence consumers’ decisions include the running costs of vehicles and appliances (notably fuel or energy) and, in the event of faults arising, the cost of repair in relation to replacement. As prices for many consumer durables have fallen in real terms due to reduced manufacturing costs, replacement has become increasingly attractive. Market mechanisms are often flawed, which has an impact on product lifespans. For example, short-lived products are relatively cheap because the cost of managing the waste that they create when discarded is not properly reflected in prices but is ‘externalized’.36 Market structures, too, may affect product lifespans. Much research has been undertaken by economists on whether there is any connection between the degree of competition in a market and product life-spans, although such studies have been criticised for using unrealistic theoretical assumptions (Waldman 2003). Some have concluded that the more concentrated (and thus monopolistic) the industry, the greater the incentive to manufacturers to reduce product life-spans, while others have argued that manufacturers would instead increase prices (OECD 1982; Heiskanen 1996). The OECD concluded that the weight of theoretical evidence supported the former link, between market concentration and product longevity, noting that, in practice, most producers of consumer durables operated in concentrated markets and were therefore able to influence product life-spans. 35 Many people have a strong preference for products that are new and are willing to pay a premium for ‘virginity value’. This is reflected in the rapid depreciation in the price of some types of product: the value of a car, for example, may drop by 50 per cent after the first three years of use even though this may represent barely 25 per cent of its expected life-span. 36 Such costs are paid through local taxation indiscriminately rather than in proportion to the amount of waste that individual households create.

the significance of product longevity

19

There is no equivalent body of research that has specifically explored the implications for product longevity of socio-cultural influences and trends, although several disciplines (notably sociology, anthropology, human geography and design history) have offered significant insights. Important contributions include the ‘cultural theory of expendability’ discussed by Whiteley (1987), who traced the origins of ‘style obsolescence’ in Britain in the 1960s and sought to explain its public acceptance, and the ‘desire for the new’ proposed by Campbell (1992) as a means of understanding modern consumerism. Sociologists have made an important contribution to understanding the use phase of consumption in recent studies of ‘ordinary consumption’, exploring the significance of behaviour as an outcome of subconscious decisions and habit rather than conscious reflection (Gronow and Warde 2001) and of repair, reuse and second-hand markets (Gregson and Crewe 2003; Watson 2008).37 The significance of the socio-cultural dimension to product longevity has been highlighted by Gregson et al. (2007: 682), who argue that to understand the increasing amount of matter being turned to waste it is necessary to consider the social relations of family and home and have ‘a focus on love relations and mobility, and not on the trajectories of things themselves.’

The Case for Longer Life-Spans The case in favour of promoting increased product longevity is primarily based on potential environmental benefits, although there may also be economic and social gains, such as better value for money and more jobs in repair and maintenance, and greater consumer satisfaction. Increased product life-spans should slow the throughput of materials and energy, resulting in reduced use of finite resources, fewer emissions of pollutants (including greenhouse gases) and a smaller amount of residual waste to dispose as landfill. How has evidence of the importance of resource throughput emerged? As consumption rose through the second half of the twentieth century, reports such as The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al. 1972) warned that the growth in global industrial output, combined with other trends such as a rising global population, threatened to deplete the Earth’s finite reserves of raw materials. By the early 1980s, however, an economic recession was affecting the USA and Britain and such fears were widely dismissed, although they resurfaced in a report in Scientific American which warned that reserves of copper, nickel and molybdenum were below 70 years (Frosch and Gallopoulos 37 See Chapter 17 (Curran).

20

Longer Lasting Products

1989). More recently, the rapid industrialization and growth of consumption in China and India has revived interest in future resource availability. A report from the US Academy of Sciences concluded that platinum, copper, zinc and other scarce metals are being rapidly depleted, raising a threat of rising prices (Gordon et al. 2006). Unsustainable consumption in Britain, the fifth largest economy in the world,38 is contributing to this global resource concern. Environmental impacts at the start of the life cycle of goods consumed in Britain are increasingly overseas due to the relocation of much of its manufacturing to low wage countries: around one third of the nation’s ‘total material requirement’ is imported (Defra 2002).39 At the end of their life cycle products become waste, of which only part is recycled. Even a decade ago almost 9 million tonnes (mt) of consumer durables were thrown away annually, including 2.6mt of cars and car parts, 2mt of furniture and carpets, 1mt of clothing and footwear and 1mt of electrical items (Biffa 1997); current figures will almost certainly be higher. The total throughput of materials arising from such consumption is even greater, as a tonne of waste at the consumer end of the waste stream typically requires the production of 5 tonnes at the manufacturing stage and 20 tonnes at the site of initial resource extraction (Meadows et al. 1992). The potential of increased product longevity to enable a reduction in the throughput of materials (and, by implication, energy40) requires further research. Any lengthening of a product’s life-span is likely to be matched by a proportional reduction in environmental impact in terms of resource use and waste generation (Conn 1977; Stahel and Reday-Mulvey 1981; OECD 1982; Box 1983; Van Nes and Cramer 2006; Eunomia et al. 2007).41 Increased product durability may also have negative environmental impacts, however, depending on how it is achieved (Sirkin and ten Houten 1994). For example, redesigning products for increased longevity may involve using thicker gauge surfaces or shells, adding diagnostic parts, using non-recyclable materials (e.g. composite, ceramics, certain plastics) or applying non-recyclable material coatings. Rethinking design may also demand a degree of creative experimentation and 38 World Bank data for 2007. The largest four economies were the USA, Japan, Germany and China. 39 The imported proportion was 686 million tonnes (mt) in 1999. Over the previous two decades it rose substantially, from 469mt in 1981, reflecting the growth in manufactured imports. 40 The products’ embodied energy and energy associated with distribution. 41 Thus in the case of a 20 per cent increase in longevity (from, say, 10 years to 12 years), the environmental gain would be 20 per cent of the initial impact (Van Nes and Cramer 2006). In practice, the impact of reduced waste on secondary material markets may complicate this equation.

the significance of product longevity

21

risk, which may lead to products that are less standardized, some of which may prove unsuccessful and short lived. More controversially, maintaining old energy-using products such as vehicles and appliances may prevent material waste but involve inefficient energy consumption. In such cases it is appropriate, therefore, to configure the debate around the potential for optimizing, rather than maximizing, product life-spans (Cooper, 1994b; Chalkley et al. 2003; Van Nes and Cramer 2006).42 In the case of energy-using products, the potential for a trade-off between longevity and energy efficiency has led to a degree of controversy. Improvements in energy efficiency have been used to justify and, indeed, promote the replacement of functional items, despite the implied increase in waste. Supporting evidence has come from life cycle assessment (LCA) studies which indicate that, for many such products, more energy is consumed during the use phase than in their production, distribution and disposal. An early study, on washing machines, concluded that ‘for nearly all environmental impact measures, replacement with a more efficient model would seem to be clearly preferable to increased longevity’ (UK Ecolabelling Board 1992: 36). Although certain aspects of its methodology were suspect,43 the conclusion proved influential in government and industry.44 Several more recent studies have similarly argued that old appliances should be replaced in order to gain the benefit of more energy efficient models (Chalkley et al. 2003; Rüdenauer and Gensch 2006; Stamminger 2006). The wisdom of such a strategy is questionable. The possibility of further improvements in energy efficiency means that product replacement is not necessarily beneficial, because it locks purchasers into the prevailing technology (Heiskanen 1996; Consumers International 1998; Chalkley et al. 2003). Moreover, energy-use improvements in new products may be offset by other changes. In the case of vehicles, for example, additional features such as electric motors (for windows and sunroofs) added weight, negating many of the gains in basic fuel efficiency (Nieuwenhuis 1994). Similarly, the purchase of new energy-efficient refrigeration equipment may not result in reduced energy consumption if its capacity is larger than the item replaced or the old equipment is retained and kept in operation (Strandbakken 2009). Academic evidence remains rather inconclusive. For example, research suggests that shorter replacement intervals

42 See Chapter 2 (Burns). 43 The analysis excluded the impact of raw materials extraction and assumed, rather optimistically, that a washing machine typically lasts for 14 years (Cooper 1994b). 44 See Chapter 10 (Cooper).

22

Longer Lasting Products

for vehicles result in lower emissions of air pollutants but increased carbon dioxide emissions and energy use (Spitzley et al. 2005). In the case of appliance reuse, there are social benefits in the form of employment, but environmental benefits may be marginal (Truttmann and Rechberger 2006). They are sensitive to the efficiency of the appliance and future intensity of use (Dewulf et al. 2005; Devoldere et al. 2009) and depend on whether comparisons are made with high performing appliances or the lower quality appliances with which they are liable to compete (Bröhl-Kerner 2008). In summary, there is a strong prima facie environmental argument in favour of longer lasting products. In the case of vehicles and appliances, however, the optimum life-span will depend on the technological trajectory for future improvements in energy efficiency and any changes, such as increased weight and capacity, need to be taken into consideration in the replacement decision. More research is needed to understand the likely impacts on the economy, although increased after-sales services, being labour intensive, would provide additional employment in the domestic economy and there may be net benefits to the overseas trade balance. Evidence of consumer dissatisfaction with appliance life-spans (described below) suggests that an increase in longevity in this product sector would offer further benefits; the same is probably true for other products. If an increase in product longevity is to be proposed as a strategic goal, the implications for industry and consumers need to be addressed.45 For example, is industry likely to respond to the challenge of producing longer lasting products without government involvement or increased demand from consumers? Would consumers be willing to pay more for such products if they had access to better information on their anticipated life-spans?

Implications for Industry It has long been apparent that there are a multitude of pressures on manufacturers and retailers to produce and sell short-lived goods (Gabor and Colombo 1981; Cooper 1994a; Weaver 2008). Market research suggests that price is the primary consideration in most consumers’ purchasing decisions. In response, retailers often strive to meet price points,46 which may lead to incremental reductions 45 The implications for government are addressed in Chapter 10 (Cooper). 46 Price points are incremental levels at which demand is relatively high, usually reflecting the psychological effect of any increase in price (e.g. from £99 to £100).

the significance of product longevity

23

in product quality as manufacturers seek to reduce production costs. Premium quality ranges are available for most consumer durables but, in general, only a small proportion of consumers are both able and willing to pay the higher prices charged for such products. Another pressure on companies operating in saturated markets (the norm for many consumer durables) is their dependence on replacement sales. This may lead them to use design and marketing strategies that encourage consumers to discard functional products, thereby accelerating the replacement process (Bayus 1988). As noted above, some economists argue that in monopolistic markets a strategy to reduce product life spans is a rational approach to profit maximization. What is the prospect for a countervailing pressure upon companies, towards increased longevity? One potential influence is producer responsibility legislation, which has led manufacturers and retailers of vehicles and electrical and electronic appliances to pay greater attention to the use and disposal phases in the product life cycle by making them responsible for discarded goods and establishing targets for recovery and recycling.47 The same approach is expected to be applied in due course to other bulky household goods such as furniture and floor coverings. Such legislation is not unattractive to industry in principle, as long as there is a level playing field, because recycling provides a ‘green’ image without threatening sales turnover. Indeed, sceptics have suggested that recycling is liable to be exploited as a ‘green’ tool to increase sales: ‘Recycling offers business an environmental excuse for instant obsolescence’ (Fairlie 1992: 280). An alternative, more positive, conclusion is that the increased attention given by companies to the use and disposal phases may lead them to seek to manage the life cycle of products more carefully and identify new commercial opportunities as they attempt to improve product performance (Westkämper et al. 2001; Stahel 2010).48 Another potential influence upon companies is the sustainable consumption and production agenda. A remarkable statement by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, a coalition of leading international companies, appeared in a report on this theme: ‘Rather than planned obsolescence (a marketing approach which many feel has for too long held sway) the goal should be to achieve longer product life-spans by adopting strategies such as the design of upgradable and repairable products and the production of more durable goods’ (WBCSD 1996: 17). The next stage is to translate such a 47 Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles (ELV) and Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). See Chapter 10 (Cooper). 48 For example, new or enhanced after-sales services.

24

Longer Lasting Products

sentiment into practice, which may require a broader international consensus, with support from governments. According to the European Commission’s Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan, published in 2008: Retailers and producers are increasingly recognising sustainability as a considerable opportunity for their businesses to grow, compete and innovate. However, further effort is needed to reduce the environmental footprint of the retail sector and its supply chain, promote more sustainable products, and better inform consumers.49 To this end the Action Plan indicated that the Eco-Design Directive50 enables the Commission to enact implementing measures on the environmental aspects of products, among which is ‘extension of life-time’. In Britain, the Government’s sustainable development strategy similarly concluded that environmental policy should be an important driver of innovation and business competitiveness, and that innovation aimed at reducing environmental impacts ought to include ‘product design to minimise waste’ (Defra 2005: 44). The extent to which companies will respond to such political signals to develop longer lasting products with their own, voluntary initiatives or require government intervention remains to be seen. As noted earlier, in the case of most consumer durables a diverse range of products are available, ranging from those made relatively cheaply to others of premium quality that are intended for long life-spans. If sustainable development demands an overall increase in product life-spans, there need to be growth in premium share of the market. This suggests that industries need to explore how to promote higher quality products. Although such a trend may result in lower overall sales of new products, it should be possible for companies to maintain their profitability by providing higher ‘added value’ (reflected in premium prices) and offering enhanced after-sales services. This contrasts with the traditional business model of seeking to maximize sales (and thereby benefit from economies of scale) by competitive pricing, which may

49 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan {COM(2008) 397}. 50 Directive 2005/32/EC establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-using products. The Directive distinguishes ‘implementing measures’ from ‘binding requirements’.

the significance of product longevity

25

involve using relatively cheap factors of production in order to reduce costs and maintain profitability (Cooper 1994a; Kostecki 1998; Weaver 2008). Redesigning products and changing consumer preferences, as described above, may need to be underpinned by new business models that reshape the means by which consumers obtain products and services. Stahel and Jackson (1993: 288) have criticized the prevailing ‘fast replacement’ production system and propose that ‘commercial innovations are necessary to decouple the profitability of commercial enterprises from the throughput of goods for consumption.’ They suggest that the source of future company profitability should be the sale of services rather than products.51 Nieuwenhuis (1994: 170) has similarly speculated that in a more sustainable system ‘car producers might make their money not primarily by making and selling new cars, but by selling spares, repair and afterware through their dealer networks to keep their own products on the road for a long time.’ Such examples of reconfiguring the product-service mix represent a systems-based approach through which material throughput is reduced while the service provided is maintained (or increased) (Cooper and Evans 2000; Vezzoli and Manzini 2008). Despite growing public awareness of environmental problems over several decades, there have been few signs of any growth in consumer demand for longer lasting products. Companies have consequently been disinclined to adopt strategies to increase product longevity significantly. More effective government policies to encourage sustainable product design and prioritize waste reduction appear necessary in order to achieve such change.52

Implications for Consumers Consumers share responsibility for the prevailing throwaway culture in industrialized nations. Grathwohl (1978: 344) concluded ‘The market is least guilty of misprision and those who plan obsolescence are virtually innocent … The consumer is the real villain in our play; he or she seeks psychological enhancement and demands it from the market system.’ A more subtle approach is taken by Van Nes and Cramer (2006: 1308): ‘It is not an intrinsic characteristic

51 ‘Service’ in this context refers to the utility provided by a product’s functionality. For example, the service provided by a car is mobility and that of a washing machine is clean clothes. See also Kostecki (1998), Mont (2008) and Weaver (2008). 52 See Chapter 10 (Cooper).

26

Longer Lasting Products

of the product that needs to be changed, but it is the behaviour of the consumer that needs to be changed through the product design.’ Consumer behaviour influences product life-spans in many ways. People’s purchasing choices (e.g. budget or premium range; new or second hand), the care with which they use products (including cleaning and other maintenance), the frequency and intensity with which products are used, and people’s decisions concerning whether to repair faulty products and when and how to dispose of unwanted products collectively have an impact (Consumers International 1998; Evans and Cooper 2003a, b). The significance of consumer behaviour is demonstrated by the number of discarded products that are still functional: between one quarter and one third in the case of appliances (OECD 1982; Box 1983; Cooper and Mayers 2000). The range of consumer durables available in most product sectors allows prospective purchasers to exert a degree of choice in terms of quality. Many may assume that premium range products are of higher quality and offer greater durability, despite a lack of firm evidence to substantiate this: there is often little information available about a product’s design life other than vague marketing claims or manufacturers’ reputations.53 It is not surprising, therefore, that surveys have indicated that consumers want more information on product life-spans (National Consumer Council 1989; Cooper and Mayers 2000). Such information is necessary for them to make appropriate choices. In order to judge whether products intended to have relatively long life-spans offer better value for money, for example, consumers need to know the anticipated cost per unit of service life provided, not simply the price. Although products designed for increased longevity are liable to be more expensive, consumers benefit if the extra cost is offset by a significantly longer service life: for example, a product that costs half as much again as another to purchase, but lasts twice as long, may be considered to represent good value for money.54 If a trend towards increased product durability resulted in higher prices, a reasonable assumption, important social issues would arise concerning affordability for less affluent households. Second-hand markets have historically benefited poorer consumers, while alleviating the guilt of those who discard functional appliances. Such is the ‘desire for the new’ that there is often a market surplus of unwanted second-hand items, particularly furniture, clothes and toys, which are consequently heavily discounted. The prospect of 53 See Chapter 12 (Cooper and Christer). 54 The significance of ‘service-life pricing’ is discussed in Fuller (1999: 303–11).

the significance of product longevity

27

more people being forced to buy second-hand may nonetheless be considered unacceptable. Moreover, if products are designed for increased durability and retained for longer periods, fewer items will be discarded and enter the reuse market and the cost of second-hand goods may rise. If such a situation arises, increased government support will be needed to help poorer consumers (Cooper 1998). What is the likelihood of a change in consumers’ attitudes and behaviour towards product life-spans? Most market research studies suggest that, for many consumers, durability is not a high priority.55 There is, however, a degree of dissatisfaction when products have unduly short life-spans, not least because ‘short term obsolescence of durable goods tends to inflate consumer expenditure without contributing to welfare’ (Jackson and Marks: 1994: 12). One study revealed consumers to be evenly divided over whether, in general, household appliances last long enough (Cooper and Mayers 2000). Detailed analysis revealed that women were more dissatisfied than men, and that women were more likely to be deterred from buying longer lasting appliances by price, whereas men were more concerned that such products are liable to become out of date (Cooper 2004). Changing consumer behaviour in order to progress towards sustainable consumption will demand greater understanding of the range of influences at work (Jackson 2005). Attitudes and behaviour towards consumer durables have changed over the past half century. Whereas consumer durables were once regarded as long term investments, nowadays many consumers replace such products relatively frequently. Attempts to influence this behaviour are liable to be criticized as moralistic or restricting consumers’ freedom. The belief that people have a virtually unlimited ‘right to consume’ is, however, increasingly questioned as a result of environmental concern, and the concept of ‘conscious’ or ‘responsible’ consumption is beginning to supplant that of consumer sovereignty (Hansen and Schrader 1997; Scherhorn 2005; Cooper 2008). A sign that people are willing to recognize boundaries beyond which consumption is considered unacceptable is their apparent willingness to accept ‘choice editing’ (Sustainable Consumption Roundtable 2006).56 It is quite possible, therefore, that attitudes and behaviour will change. In the short term, better point of sale information about product life-spans would raise the profile of the issue in 55 This observation is subject to uncertainty, however, due to the use of overlapping categories such as ‘quality’ and ‘durability’ in survey classification in some studies. 56 Choice editing refers to the pre-selection of products (and services) by government or retailers, who determine which are made available to consumers (e.g. retailers decide not to stock certain types of product on ethical grounds and governments set product standards).

28

Longer Lasting Products

consumers’ minds and enable them to make better judgements. In the longer term, a shift towards slow consumption will demand a more profound cultural change in how society perceives, and responds to, the passing of time.57

Conclusion Consumption patterns across the industrialized world are unsustainable, demanding an excessively fast throughput of materials and energy. Sustainability will only be achieved if the prevailing throwaway culture in industrial countries is transformed and there is a shift towards longer lasting products. This will require a response across many sectors of society: such a trend will demand changes in public policy, design and marketing strategies in industry, consumers’ values, attitudes and behaviour, and socio-cultural norms. A review of the historical debate on product life-spans reveals different perspectives on the causes of the throwaway society and, indeed, whether it is problematic: some observers have concluded that planned obsolescence enables countries to escape economic recession or achieve technological advance. Most, however, have been critical. Early critics, who included industrialists as well as consumer advocates and academics, complained about poor quality products and value for money. More recent concern has focused on the link between short product life-spans and unsustainable resource throughput. While there is an emergent academic debate, cutting across several disciplines, a historical lack of research means that, overall, the knowledge base in the field remains weak. The economic system within which companies operate, based as it is on fast throughput and ever-increasing sales, currently offers few incentives to increase product longevity. This may change, however, as a result of growing political pressure to address excessive materials throughput, or competitive pressure to design less wasteful products and improve after-sales services. Consumers share responsibility together with government and industry for determining whether the throwaway culture persists, as they influence overall product life-spans through their purchasing choices, the extent to which they look after products and their decisions on repair and replacement. If they are 57 The Long Now Foundation, for example, aims to provide a counterpoint to what it views as today’s ‘faster/cheaper’ mindset and to promote ‘slower/better’ thinking (Brand 1999). See also Chapter 6 (Fuad-Luke).

the significance of product longevity

29

to contribute to a trend towards greater product longevity, however, they need better information on the intended life-span of products to enable them to judge which models offer best value for money. The new wave of interest in product life-spans in the context of debate on sustainable consumption and production provides an opportunity to reflect upon how to transform a throwaway culture. It would be a tragedy if governments, businesses and consumers ignored the potential for change.

References ANTONIDES, G. (1990). The Lifetime of a Durable Good. Dordrecht: Kluwer. BARBIROLI, G. (2008). Profile of products enduring quality over long periods as strategic factor to increase their utilisation rate. International Journal of Product Development 6 (3-4), 450–67. BARR, S. (2007). Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviours: A UK case study of household waste management. Environment and Behavior 39 (4), 435–73. BARR, S., GILG, A.W. and FORD, N.J. (2001). A conceptual framework for understanding and analysing attitudes towards household waste management. Environment and Planning A 33 (11), 2025–48. BARR, S., GILG, A. and FORD, N. (2005). Defining the multi-dimensional aspects of household waste management: A study of reported behavior in Devon. Resources Conservation and Recycling 45 (2), 172–92. BAYUS, B.L. (1988). Accelerating the durable replacement cycle with marketing mix variables. Journal of Product Innovation Management 5 (3), 216–26. BAYUS, B.L. (1998). An analysis of product lifetimes in a technologically dynamic industry. Management Science 44 (6), 763–75. BIFFA (1997). Great Britain plc: The environmental balance sheet. High Wycombe: Biffa Waste Services. BOX, J.M.F. (1983). Extending product lifetime: Prospects and opportunities. European Journal of Marketing 17 (4), 34–49. BRAND, S. (1999). The Clock of the Long Now: Time and responsibility. London: Phoenix. BRÖHL-KERNER, H. (2008). Intelligent replacement-making optimal use of household appliances. [online]. Proceedings, Sustainable Consumption and Production: Framework for action. Conference of the Sustainable Consumption Research Exchange (SCORE) Network, 10–11 March, Brussels, Belgium. Accessed 1 May 2009 at http://www.score-network.org

30

Longer Lasting Products

BURALL, P. (1991). Green Design. London: Design Council. CABINET OFFICE (2001). Resource Productivity: Making more with less. London: Cabinet Office. CAMPBELL, C. (1992). The desire for the new. In: SILVERSTONE, R. and HIRSCH, E. (eds). Consuming Technologies. London: Routledge, pp. 48–64. CHALKLEY, A.M., BILLETT, E. and HARRISON, D. (2001). An investigation of the possible extent of the re-spending rebound effect in the sphere of consumer products. Journal of Sustainable Product Design 1, 162–70. CHALKLEY, A.M., BILLETT, E., HARRISON, D, and SIMPSON, G. (2003). Development of a method for calculating the environmentally optimum lifespan of electrical household products. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B. Journal of Engineering Manufacture 217 (11), 1521–31. CHAPMAN, J. (2005). Emotionally Durable Design. London: Earthscan. CHARTER, M. and TISCHNER, U. (eds) (2001). Sustainable Solutions: Developing products and services for the future. Sheffield: Greenleaf. COGGINS, C. (2001). Waste prevention – an issue of shared responsibility for UK producers and consumers: Policy options and measurement. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 32 (3–4), 181–90. CONN, W.D. (1977). Consumer product life extension in the context of materials and energy flows. In: PEARCE, D.W. and WALTER, I. (eds). Resource Conservation: Social and economic dimensions of recycling. London: Longman, pp. 127-43. CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL (1998). Green Guidance. London: Consumers International. COOPER, T. (1994a). The durability of consumer durables. Business Strategy and the Environment 3 (1), 23-30. COOPER, T. (1994b). Beyond Recycling: The longer life option. London: New Economics Foundation. COOPER, T. (1998). Poor people, poor products? The Home Economist 17 (4), 21-4. COOPER, T. (2000). Product development implications of sustainable consumption. Design Journal 3 (2), 46–57. COOPER, T. (2004). Inadequate life? Evidence of consumer attitudes to product obsolescence. Journal of Consumer Policy 27 (4), 421–49. COOPER, T. (2005). Slower consumption: Reflections on product life cycles and the ‘throwaway society’. Journal of Industrial Ecology 9 (1–2), 51–67. COOPER, T. (2008). From consumer sovereignty to consumer governance: Room for choice in consumption. In: COUNCIL OF EUROPE. Rethinking Consumer Behaviour for the Well-Being of All: Reflections on individual consumer responsibility. Paris: Council of Europe, pp. 40–45.

the significance of product longevity

31

COOPER, T. and EVANS, S. (2000). Products to Services. London: Friends of the Earth. COOPER, T. and MAYERS, K. (2000). Prospects for Household Appliances. Halifax: Urban Mines Ltd. CRIPPS, J.D. and MEYER, R.J. (1994). Heuristics and biases in timing the replacement of durable products. Journal of Consumer Research 21, 304–18. DEBELL, M. and DARDIS, R. (1979). Extending product life: Technology isn’t the only issue. Advances in Consumer Research 6, 381–5. DEFRA (DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS) (2002). Resource Use and Efficiency of the UK Economy. Report by the Wuppertal Institute for Defra. London: Defra. DEFRA (DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS) (2003). Changing Patterns: UK Government framework for sustainable consumption and production. London: Defra. DEFRA (DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS) (2005). Securing the Future: the UK Government’s sustainable development strategy. Cm. 6467. Norwich: The Stationery Office. DEVOLDERE, T., WILLEMS, B., DUFLOU, J.R. and DEWULF, W. (2009). The eco-efficiency of reuse centres critically explored – the washing machine case. International Journal of Sustainable Manufacturing 1 (3), 265–85. DEWULF, W., WILLEMS, B. and DUFLOU, J.R. (2005). The eco-efficiency of reuse centres critically explored – the refrigerator case. Proceedings of European Roundtable on Sustainable and Cleaner Production, 5–7 October, Antwerp, Belgium. DE YOUNG, R., DUNCAN, A., FRANK, J., GILL, N., ROTHMAN, S., SHENOT, J., SHOTKIN, A. and ZWEIZIG, M. (1993). Promoting source reduction behavior: The role of motivational information. Environment and Behavior 25 (1), 70–85. ELLIS, R.M. and HAYWOOD, A.H. (2006). The Implications of eBay for the Policy Community. Chimera Working Paper 2006–09. Colchester: University of Essex. EUNOMIA RESEARCH & CONSULTING, THE ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL, ÖKO INSTITUT, TNO and ATLANTIC CONSULTING (2007). Household Waste Prevention – Policy Side Research Programme. Final Report for Defra. National Resource and Waste Forum collaborative project. Bristol: Eunomia Research & Consulting. EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2005). The European Environment: State and outlook 2005. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency. EVANS, S. and COOPER, T. (2003a). Waste not, want not? An exploration of the effect of consumer behaviour on the service life of three categories of household product. Chartered Institute of Wastes Management Annual Conference, 10–13 June, Paignton.

32

Longer Lasting Products

EVANS, S. and COOPER, T. (2003b). Consuming to last: The contradictions and complexities of optimising product life in contemporary society. Social Futures: Desire, Excess and Waste. British Sociological Association Annual Conference, 11–13 April, York. FAIRLIE, S. (1992). Long distance, short life: Why big business favours recycling. The Ecologist 22 (6), 276–83. FIKSEL, J. (1996). Design for Environment. New York: McGraw Hill. FISHMAN, A., GANDAL, N. and SHY, O. (1993). Planned obsolescence as an engine of technological progress. Journal of Industrial Economics XLI, 361–70. FROSCH, R.A. and GALLOPOULOS, N.E. (1989). Strategies for manu­facturing. Scientific American, September, 94–102. FUCHS, D.A. and LOREK, S. (2005). Sustainable consumption governance: A history of promises and failures. Journal of Consumer Policy 28 (3), 261–88. FULLER, D.A. (1999). Sustainable Marketing. London: Sage. GABOR, D. and COLOMBO, U. (1981). Beyond the Age of Waste (2nd edn). Report to the Club of Rome. Oxford: Pergamon. GORDON, R.B., BERTRAM, M. and GRAEDEL, T.E. (2006). Metal stocks and sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 103 (5), 1209–14. GRATHWOHL, H. (1978). Planned obsolescence and resource allocation. In: AAKER, D.A. and DAY, G.S. (eds). Consumerism (3rd edn). London: Collier Macmillan, pp. 336–46. GREGSON, N. and CREWE, L. (2003). Second-Hand Cultures. Oxford: Berg. GREGSON, N., METCALFE, A. and CREWE, L. (2007). Identity, mobility and the throwaway society. Environment and Planning D 25, 682–700. GRONOW, J. and WARDE A. (eds). (2001). Ordinary Consumption. London: Routledge. GUILTINAN, J. (2009). Creative destruction and destructive creations: Environmental ethics, and planned obsolescence. Journal of Business Ethics 89, 19–28. HANSEN, U. and SCHRADER, U. (1997). A modern model of consumption for a sustainable society. Journal of Consumer Policy 20, 443–68. HANSON, J.W. (1980). A proposed paradigm for consumer product disposition processes. Journal of Consumer Affairs 14 (1), 49–67. HARRELL, G.D. and MCCONOCHA, D.M. (1992). Personal factors related to consumer product disposal tendencies. Journal of Consumer Affairs 26 (2), 397–417. HEISKANEN, E. (1996). Conditions for Product Life Extension. Working Paper 23, Helsinki: National Consumer Research Centre. HONORÉ, Carl (2005). In Praise of SLOW. London: Orion Books.

the significance of product longevity

33

JACKSON, T. (2005). Motivating Sustainable Consumption: A review of evidence on consumer behaviour and behavioural change. Report to the Sustainable Development Research Network. Centre for Environmental Strategy, Surrey University. JACKSON, T. and MARKS, N. (1994). Measuring Sustainable Economic Welfare: A pilot index for the UK 1950–1990. London: New Economics Foundation/ Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute. JACOBS, M. (1991). The Green Economy. London: Pluto. JACOBY, J., BERNING, C.K. and DIETVORST, T.F. (1977). What about disposition? Journal of Marketing 41, 22–28. KEJUN, J., COSBEY, A. and MURPHY, D. (2008). Embodied carbon in traded goods [online]. Paper presented at the Trade and Climate Change Seminar, 18–20 June, Copenhagen, Denmark. Accessed 1 May 2009 at http://www. iisd.org KING, A.M., BURGESS, S.C., IJOMAH, W. and MCMAHON, C.A. (2006). Reducing waste: Repair, recondition, remanufacture or recycle? Sustainable Development 14 (4), 257–67. KOSTECKI, M. (ed.) (1998). The Durable Use of Consumer Products. Dordrecht: Kluwer. LEWIS, H. and GERTSAKIS, J. (2001). Design + Environment. Sheffield: Greenleaf. MARCH CONSULTING GROUP (1990). Energy Efficiency in Domestic Electrical Appliances. Report for Department of Energy. London: HMSO. MARKET TRANSFORMATION PROGRAMME (2005). Sustainable Products 2005: Policy analysis and projections [online]. Accessed 1 May 2009 at http:// www.mtprog.com/spm/files/download/byname/file/MTP_Sustainable_ Products_2005_updated_26_1_06.pdf MAYER, M. (1959). Planned obsolescence: Rx for tired markets? Dun’s Review and Modern Industry 73 (February), 40–80 passim. MCDONOUGH, W. and BRAUNGART, M. (2002). Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the way we make things. New York: North Point Press. MCLAREN, D., BULLOCK, S. and YOUSUF, N. (1998). Tomorrow’s World. London: Earthscan. MEADOWS, D.H., MEADOWS, D.L., RANDERS, J. and BEHRENS, W.W. (1972). The Limits to Growth. London: Pan. MEADOWS, D.H., MEADOWS, D.L. and RANDERS, J. (1992). Beyond the Limits. London: Earthscan. MONT, O. (2008). Innovative approaches to optimising design and use of durable consumer goods. International Journal of Product Development 6 (3–4), 227–50.

34

Longer Lasting Products

MUGGE, R. (2007). Product attachment. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands. MUGGE, R., SCHOORMANS, J.P.L. and SCHIFFERSTEIN, H.N.J. (2005). Design strategies to postpone consumers’ product replacement. Design Journal 8 (2), 38–48. MUIS, H. (2006). Eternally yours. In: VEERBEEK, P-P and SLOB, A. (eds). User Behavior and Technology Development. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 277–93. NATIONAL CONSUMER COUNCIL (1989). The Consumer Guarantee. London: National Consumer Council. NIEUWENHUIS, P. (1994). The long-life car: Investigating a motor industry heresy. In: NIEUWENHUIS, P. and WELLS, P. (eds). Motor Vehicles in the Environment. Chichester: John Wiley, pp. 153–72. ODOM, W., PIERCE, J., STOLTERMAN, E. and BLEVIS, E. (2009). Understanding why we preserve some things and discard others in the context of interaction design. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – Digital Life, New World. CHI (Computer Human Interaction) 2009, 4–9 April, Boston, USA. OECD (ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT) (1982). Product Durability and Product-Life Extension: Their contribution to solid waste management. Paris: OECD. OECD (ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT) (2002). Towards Sustainable Household Consumption? Trends and policies in OECD countries. Paris: OECD. OECD (ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT) (2004). Addressing the Economics of Waste. Paris: OECD. OGUCHI, M., KAMEYA, T., YAGI, S. and URANO, K. (2008). Product flow analysis of various consumer durables in Japan. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (3), 463–80. PACKARD, V. (1963). The Waste Makers. Harmondsworth: Penguin. PAPANEK, V. (1972). Design for the Real World. London: Thames and Hudson. PEARCE, D. and TURNER, R.K. (1990). Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. PENNOCK, J. and JAEGER, C. (1957). Estimating the service life of household goods by actuarial methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association 52, 175–85. PENNOCK, J. and JAEGER, C. (1964). Household service life of durable goods. Journal of Home Economics 56 (1), 21–26. RÜDENAUER, I. and GENSCH, C.-O. (2006). Accelerated replacement of refrigerators and freezers – does it make sense? [online]. Fourth International Conference on Energy Efficiency in Domestic Appliances and Lighting

the significance of product longevity

35

(EEDAL), 21–23 June, London. Accessed 8 May 2008 at http://mail.mtprog. com/eedal.html RUFFIN, M. and TIPPETT, K. (1975). Service-life expectancy of household appliances: New estimates from the USDA. Home Economics Research Journal 3 (3), 159–70. RUNKEL, M. (2003). Product durability and extended producer responsibility in solid waste management. Environmental and Resource Economics 24 (2), 161–82. SCHERHORN, G. (2005). Sustainability, consumer sovereignty and the concept of the market. In: GRUNERT, K. G. and THØGERSEN, J. (eds). Consumers, Policy and the Environment: A tribute to Folke Ölander. Berlin: Springer, pp. 301–10. SIRKIN, T. and TEN HOUTEN, M. (1994). The cascade chain. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 10 (3), 213–77. SLADE, G. (2006). Made to Break: Technology and obsolescence in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. SPITZLEY, D.V., GRANDE, D.E., KEOLEIAN G.A. and KIM, H.C. (2005). Life cycle optimization of ownership costs and emissions reduction in US vehicle retirement decisions. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 10 (2), 161–75. STAHEL, W.R. (2010). The Performance Economy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. STAHEL, W.R. and JACKSON, T. (1993). Durability and optimal utilisation. In: JACKSON, T. (ed.). Clean Production Strategies. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis, pp. 261–91. STAHEL, W.R. and REDAY-MULVEY, G. (1981). Jobs for Tomorrow: The potential for substituting manpower for energy. New York: Vantage Press. STAMMINGER, R. (2006). Old washing machines wash less efficiently and consume more resources [online]. Fourth International Conference on Energy Efficiency in Domestic Appliances and Lighting (EEDAL), 21–23 June, London. Accessed 8 May 2008 at http://mail.mtprog.com/eedal.html STEWART, J.B. (1959). Planned obsolescence. Harvard Business Review 37 (5), 14–174 passim. STRANDBAKKEN, P. (2009) Sociology fools the technician? Product durability and social constraints to eco-efficiency for refrigerators and freezers. International Journal of Consumer Studies 33, 146–50. STRASSER, S. (1999). Waste and Want: A social history of trash. New York: Henry Holt.

36

Longer Lasting Products

SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION ROUNDTABLE (2006). Looking Back, Looking Forward: Lessons in choice editing for sustainability. London: Sustainable Development Commission / National Consumer Council. TRUTTMANN, N. and RECHBERGER, H. (2006).Contribution to resource conservation by reuse of electrical and electronic household appliances. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 48 (3), 249–62. UK ECOLABELLING BOARD (1992). Ecolabelling Criteria for Washing Machines. London: UK Ecolabelling Board. VAN HINTE, E. (ed.) (1997). Eternally Yours: Visions on product endurance. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers. VAN HINTE, E. (ed.) (2004). Eternally Yours: Time in design. Product value sustenance. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers. VAN NES, N. (2003). Replacement of durables: Influencing product lifetime through product design. PhD thesis. Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. VAN NES, N. and CRAMER, J. (2005). Influencing product lifetime through product design. Business Strategy and the Environment 14, 286–99. VAN NES, N. and CRAMER, J. (2006). Product lifetime optimization: A challenging strategy towards more sustainable consumption patterns. Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (15–16), 1307–18. VEZZOLI, C. and MANZINI, E. (2008). Design for Environmental Sustainability. London: Springer. VON WEIZSÄCKER, E., LOVINS, A.B. and LOVINS, L.H. (1997). Factor Four. London: Earthscan. WALDMAN, M. (2003). Durable goods theory for real world markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives 17 (1), 131–54. WATSON, M. (2008). A Review of Literature and Research on Public Attitudes, Perceptions and Behaviour relating to Remanufactured, Repaired and Reused Products. Report for the Centre for Remanufacturing and Reuse. Sheffield: University of Sheffield. WBCSD (WORLD BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT) (1996). Sustainable Production and Consumption: A business perspective [online]. Accessed July 2009 at http://www.wbcsd.org/DocRoot/ MJJVQW8a73Vlr8jg3SGn/sustainable-production-consumption.pdf WEAVER, P.M. (2008). Incentives and frameworks for increasing the capital value, service value and use rates of durable goods. International Journal of Product Development 6 (3–4), 310–33. WESTKÄMPER, E., ALTING, L. and ARNDT, G. (2001). Life cycle management and assessment. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B, Journal of Engineering Manufacture 215 (5), 599–626.

Part 2

Design for Longevity

This page has been left blank intentionally



2

Re-evaluating Obsolescence and Planning for It Brian Burns

Abstract The end of a product’s life offers a measure of its success and failure, an opportunity to assess the value derived from utilization during its useful life against the costs of manufacture and use and against environmental and social impacts. Though the life expectancy of some products, such as the humble forged stainless steel dining fork, may seem unlimited, the end of a product’s useful life is an inevitable reality even if, in this case, distant. In cases involving fast-changing technologies, however, product obsolescence is often a major concern, particularly when the product costs and production volumes are high. This chapter explores this end-of-life state, commonly referred to under the umbrella of ‘obsolescence’, in order to understand its variations and implications, and to offer some means for more effective and sustainable product development.

Introduction Most people encountering the word ‘obsolescence’ might assume that the word ‘planned’ has either been omitted as a prefix or is simply an understood component. Obsolescence is, by and large, viewed with suspicion that the drive for profit has led manufacturing organizations to the manipulation of product life-spans, at the expense of the consumer and the environment. To some extent this chapter is a response to that perception, because there is little doubt that the longevity (and hence the value) gained from many products is less than socially and environmentally desirable (Kostecki 1998).

40

Longer Lasting Products

A simple response might be to demand that all products last longer, perhaps indefinitely, much like traditional hand tools and utensils. After all, the world of antiques derives considerable wealth from well-made products that have usually outlived their original functional utility. Although much antique furniture, for example, retains its functional usefulness, many other antiques have long since become functionally obsolete, with their value no longer based on utility but on their craft, historic association, aesthetics and nostalgia. At the same time, many landfill sites today contain large quantities of ‘antique’ personal computer equipment that has outlived its technological utility, wasting the embedded value in the materials and the energy needed to create them in the first place, and negatively impacting the waste stream. The life-span of every product is complex, and dependent on a wide range of social, technological, economic and environmental variables. Increased product life-spans may well seem justifiable but, in some cases, a better defined, shorter life-span might be more appropriate. For example, a product within fastchanging fashion or developing technology may, through its design and styling, be perceived by the consumer to promise a long and useful life-span. However, its early obsolescence will commonly cause considerable dissatisfaction. In effect such a product is masquerading as a long life-span product, giving false expectations to the consumer, and could well be described as a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing.’ From the standpoint of cost effective design and manufacture in a cost competitive environment, simply proposing that products last longer, particularly in developing technologies, is an oversimplified response. Product obsolescence is inevitable and, to deal with this reality, we need to understand better its various guises. The following historic and evolved meanings of the word ‘obsolescence’ are provided in order to establish appropriate responses to an inevitable conclusion of life. The intent is for the factors affecting the life-span and end-of-life stage of any product to be respected so that its value and utility can be better optimized for the benefit of all. In other words, it is not simply to assume inappropriate ‘planned obsolescence’ but to plan for the inevitability of obsolescence.

Obsolescence The Latin origin of ‘obsolescence’ is based on two components: the verb ‘soleo’, meaning ‘to be in use’, and ‘ob-’, meaning ‘away’, turning the word in an opposite direction. ‘Obsolescence’ was generally used by the Romans to indicate

re-evaluating obsolescence and planning for it

41

something that was no longer useful or significant (Oxford English Dictionary 2000). The most common early usage referred to ‘dirty or worn-out clothes’ or to someone who wore them (Cassells New Latin Dictionary 1962). Cicero is said to have believed that res per vetustatem obsolescet (‘things go out of use with age’) (Thesaurus Linguae Latinae 1968–81). The implication of obsolescence was of a natural and inevitable failure; the end of valued and useful life – one that had been worn out. Two thousand years later, a value based simply on utility is insufficient. Technological change, economic forces, fashion trends, issues of repair, maintenance and durability, consumer expectations: all must be acknowledged as contributing to the many recognizable ways in which the obsolescence of a product occurs. The challenge is to identify these criteria for the benefit of manufacturer and user alike, and with due regard for the social, economic and environmental consequences.

Planned Obsolescence – the Early Days The industrial revolution of the mid-nineteenth century slowly led towards high quality production and performance in both Europe and North America, though for many years hand-crafted products were often held in far greater regard than their inferior industrially produced counterparts. Mass production technology in the USA in the early twentieth century became highly developed. The work of men like Frederick Winslow Taylor added considerable manufacturing science to the production capabilities of the previous era. Work Study and Time and Motion Study set standards for high quality production and, despite opposition and considerable concern over the resulting division of labour, and its social implications, raised the quality of both the working conditions and standard of living of many production workers (Kanigel 1997). However, as early as the mid-1870s the USA suffered the consequences of overproduction, with large amounts of unsold goods filling warehouses. As a result industry was frequently forced to suspend production. This condition continued in subsequent years until the late 1920s, when King Camp Gillette, the inventor of disposable razors, said: ‘We have the paradox of idle men, only too anxious for work, and idle plants in perfect conditions for production, at the same time that people are starving and frozen’ (Slade 2006: 9). The nation’s ability to manufacture highly developed and reliable products led to a situation so bad that, according to Slade (2006: 9), Gillette described overproduction as

42

Longer Lasting Products

‘America’s most troubling social evil’. Commerce and industry saw the need for new marketing strategies to stimulate mass consumption, and the foundations for branding, creative marketing and advertising were laid. The 1930s and the two decades following World War II saw considerable political and economic turmoil in the world. In the USA the manipulation of product obsolescence was seen as a means to revitalize an ailing economy. The aim was to encourage new product ideas, remove any potential for economic stagnation and enable workers to earn money to buy new products. With reasonably cheap and abundant resources and little concern for pollution, the environmental impacts were not apparent and the economy responded with sustained growth (Slade 2006). The most commonly cited early reference to the term ‘planned obsolescence’ is credited to Brooks Stevens, an American industrial designer, who is said to have put the words together without much prior thought for a talk at an advertising conference in Minneapolis in 1954 (Adamson 2003). Planned obsolescence was explained by Brooks Stevens as ‘Instilling in the buyer the desire to own something a little newer, a little better, a little sooner than is necessary’ (Adamson 2003: 4). Underlying this approach was Stevens’s belief that ‘regimentation of any kind is dangerous and borders on socialism and a low standard of living’ (Adamson 2003: 205). This set in motion the strategies to encourage consumption and appeal to the natural forces of consumer desire. It was thus the ‘style’ of the product, rather than reliability and performance, which were already strengths of manufacturing in the USA, which became the tool for much planned obsolescence. The notion of ‘this year’s model’ emerged (and is still in use) whereby, every year, mature and reliable products were typically given styling changes and offered on the market as new for the particular year. Thus in 1958, following long development, the Ford Edsel offered the culmination of every possible styling feature in the designer’s armoury. However, faced with fierce competition from its rival manufacturers, the Ford Motor Company had produced a car that, according to critics, had a ‘grill shaped like a toilet seat’ and styling that was already ‘out of date’. The reliability of the vehicle was completely lost in superficiality and over the three years of its production only 70,000 were sold, an economic disaster (Slade 2006). Nonetheless, this well-publicized tale did not herald change in industrial strategy. Indeed, another phenomenon began to grow: more and more disposable products were sold, offering increased convenience and comfort.

re-evaluating obsolescence and planning for it

43

Even in the growing prosperity of the 1950s, a period generally acknowledged as the beginning of the modern consumer society, there was some concern as to the social benefits of such consumptively extravagant strategies. However, once the public had been encouraged to ‘consume and throw away’, as part of the dream for peace and prosperity in that ‘infinite world’ many thought they were living on at the time, the ‘throwaway society’ was born. Among critics of this new American way of life, the most notable was Vance Packard. His The Waste Makers (Packard 1960) was often derided in the world of marketing but, significantly, it attempted to put a new perspective on the term ‘obsolescence’. Packard’s most profound differentiation came between what he called ‘psychological obsolescence’ and ‘functional obsolescence’. He felt that through psychological obsolescence the consumer was being falsely manipulated. The marketing world, often through Brooks Stevens, responded to his allegations by citing the need for shorter product cycles in manufacture, particularly in such areas as fashion clothing, domestic appliances and the automobile. Planning for durability was not a priority. Obsolescence in its earliest form, meaning to wear out, had evolved into the newly discovered use of psychological obsolescence, or ‘false obsolescence’, as a means to influence consumer spending.

Recent Thinking Many consumers today are affronted by the poor design and manufacturing that seems to lead to premature obsolescence and unsatisfactorily short product life-spans. However, it should not be assumed that such products are planned and marketed in continuation of the philosophy of Brooks Stevens and that all industry is engaged in a conspiracy of false obsolescence. Manufacturers and retailers will always wish to maximize sales; hence marketing strategies that promote over-consumption are still with us. A nation’s gross national product (GNP) does not carry a measure of environmental efficiency (Gadrey and JanyCatrice 2005). ‘In reality the Gross National Product is simply an index of the resources we have destroyed over the years’, wrote Gordon Rattray Taylor (cited in Papanek and Hennesey 1977: 65). The issues around obsolescence have become more complex since Packard’s observations, and more economically, socially and environmentally significant. To better understand current thinking it is first necessary to lay out some important influences.

44

Longer Lasting Products

During the 1960s Bruce Archer undertook some notable work at London’s Royal College of Art, investigating how design is undertaken, and his groundbreaking research led to the development of a more responsible approach to the work of product design (Archer 1961). In subsequent publications Archer built on the review of value made most notable by Marx (1946) and asserted that, in principle, products have value because we think they do and for no other reason, and that it can be argued that our value system is based on the interdependence of function, fashion, association, utility, passion, history and other more subtle aspects of products (Archer 1974). The implication was that a more holistic view of the impacts of products must be taken, particularly new products. An appropriate product life-span must be determined and, to achieve this, a sound understanding of the diverse influences on the product’s inevitable obsolescence is essential. Packard (1960) addressed obsolescence through the modes of ‘function’, ‘quality’ and ‘desirability’. Archer (1974) simply but earnestly warned of the dangers of ‘artificial obsolescence’. Others over the years, including Cooper (2004), Grathwohl (1975), Heiskanen (1996), Kostecki (1998), Krupp (1977) and Slade (2006), have suggested such modes as ‘technological’, ‘economic’, ‘psychological’, ‘dynamic’, ‘financial’, ‘fiscal’, ‘shelf life’ and ‘functional’, the first three being generally favoured. In principle, if industry and government are to develop a more appropriate strategy to take account of the realities of obsolescence, it must provide a ‘win-win’ outcome for manufacturers and consumers and be driven by clear goals: reduced environmental impacts, consumer satisfaction, minimization of waste, appropriate fashion trends, emerging technological evolution, and social change. There is a danger that further analysis of the aforementioned modes could merely offer issues of semantic variance and become purely academic. The key is to determine a breakdown of obsolescence into modes upon which useful analysis can be undertaken to enable decisions to be made, by all concerned parties, which optimize product life-spans to mutual benefit. Over a period of some 30 years, the author has studied a range of products deemed by their owners to be obsolete, in an attempt to determine how that state came about (Burns 1981, 2003). Some were examined as they entered the waste stream, while others were still in the owner’s possession. They ranged from domestic appliances to travel goods, bathroom consumables to tools, calculators to computers, and automobiles to children’s toys. Each was reviewed to establish a useful breakdown of their modes of obsolescence. For many, no

re-evaluating obsolescence and planning for it

45

single mode provided a sufficient explanation, while some similar products became obsolete for differing reasons.

The Four Modes of Obsolescence While many terms were considered, four modes were identified which best covered all eventualities. The ‘technological’ and ‘economic’ modes previously suggested were seen to have considerable merit. Psychological obsolescence, though in some ways hinting at artificial manipulation, was judged to be too ambiguous, implying contrasting determinants of value between the attitudes of the consumer and the attributes of the product. It was concluded that this mode was best divided into two, ‘aesthetic’ and ‘social’ obsolescence. The four modes (‘aesthetic’, ‘social’, ‘technological’ and ‘economic’) were judged, individually and in combination, to best represent the products’ values and the interests of all concerned parties. Each is reviewed below, before consideration is given to their cumulative effects and how and when they can be beneficially utilized.

Aesthetic Obsolescence This mode is composed of two components. The first relates to appearance and is strongly rooted in the original Latin meaning and usage related to ‘wear and tear’. In this sense a product might become aesthetically drab, faded, dirty and worn out. Products used closer to our bodies, such as clothing (Figure 2.1), tend to be more sensitively viewed on aesthetic grounds. The more personal the product, the more it reflects the user and the higher the sensitivity, particularly if fashion is involved. In such cases it is useful not just to consider the ‘newness’ of a product, but its ‘useness’ – the state of the product once the ‘shine’ of newness has worn off. This characteristic is best exemplified the contrast between denim blue jeans, where a certain worn appearance is often seen to be desirable, and the dress suit or automobile, where a scuff or a scratch can be a major cause for concern. The second component relates to fashion and style, which are often closely interrelated. ‘Fashion’ is used here to mean a temporary mode of appearance or custom and ‘style’ to suggest form or appearance. There are many products subject to annual, seasonal or social changes for which fashion and style carry 

These included contrasting forms such as ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’, and ‘genuine’ and ‘false’.

46

Figure 2.1

Longer Lasting Products

Aesthetic obsolescence – new, worn-in and worn-out fashion jeans

substantial significance in design. Fashion usually carries with it an aesthetic or style that, by definition, will be transient: what is ‘in fashion’ will inevitably one day be ‘out of fashion’. The threat of an inappropriate life-span is in a fully functioning product being discarded on aesthetic grounds based on fashion or style. Clothing is an obvious example, but there are others, such as avocado or moss green refrigerators or, more recently, white domestic appliances (which are no longer aesthetically desirable, superseded by the look of stainless steel): fashion changes!

Social Obsolescence This mode also has two components. From time to time, societies, nationally or globally, stop doing something: using the hula-hoop, for example, or, perhaps in the foreseeable future, smoking cigarettes. Now we seldom see Rubik’s cubes, ladies are far less likely to wear corsets and energy-aware gardeners are more likely to choose push-mowers in preference to the powered models. As a result, the products of that activity – ash trays (Figure 2.2) and cigarette lighters in the example above – are of no further value (except to a future antique dealer or a believer in their possible revival) and become obsolete. Such occurrences are more predictable than one might at first believe and the determinants of

re-evaluating obsolescence and planning for it

47

Figure 2.2 Social obsolescence – an ashtray such change are of particular significance. While some obsolescence can be seen as a response to a fad, in some cases the social response appears suddenly, perhaps after a period of pressure for change related to health or environmental awareness (Gladwell 2002). For example, greater health awareness seems to be leading to the cessation of several activities previously felt safe, not only smoking but also the use of uncoated aluminium cookware. The second component can be identified when laws or voluntary standards are issued and adopted, in order to create or maintain healthy social practices, and this brings about some obsolescence. This might take the form of ISO industry standards, which may initially be voluntary but often become law. In other cases regulation is used directly, as in the case of chlorofluorocarbons (cfcs) (formerly used as a coolant and insulator in refrigeration appliances) and many car safety measures. Changes in the law may be beneficial in developing appropriate obsolescence strategies although the process is often slow and it is difficult to legislate for future products that are, as yet, not made. Moreover, such laws are sometimes accepted only reluctantly, out of concern that local or national industries may 

International Organization for Standardization.

48

Longer Lasting Products

become economically unviable. Consequently performance standards against which new products may be judged are more common, whereas laws tend to be made at a later date as a reaction to an observed influence on social or technological activity.

Technological Obsolescence Perhaps the most consistently identified mode of obsolescence in recent years, this occurs when a functioning product is made obsolete by a newer one due to technological change. The list of examples is virtually endless – from slide rules to calculators, gramophones to iPods, typewriters to computers (Figure 2.3). One of the most potentially costly considerations relating to product life is the danger of ‘over-designing’ products that, all too soon, are no longer wanted. The outcome of error is that much of the embedded manufacturing and material value is wasted, as fully functioning products are sent to the landfill. Making products last longer when the supporting technologies are fast changing may well create more waste, not less.

Figure 2.3

Technological obsolescence – successive modes of data transfer

In contrast, but equally significant, Packard (1960) suggested that technologies that may lead to longer lasting products are suppressed. As a

re-evaluating obsolescence and planning for it

49

contemporary example, it could be argued that the development of alternative fuelled vehicles is currently unduly slow, due perhaps to political influence, the vested interests of manufacturers or assumptions about the availability of oil. The role of technology in obsolescence is multifaceted. At one extreme, consumers might be overly encouraged to buy the latest products while, at the other, industry might face demands to make all products ‘backwards compatible’. Consumers may be frustrated by technological change when a type of product that traditionally worked for many years is now less robustly built and seen to change every year. Their frustration can cause considerable harm to a company’s image and reputation, in addition to the social and environmental costs, highlighting the importance of appropriate planning for products, whether in industries using new or mature technologies.

Economic Obsolescence This mode commonly occurs when repair, maintenance, reuse or upgrade is too costly to be justified by the manufacturer or the consumer. A typical example is the traditional sofa that is felt too expensive to re-cover, perhaps due to costly human labour or the availability of cheaper modern versions, and consequently abandoned (Figure 2.4).

Figure 2.4

Economic obsolescence – a sofa that was economically not worth recovering

50

Longer Lasting Products

Market competition has in recent years encouraged products that are difficult to maintain, repair or upgrade due in part to the need for costcompetitive manufacturing methods. Commonly such products might even be marketed as ‘disposable’ when their predecessors were not; cameras and torches are obvious examples. Moreover, many consumers have become frustrated by the early failure of many relatively low cost electrical and electronic appliances for which repair work is not economically viable. Typically, such products are simply replaced under warranty and the faulty product thrown away. While such practices can be seen to be market driven and thus justified in economic terms, the social and environmental consequences are enormous and are, perhaps, the reason for much current concern for the negative effects of obsolescence.

Coping with the Four Modes Often in analysing the causes of obsolescence of the products reviewed several explanations were identified and so the issue was not ‘Does the rationale fit into this or that mode?’ but rather ‘Which modes best describe the rationale for obsolescence?’ The objectives of the exercise were not simply to identify the differing modes but to categorize them in a form that may help in determining appropriate product life-spans. Such categorization not only should offer social, economic and environmental benefits, but might also foster the development of appropriate standards and legislation towards those ends. Not surprisingly, it was found that most consumer products are influenced by or susceptible to more than one mode of obsolescence. Every product should therefore be evaluated, particularly during the design stages, against each mode of obsolescence in order to determine which is likely to be its ‘weakest link’. This could be instigated with a series of simple (yet in some cases unfamiliar) questions, perhaps as part of a wider environmental audit, related to:

•

the market in which the product will be placed

•

how long the customer might need the product

•

the product’s life expectation

re-evaluating obsolescence and planning for it

51

•

the expected price and cost of use or per use

•

the product’s environmental impact throughout its life and upon discard

•

the need for reliability and consequences of product failure

•

the potential for technological change

•

the maturity of the product and its market

•

the likelihood of laws and standards changing

•

the product’s maintenance requirements and potential for upgrade

•

fashion cycles

•

how the product will wear and how this might affect its life-span, and, of course,

•

if the product is needed at all.

There are many more questions that have implications for obsolescence, all of which could affect its value to the consumer, its cost to the manufacturer, its impact on the environment, and the need for standards and regulation. A different approach is needed for every product: whether a pencil or a computer, the obsolescence factors are diverse but generally identifiable. Increased complications arise as products become integrated into people’s lifestyles and as society evolves. Luxuries become necessities, new technologies mature and become interrelated, and decisions regarding the appropriate longevity of a product become compounded. As an example, it may well be possible to produce mature domestic appliances that could last for many years. However, as seen in recent years, increasing energy costs may influence the desired function and performance. To compound the challenge, though built-in appliances may be able to last (say) up to 20 years, if the kitchens are upgraded every 10 years many fully functional machines, albeit a little inefficient in energy use or aesthetically obsolete, will be prematurely discarded. At another extreme, the manufacture of products of great durability may well prove prohibitively

52

Longer Lasting Products

expensive or unsatisfactory in some way: ‘A shoemaker could fashion a shoe that would last 100 years, but it would be hell to walk in’ (Yepsen 1982: 158). Though it may be possible to make, say, a domestic toaster that would last 100 years, is it worthwhile if liable to be outmoded by technological and social change? How do producers optimally provide the service of toasted bread to customers? Good obsolescence planning, planning for obsolescence, must take such issues into account to enable appropriate product development, user awareness, improved legislation and standards and, ultimately, optimized product life-spans.

Designing for the Future – Tools to Help In recent years life cycle analysis (LCA) has been used in many industry sectors to identify costs, waste and other environmental impacts, with considerable success. Following concerns over bias and accuracy, LCA practitioners are steadily building respected procedures for this relatively new tool and improving its accuracy and applicability, particularly in the manufacture and discard phases (Brissaud et al. 2006). If obsolescence characteristics are to be appropriately determined, however, it is during the use phase that value to the user and society must be maximized, and the symbiosis between product and user better understood. As LCA is more difficult to apply to this phase, a different approach is required.

User/Product Symbiosis Modern designers are subject to many forces that do not allow for the slow, careful crafting of an object over decades and generations. Most of today’s items are too complex, with too many variables, for this slow sifting of improvements. But simple improvements ought to be possible. You would think that objects such as automobiles, appliances, or computers, which periodically come out in new models, could benefit from the experience of the previous model. Alas, the multiple forces of a competitive market seem not to allow this.



In addition, material identification symbols are becoming more common and products that were once landfilled are being designed for reprocessing. In Europe this has been prompted by legislation linking products back to the manufacturer at the end of its life-span.

re-evaluating obsolescence and planning for it

53

One negative is the demands of time: new models are already into their design process before the old ones have been released to customers. Moreover, mechanisms for collecting and feeding back the experiences of the customers seldom exist. Another force is the pressure to be distinctive, to stand out, to make each design look different from what has gone before. It is the rare organization that is content to let a good product stand or let natural evolution perfect it slowly. No, each year a “new, improved” model must come out, usually incorporating new features that do not use the old as a starting point. In far too many instances, the results spell disaster for the consumer. (Norman 1988: 142–43)

In the 20 years since Norman wrote the above in The Design of Everyday Things little has changed. Indeed, for users and the environment, the situation could be said to have become considerably worse. Clearly, the role of the user cannot be ignored. While professionals are trained to understand products before use, ordinary consumers receive no training, relying on past experience and common sense, and are dependent on consumer protection and product safety legislation if they unknowingly misuse or mishandle products. Misuse or mishandling caused by the user’s lack of knowledge about how a product is supposed to be used, perhaps a consequence of removing users from any maintenance or functional engagement (as signalled in the advice: ‘Simply take it out of the box and plug it in’), may lead to prematurely short product life-spans. Appropriate involvement of the user with the product is essential. Perhaps the greatest current challenge to product designers is to offer formal clues or indicators that reflect appropriate longevity, environmental impacts, durability, use, repair and, finally, discard, particularly for electrical and electronic products. In the case of these products the user has largely been removed from such involvement. The automobile, too, was until relatively recently a product to be tinkered with by users. Now, through electronics and computer controls, users are largely excluded from potentially preventative and operational maintenance. This seemingly contradicts a primary goal of designers, to offer users appropriate levels of understanding and comfort with their products, as expressed through the following suggested design objectives: 

Originally entitled The Psychology of Everyday Things.

54

Longer Lasting Products

Match Expectations – Respond to the need for appropriate communication about use and match the user’s preconception of function and operation, which is usually based on existing product norms and past experience. Minimize Embarrassment and Risk – Ensure that ‘failure’ in the user’s interactions with the product will not carry unfortunate consequences. Not to do so may result in a lack of user trust in the product, wrong actions being carried out, product breakage or, in the case of large machinery or high-powered equipment, physical injury. Respect Dignity – User interactions with the product should not require inappropriate physical or emotional ‘gymnastics’. When users turn their backs to a chair they are putting trust in it to be strong and comfortable enough to meet their desire to sit down. Similarly, they should not feel uncertain as to how to use any product. Maximize Satisfaction – Users should be as delighted as possible with the purchase and use of a product and, at the time of obsolescence, feel that they have extracted or received sufficient value for money, such that they would return to the same brand or manufacturer for their next purchase. These points, largely self-evident and well understood in the product design profession, mesh easily with the suggested modes of obsolescence and point to appropriate strategies for product development. However, individual products must be seen in a broader context. The vast array of everyday products that surround us today has been greatly influenced by the expansive economic strategies of the latter part of the twentieth century. Many of these products evolved, even matured, at a time when society’s objectives, particularly in North America, were not targeted towards sustainability. The concept of ecological footprints is worthy of consideration here: the world is finite (Wackernagel and Rees 1996). Although the need to develop products that are sustainable is now clear, the specifics are, as yet, ill-defined. If the intent is to create sustainable products, the fundamental underpinnings of the products themselves must first be questioned: A better economy, to my way of thinking, would be one that would place its emphasis not upon the quantity of notions and luxuries but

re-evaluating obsolescence and planning for it

55

upon the quality of necessities. Such an economy would, for example, produce an automobile that would last at least as long, and be as easy to maintain, as a horse. It would encourage workmanship to be as durable as its materials; thus a piece of furniture would have the durability not of glue but of wood. (Berry 1972: 122)

The Concept of Finite and Infinite World Thinking Is the bicycle a ‘finite world’ product? Is the automobile an ‘infinite world’ product? The traditional bicycle is made of identifiable sub-assemblies, usually of a single material. The user can inspect most components visually, tactilely and often audibly. The bicycle’s energy efficiency is renowned and fits well with finite world (or ‘one planet’) thinking, particularly in the field of transportation. That said, recent developments in technology have taken the traditional bicycle away from being based on a ‘kit of interchangeable parts’ towards the use of specific, unique components. This has long been the case for the automobile, the development of which, as a result, does not fit well with awareness of a finite world. A valuable challenge for obsolescence planning might be to review the use of (and societal values relating to) the automobile, with the aim of developing criteria for vehicles that are appropriate in a finite world. There will be no instant solutions, however, and to assume otherwise would deny the importance of the essential and (as Norman pointed out) often maligned process of product maturation.

The Path to Product Maturation Reliable, well-designed and manufactured products do not appear overnight. Most products take many years and perhaps generations to reach a socialized maturity. In the developing stages it is difficult to forge appropriate obsolescence strategies while technology changes, matures and evolves, quantities increase, expectations change and new infrastructures are created. The field of robotics currently exemplifies this progression, with some mature products in the manufacturing sector but very many immature products at various stages of development. During such a development path sustainable practices are difficult to predict and monitor. This is particularly problematic for products with fast-changing technologies, as market forces give rise to fierce competition

56

Longer Lasting Products

which often results in large-scale obsolescence. Thus products in the computer and mobile phone markets, are popular and yet their short lives are a common source for consumer complaint. To better explain this point, the following five phases of product maturation are offered to illustrate the stages that most products evolve through: The Invention – The seed of most products begins with an invention or technological breakthrough. Products at this stage of development often become a toy for the rich, an expensive luxury or a hope for the future. The automobile is an example. In this phase the user is likely to tinker with the product, which may well be far from reliable. Reliable Prototype/Batch Product – Reliability and safety are improved as short-run products are made. At this point the product may well exist in a social vacuum, without infrastructural support. There may well be the beginning of competition, with rival companies quick to outdo the other. Patents are developed as new products are hurried to market. The field of robotics offers a contemporary example. First Generation Product – The market size and hence the production run increases, enabling more sophisticated manufacturing processes to be utilized. Product design tends to be reasonably indicative of how the product functions and relatively easy for the user to understand. Changes, particularly technological change, may affect product life-span; in the case of the personal computer this includes both hardware and software. Integrated Product – As reasonable levels of safety and reliability are established, the product becomes available in larger quantities and more often considered a necessity. Its form and image become more integrated as users are allowed to be more ignorant of how it functions through a combination of industry standards, voluntary guidelines and consumer law. Interaction levels are then defined, both humanized and non-humanized (what can be touched and what not). The product’s infrastructure begins to form and life-span options can now be better evaluated. International standards may be brought about by the major companies.

re-evaluating obsolescence and planning for it

57

Mature Product – The product’s infrastructure is established. Maintenance, control and standards are appraised and organized. Products made by different companies start to look the same, and the norms of quality, longevity, performance and manufacture evolve through industry standards, voluntary guidelines and consumer law. Any product’s evolutionary cycle may be (and usually is) interrupted, at any point, by some external development. For example, the need for greater energy efficiency and environmentally friendlier refrigerants has, in recent years, influenced the design of domestic refrigerators. A further consideration comes when a mature product may well need to be treated as a first or second generation product again when a radical technological change manifests itself. The telephone, as an example, has been with us for over 100 years, but has undergone many technological changes along the way, which required it to be treated as a less mature product until the new technology could be appropriately absorbed. Significantly, product life-span options can only be realistically determined in the latter two stages (Integrated and Mature). Indeed, these stages are only now being reached for computers and mobile phones, although cries of consumer dissatisfaction have long been voiced criticizing their relatively short life-spans. More stable and appropriate standards for product life must follow, not just in the interest of consumers but the industries themselves. Infrastructures naturally build stability and only with such stability can obsolescence be effectively planned for. In the meantime, technologically fast-changing products will continue to be rapidly replaced. At the same time, in the case of some mature products, typified by domestic appliances, planning that has resulted in reduced longevity is questioned (Strandbakken 2005).

Current Situation Following nearly two centuries of industrial development, consumer markets are inundated with a fast-changing array of products. Globalization has enabled nations with differing environmental standards and varying wage and salary levels to trade all manner of goods. The resulting dilemma is epitomized by the personal computing and communications industries, which are responsible for large quantities of technologically obsolete products in the waste stream with

58

Longer Lasting Products

lost embedded energy and resources, causing concerns about obsolescence to grow. Further confusion occurs when products that are not yet mature (mobile phones and personal computers again being examples) masquerade as long lasting and, at the other extreme, manufacturers seek to differentiate mature products on spurious grounds, artificially promoting obsolescence. There is little reason to change mature domestic appliances, for example, and yet manufacturers commonly feel a need to differentiate their products from those of rivals in this way. It would be foolish to think that such examples adequately represent all products, markets and values. All products are different. All are subject to change. All will result in obsolescence, and all obsolescence must be appropriately planned for. However, the need for improved practices, industry standards, consumer education and global wisdom has never been greater.

Conclusion Society has become increasingly aware of the finite nature of our planet, of climate change and of the impacts of using (and abusing) its resources. For the first time in our history we can be fully cognizant of the issues affecting our symbiotic relationship with the planet. Basic mathematics reveals that equations where all of the factors are identifiable tend to be easier to solve. Life cycle analysis can help, as will the development of appropriate industry standards and consumer education. We must now attempt to optimize each product’s life by planning for the inevitable obsolescence at the end of its life. ‘After 3.8 billion years nature has learned: What works. What is appropriate. What lasts.’ Nature acts as ‘model, measure and mentor’ (Benyus 1998). As with our essential relationship with nature, the symbiotic relationship we have with products must also be developed. There are many experiences to learn from. The information is obtainable. We simply have to realize the will while, hopefully, we still have the time. As guiding principles, I suggest a need to:

• 

acknowledge the inevitability of obsolescence and plan for it

Prologue (unpaginated).

re-evaluating obsolescence and planning for it

59

•

respect the importance of the product/user symbiosis

•

reduce wasteful product life practices in manufacture, use and discard

•

evolve innovative sustainable design practices relating to product life-spans to match the product maturation process with its market, and

•

encourage designers to develop a formal code, particularly in electronic communications products, that reflects appropriate longevity, environmental impacts, durability, use, repair and discard.

The goal? Optimized product life through planned-for obsolescence.

References ADAMSON, G. (2003). Industrial Strength Design: How Brooks Stevens shaped your world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press and Milwaukee Art Museum. ARCHER, L.B. (1963). The future of design education. 3rd Congress of the International Council of Societies of Industrial Design, 18–22 June, Paris. ARCHER, L.B. (1974). Design Awareness and Planned Creativity in Industry. London: Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Ottawa, Canada/ Design Council of Great Britain. BENYUS, J.M. (1998). Biomimicry: Innovation inspired by nature. New York: HarperCollins. BERRY, W. (1972). A Continuous Harmony. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. BRISSAUD, D., TICHIEWITCH, S. and ZWOLINSKI, P. (eds) (2006). Innovation in Life Cycle Engineering and Sustainable Development. Grenoble: Springer. BURNS, B. (1981). Factors Affecting the Life of Consumer Durables. School of Industrial Design mimeo. Ottawa: Carleton University (175 pp.). BURNS, B. (2003). Improved sustainable product life options for innovation through the re-evaluation of factors affecting product obsolescence. Sustainable Innovation 03: Creating sustainable products, services and product-service systems. Towards Sustainable Product Design 8th International Conference. 27–28 October, Stockholm, Sweden. Cassells New Latin Dictionary (1962). London: Cassells.

60

Longer Lasting Products

COOPER, T. (2004). Inadequate life? Evidence of consumer attitudes to product obsolescence. Journal of Consumer Policy 27 (4), 421–49. GADREY, J. and JANY-CATRICE, F. (2005). Les nouveaux indicateurs de richesses (The new indicators of wealth). Coll. Repères No. 404. Paris: Editions La Découverte. GLADWELL, M. (2002). The Tipping Point. New York: Back Bay Books. GRATHWOHL, H. (1975). Planned obsolescence and resource allocation. Journal of Contemporary Business 4 (1), 85–96. HEISKANEN, E. (1996). Conditions for product life extension. In: ULHOI, J.P. and MADSEN, H. (eds). Industry and the Environment: Practical applications of environmental management approaches in business. Proceedings of the 3rd Conference of the Nordic Business Environmental Management Network, 26–28 March, Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus, Denmark. KANIGEL, R. (1997). One Best Way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the enigma of efficiency. New York: Penguin. KOSTECKI, M. (ed.) (1998). The Durable Use of Consumer Products: New options for business and consumption. Dordrecht: Kluwer. KRUPP, J.A.G. (1977). Obsolescence and its impact on inventory management. Production and Inventory Management 18 (2), 67–80. MARX, K. (1946). Capital. New York: Dutton. [Originally published as Das Kapital, 1867.] NORMAN, D.A. (1988). The Psychology of Everyday Things. New York: Doubleday. Oxford English Dictionary (2000). Oxford: Clarendon Press. PACKARD, V. (1960). The Waste Makers. New York: D.McKay Co. PAPANEK, V. and HENNESEY, J. (1977). How Things Don’t Work. New York: Pantheon. SLADE, G. (2006). Made to Break: Technology and obsolescence in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. STRANDBAKKEN, P. (2005). Social constraints to eco efficiency: refrigerators and freezers. European Sociological Association Conference, 9–12 September, Torun, Poland. Thesaurus Linguae Latinae Vol. IX (1968–81). Leipzig, Germany: B.G. Teubneri. WACKERNAGEL, M. and REES, W. (1996). Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society. YEPSEN Jr, R.B. (ed.) (1982). The Durability Factor. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press.



3

Subject/Object Relationships and Emotionally Durable Design Jonathan Chapman

Abstract Landfills are packed with fully functional durable goods that slowly compact and surrender working order beneath a substantial volume of similar scrap, their downfall an inability to sustain a meaningful attachment with their owners. In this emotive sense, waste is a symptom of a failed subject/object relationship. Design has a central role in the creation of longer user:product relationships, but sustainable design methodologies have thus far attended almost exclusively to the somewhat superficial, bodily survival of manufactured objects, to aftereffects rather than causes. There is little point designing physical durability into goods if consumers lack the desire to keep them. The scope and power of emotional experiences delivered via objects produced through the current system are incredibly limited. Commercially viable strategies are needed for emotionally durable objects which engage users on deeper, more profound, levels and over longer, more rewarding, periods of time. New, alternative genres of objects could increase the durability of relationships between users and products, people and things. This will demand novel and provocative models of sustainable design capable of developing emotionally durable objects and empowering consumers to transcend the superficial urgencies of conventional consumerism and to forge deep emotive connections with their possessions.

Introduction Landfill sites the world over swell with fully functional objects – toasters that still toast and microwaves that still microwave – their downfall being an

62

Longer Lasting Products

inability to sustain a meaningful attachment with their owners. Mobile phones, microwaves, washing machines, lamps and other waste of this nature proliferate in the developed world and, beyond the significant ecological burden they carry, can be seen as nothing more than a symptom of a failed subject/object relationship. This short essay proposes that the origin of the ecological crisis we face lurks deep within one single, yet profoundly universal, inconsistency: the emotional demands of the user constantly evolve, whilst the manufactured products deployed to satisfy those demands remain comparatively inert. The stockpile of waste this simple inconsistency generates is apocalyptic and comes at an increasing cost to legislation-burdened manufacturers and, perhaps more importantly, the natural world. Since popularization of the notion of planned obsolescence (Packard 1963), interest in the life-spans of manufactured objects has become a central constituent of contemporary design discourse (Cooper 2002). Yet despite the pervasiveness of this insightful notion, thus far the creative methodologies addressing design for durability have attended almost exclusively to the somewhat superficial, bodily survival of manufactured objects In these scenarios durability is distinguished merely by a product’s physical endurance – whether cherished (Philips Design 1996) or discarded: ‘lab-coated engineers triumphantly exchange high-fives as fully operational hairdryers emerge from a 5-year landfill hiatus’ (Chapman 2006: 69). Is this durable product design, or simply the designing of highly durable waste? Though it is not always easy for consumers to identify products designed for long life-spans (Christer and Cooper 2004), durability is just as much about emotion, love and attachment as about fractured polymers, worn gaskets or blown circuitry. In this emotive sense, waste may be seen as nothing more than a symptom of a failed relationship. Landfills are packed with stratum upon stratum of durable goods that slowly compact and surrender working order beneath a substantial volume of similar scrap. It therefore appears clear that there is little point designing physical durability into consumer goods if consumers lack the desire to keep them.

Consumption as a Process of Self-Definition ‘Ask a developed world human to stop consuming and you might as well ask a vampire not to suck blood’ (Chapman 2005: 29). Consumption is not just a 

See Chapter 12 (Christer and Cooper).

subject/object relationships and emotionally durable design

63

way of life, it is life, providing an invaluable vehicle for the ever-evolving self to process and interact with an equally transient, unstable and ever-changing world. As natural as breathing, the drive to consume could be described as symptomatic of a stimulus-seeking species dwelling in a homogenized world in which the prevailing experience of everyday life comes with the majority of problems already solved and decisions already made. As a purposive behaviour, ‘motivation proper’ is an activated state wherein decisions are planned and implemented, and goal-directed behaviours are both activated and realized (Bagozzi 2001), as in the consumption and subsequent discarding of material goods. Analysis of the consumption process is complex as it has ambiguous qualities: it relieves anxiety, because what one has cannot be taken away, but it also ‘requires one to consume ever more, because previous consumption soon loses its satisfactory character’ (Fromm 1979: 27). Despite the broad range of conflicting and contradictory theories that abound, the principal endeavour of research into consumer behaviour is to develop understanding of the manifest (known to the person) and latent (unknown to the person) motivational drivers that make people do the things they do, buy the things they buy and discard the things they discard. Theory indicates that the need to consume tends to occur when a perceived discrepancy exists between an actual and a desired state of being. This is experienced on an individualistic level as a felt sense of dissatisfaction or disappointment. To date, knowledge emerging from the field of consumer motivation research has a tendency toward the bolstering of economic sustainability. Yet this is a shallow philosophy that would make human welfare synonymous with the indiscriminate production and consumption of material goods (Macpherson 1978). Until very recently, environmental and social sustainability scarcely featured within the interests of the commercially oriented field of consumer psychology. Only now is the long term economic efficacy of conventional capitalism truly being questioned: ‘surely, more lucrative commercial models exist than the blind nurturing of endless sequences of desire and destruction’ (Chapman 2005: 170). Consumption is motivated by complex emotional factors and is about far more than just the purchasing of new and shinier things. It is a journey towards the ideal or desired self that, through cyclic patterns of desire and disappointment, becomes a seemingly endless process of serial destruction. Manufactured products serve to illustrate our aspirations whilst defining us existentially. ‘The human being is engaged, throughout his life span, in an unceasing struggle to differentiate himself increasingly fully, not only from his human, but also from his nonhuman environment’ (Searles 1960: 30). As

64

Longer Lasting Products

such, possessions are used as ‘symbols of what we are, what we have been, and what we are attempting to become’ (Schultz et al. 1989: 361), whilst providing an archaic means of possession by enabling the consumer to ‘incorporate’ an object’s meaning (Fromm 1979: 26). In other words, ‘the material you possess signifies the destiny you chase’ (Chapman 2005: 30). As a result of this, consumers are drawn to objects in possession of that which they subconsciously yearn to become. As such, meaning is always sought, though this meaning is not always associated with the objects themselves and often manifests as a result of the services that they render. For example, products that enable the sharing and mediation of one’s self-identity (such as a mobile phone) may become meaningful to the user because of the stored messages, photographs or contact details of loved ones contained by the product (Jääskö et al. 2003). In this way, it can be seen that conventional reality consists of a deeply abstracted culture of signs, or ‘simulations’, which may be said to motivate consumers more than the physical products themselves (Baudrillard 1993). This ‘self-actualizing’ mode of subject/object relations provides a mirror that presents us with momentary reflections of our individual existence (Thompson 2005). However, the continual evolution of the self-actualizing user poses a significant challenge to old or outmoded possessions that are no longer representative of the self as experienced ontologically; transient and unstable cycles of consumption and waste are born as we outgrow the possessions that surround us. Studies are conclusive in relating attachment behaviour toward the individual’s concept of self (e.g. Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981; Wallendorf and Arnould 1988; Schultz et al. 1989; Ball and Tasaki 1992; Dittmar 1992). Batterbee and Mattelmäki (2004) describe a survey in which stories are collected about possessions with which users have meaningful associations. Their proposition is that meanings, experiences and meaningful relationships with products are developed over a time span and are often related to life situations. From this research three categories of objects were defined that facilitate the understanding of different kinds of subject/object attachment. These categories are Meaningful Tool (the activity an object enables, rather than the object itself, is the thing of meaning, such as a television set), Meaningful Association (a product is significant as it carries cultural and/or individual meaning, such as a mobile phone) and Living Object (an emotional bond is created between an individual and a product, such as a toaster received as a gift). Issues of design and meaning are highly complex, and it can be argued that product meaning 

A term derived from Jordan (2000).

subject/object relationships and emotionally durable design

65

or personal motivation (though deeply influential in terms of user experience) is not easily affected by design (Jääskö and Mattelmäki 2003). Although a designer can certainly elicit within users an emotional response to a given object, the explicit nature of the response is beyond the designer’s control; the unique assemblage of past experiences that is particular to each user, their cultural background and life journey determines this. Designers cannot craft an experience but only the conditions or levers that might lead to an intended experience (Forlizzi and Ford 2000). What those required conditions are, however, is still unclear to design. This is largely because we attach diverse personal meanings onto objects, and see them used within various contexts; personal associations and meanings, therefore, are reactively projected upon the object by users in an idiosyncratic manner (Cupchik 1999). Furthermore, users consider products as part of themselves, and this is considered key to understanding the way in which object meaning is created (Belk 1988). It is unclear whether emotional attachments are designable as ‘for personal reasons one can feel emotionally attached even to a turnip or a hubcap’ (van Hinte 1997: 234). This is because each user possesses a unique assemblage of memories which render objects potent symbols of the self and carriers of great personal significance. Indeed, the way in which we, as a society, collectively perceive and understand manufactured objects is also changing: Until the middle of the 20th century consumer durables were generally viewed as investments and, within reasonable cost boundaries, were designed to last as long as possible. Since then, however, planned obsolescence, the deliberate curtailment of a product’s life span, has become commonplace, driven by, for example, a need for cost reductions in order to meet ‘price points’, the convenience of disposability, and the appeal of fashion. (Cooper 2005: 57) We are currently facing a societal shift towards a contemporary mode of individuality that is fragmented over countless relationships with manufactured objects and the experiences that they mediate. This has cast us in an abstract version of reality in which relationships are sought from toasters, mobile phones and other fabricated experiences. This societal migration away from interpersonal relationships toward a contemporary mode of subject/object relations is becoming the norm. Today, empathy is encountered not so much with each other but through fleeting embraces with manufactured artefacts; this shift from abstract and anonymous experience towards more synergistic

66

Longer Lasting Products

engagements between people and things imparts understanding into the way we perceive the world in which we live (de Groot 1997). Material consumption operates on a variety of experiential levels, from the rational and tangible to the profound and numinous. Without an adequate understanding of the motivational, human factorial and emotional drivers that fuel the human condition, design corners itself within a limited, technological approach, in which opportunities for real progress are overlooked.

The Symptom-Focused Character of Sustainable Design Despite its considerable growth as a specialist approach to design in terms of defining methodologies and practices, sustainable design is unresolved, and the discussion this lack of resolution stimulates may well be helpful in questioning the efficacy of sustainability in its current form. After all: [b]y nature, sustainability must claim a monopoly of belief: as a ‘belief’ it cannot admit an opposite belief is equally valid. It is a consistent and universalist world-view, Weltanschauung. Its adherents act in accordance with one general principle: that it should be accepted by all persons. In practice, too, there is common action for sustainability, by governments, non-governmental organizations, loose groups of activists, and industry. The ability to unify diverse groups also suggests sustainability is an ideology, in a negative sense. (Treanor 2005) Amidst today’s frantic scramble to comply with environmental legislation the human behavioural root causes of the ecological situation we face are dangerously overlooked. As a result, sustainable design is predominately characterized by strategic approaches such as recycling, the specification of biodegradable materials and design for disassembly, all of which attend merely to the symptoms of what is, in essence, a fundamentally flawed system. The result of this is that the ‘consumer machine persists and consumers continue avidly to consume as they always have, only now they do so with recycled materials instead of virgin ones’ (Chapman 2005: 9). At best, sustainable design is concerned with the creation of objects that comply with the fundamental precepts of economic, social and environmental 

Perhaps most notably the EU Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE).

subject/object relationships and emotionally durable design

67

sustainability; as such, the ecological implications of design decisions present one of the prime facets of contemporary discourse within the creative industries. Indeed, the sustainability challenge is a design issue: ‘Eighty percent of a product, service, or system’s environmental impact is determined at the design stage’ (Design Council 2002: 19). In addition, new and enlightened consumer awareness, coupled with rising levels of environmental legislation, is beginning to engage all corners of the industry in questioning the ecological dimensions of their commercial activities. However, with a few exceptions, sustainable design methodologies have a tendency to adopt a symptomfocused persona, addressing the after-effects rather than the causes of today’s grossly inefficient model of design, production and consumption (Chapman 2006). This is particularly true outside academia and design research circles, where the vast majority of practising designers do not have the time, or desire, to engage in theoretical debates about the future of sustainable design. Instead, they require workable, time-efficient strategies that can be put into practice instantly. Perhaps as a means to serve this demand, sustainable design has a tendency towards more tangible, end-of-pipe methodologies. If the so-called ‘green design’ approach has a limitation, it is that it develops strategic approaches to product design, manufacture and consumption whose primary impacts intervene only at the end-of-pipe stage. It modifies individual products or services but does not transform the industrial process as a whole (Thackara 2005). For example, ‘increased recycling does not reduce the flow of material and energy through the economy but it does reduce resource depletion and waste volumes’ (Stahel 1986: 124). In overlooking deeper strategic possibilities, sustainable design fails to notice potentially more effective strategies. Furthermore, ‘in recent years the word sustainable has been slapped onto everything from sustainable forestry to sustainable agriculture, sustainable economic growth, sustainable development, sustainable communities and sustainable energy production. The widespread use of the term indicates that many people conclude that the dominant, industrial models of production are unsustainable’ (Devall 2004). Yet, the well-intentioned cause does not always concern itself with the preservation of nature’s dignity, as distinct from humancentred, anthropocentric concerns (Sessions 1995).

 

For example, Papanek 1995; Van der Ryn and Cowan 1997; McDonough and Braungart 2002; Manzini and Jégou 2003. Better known in the USA as ‘design for the environment’.

68

Longer Lasting Products

The current throughput of natural resources is a contemporary legacy borne from the short-sighted merging of long term material durability with short-lived product use careers, or ‘career plans’ (Van Hinte 1997: 27). In failing to address the actual drivers underpinning the feverish uptake and discarding of material artefacts, sustainable design limits its own potential rather than expanding to become the central pioneer of positive social, economic and environmental reformation as it could be (Chapman 2006): ‘Approaches to sustainable design, production and consumption seldom ask more fundamental questions about the meaning and place of products in our lives, and the contribution of material goods to what might be broadly termed the human endeavour’ (Walker 2006: 20). As a result, the consumer machine continues to rage forth practically unchanged, leaving designers to attend the periphery, healing mere symptoms of what is, in essence, a deeply unsound system.

Subject/Object Relationships and Emotional Durability Design plays a central role in the creation of longer subject/object relationships. In recent years this assertion has become increasingly well supported: ‘Measures are needed to promote the design of products with increased durability, to encourage owners to take good care of their possessions and to provide greater market incentives for longer-lasting products’ (Cooper 2005: 64). For some time now, strategic approaches to product life extension have circulated design and manufacturing fields. In most instances, durability is characterized simply by specifying resilient materials, fixable technologies and the application of advanced design engineering methodologies that reduce the likelihood of blown circuits, stress fractures and other physical failures. However, once emotional attachments weaken and these products are eventually discarded, this objective model of durability has a particularly destructive impact on the biosphere. Waste facilities around the globe swell with layer upon layer of physically durable products, slowly surrendering their functionality beneath tonnes of identically robust waste. Perhaps due to the normalcy of innovation, the made-world has adopted an expendable and sacrificial persona, rendering its offspring ‘fleeting, transient and replaceable orphans of circumstance’ (Chapman 2005: 63). When no-one was looking, industrial design became a subordinate packager of technology, housing hardware within intelligible skins that enable thoughtless and effortless subject/object interactions. Both the scope and power of emotional experiences delivered via objects born of this ideology are

subject/object relationships and emotionally durable design

69

incredibly limited and offer very little to users. Their ability to both support and mediate evolving narrative experiences are weak and, as a result, such products are like stories with an incredible opening line but one which is endlessly repeated throughout: ‘Interacting with this technocratic and depersonalized environment fuels a reactionary mindset that hankers after meaningful content, mystery and emotion’ (de Groot 1997: 20). For example, ‘even though industrial design plays a part in the design of extreme pain (e.g. weapons) and pleasure (e.g. sex aids), the range of emotions offered through most electronic products is pathetically narrow’ (Dunne and Raby 2001: 45). Indeed, the computational and communicative devices that now assist almost every transaction in our daily lives are designed as dull and servile boxes that respond to our commands in a state of neutrality (de Groot 2002). Progress for progress’s sake leads to the technocentric superficiality that is becoming increasingly characteristic of today’s industrial design offering: We do amazing things with technology, and we’re filling the world with amazing systems and devices, but we find it hard to explain what this new stuff is for, or what value it adds to our lives. I don’t think we can evade these questions any longer … Do all these chips make for better products? Or a better life? Let me tell you a strange thing. Hardly anyone is asking that question. When it comes to innovation, we are looking down the wrong end of the telescope: away from people, toward technology. Industry suffers from a kind of global autism. Autism, as you may know, is a psychological disorder that is characterized by detachment from other human beings. (Thackara 2001: 48) As consumers we seem hopelessly seduced by the incandescent glow of all things new, be it a flatter screen or a smarter plastic, while remaining largely oblivious to the astonishing potential lurking within deeper, poetic, semantic and interactive product developments – beyond newness. Technological innovation is a vital element of the developmental design process and yet in recent years it has taken centre stage at the expense of other less tangible, though equally potent, creative considerations. It is also important to note at this point that for many electronic products the vast majority of energy consumed is pre-use, during the resource extraction and manufacturing phases. This is particularly true of digital products such as mobile phones, PDAs, digital cameras and MP3 players; these require low levels of energy to operate (largely due to their frictionless action, achieved 

Personal digital assistants.

70

Longer Lasting Products

through a lack of moving parts) but require relatively high levels of energy to produce. It is particularly alarming, therefore, that products occupying this category tend to have particularly fleeting existences, due to their emphasis being placed firmly on maintaining currency with the technological state of the art: once a newer model hits the shelves practically all value is lost and replacement behaviours are promptly motivated. In contrast, it appears that attachments with non-electronic products are a well-documented and somewhat commonplace phenomenon. Examples of these objects might include photographs of loved ones, a teddy bear from childhood, a penknife handed down from one’s father, a seashell from a special holiday or perhaps a pair of shoes that have taken the owner to unforgettable places. Artefacts of this emotionally resonant nature embody values far beyond their monetary worth and hold a special place in the hearts and minds of users; in this sense, ‘the emotional side of design may be more critical to a product’s success than its practical elements’ (Norman 2004: 34). Attachment behaviour has a direct influence on the longevity of such objects and regularly motivates users to hold onto them, even after the said object falls into disuse or has been replaced. Durable and long-lasting attachments to non-electronic objects are everyday occurrences and provide valuable indications that a more sustainable mode of contemporary engagement with the material world is potentially achievable and may not be as utopian as some cynics might assume. Furthermore, longer-lasting solutions may be achieved through the deliberate slowing of production and consumption cycles: Current consumption operates within a linear production-consumption system that takes resources, makes them into products, then discards or wastes them … slowing consumption offers a direct response to unsustainable consumption. By slowing the mass flows in the linear production-consumption economy a level of sustainability could be achieved. (Park 2004: 2) Emotionally durable objects (such as those listed above, or denim jeans, hand tools, souvenirs, jewellery, books or antiques) facilitate this slowing of consumption by enabling objects to dodge the ‘deflowering gaze’ (Sartre 1969) of waste by possessing meanings which evolve and grow with the users, ensuring that subject and object grow together. This is preferable to the onesided growth that usually takes place, where the user outgrows the static product in a fleeting handful of dissatisfying weeks or even days. What can be

subject/object relationships and emotionally durable design

71

understood from these success stories, and how can this inform the design of more emotionally durable products? The levels of precision and control found within electronic and digital products, as opposed to non-electronic products, are often the precursors of detachment behaviours. The ideology of ‘fuzzy interactions’ with objects runs contrary to the prevailing model of popular design, with its focus on idiotproof interfaces: ‘in many cases, imperfections can be endearing and help to create a bond with the user’ (Van Hinte 1997: 189). Van Hinte explores design strategies for desirable ageing and this leads us straight to the issue of perfection. Numerous car owners polish their vehicle every week. It is the only way in which they can hold up the illusion of newness. However, ‘perfection is vulnerable. A small scratch on a mudguard does more harm to a car than dismantling the engine’ (Van Hinte 1997: 131). Products must be both dynamic and flexible in order to accommodate ‘endearing imperfections’, as what people basically want is a well-functioning and up-to-date product that meets their altering needs. The variable nature of users’ desires similarly requires the development of dynamic and flexible products (Van Nes and Cramer 2003). Users must therefore be designed into narratives as co-producers and not simply inert, passive witnesses: ‘The user becomes a protagonist and the designer becomes a co-author of the experience, the product creates dilemmas rather than resolving them’ (Dunne and Raby 2001: 46). As contemporary life continues to become evermore programmed, this need for rich evolving narrative experiences, complexity and dialogue, will increase correspondingly. The European Union’s Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive, which requires producers to take responsibility for their electrical and electronic products at end of life, has effectively started to engage industry in re-evaluating its position on the life-spans of electronic objects. The threat of litigation for non-compliance could force many to re-appraise their product portfolios: ‘As a consequence, such legislative instruments might establish frameworks and drivers for a more formalised design response to unsustainable consumption’ (Park 2004: 9). Today, however, products designed for take-back are still geared toward disassembly and recycling (and/or reuse) rather than prolonged life-spans. This is because ‘eco-design usually functions at an operational level and is unlikely to hold much potential for radical change

72

Longer Lasting Products

because it works within the same thinking that caused the problems in the first place’ (Lofthouse 2004: 225). Technical, procurement-oriented methods such as these may ‘make it possible to design products that are friendlier to the environment, but leaves a fundamental problem unaddressed: the short lifetime of our products … it is not enough to make less polluting products, however important that may be, when they are replaced at high speed because people throw them away too soon’ (Verbeek and Kockelkoren 1998: 28).

Conclusion All too often, ‘current product design practice leads to slumbering dissatisfaction with our material world. Many people loathe our throw-away society in which lack of quality is taken for granted. The result is an enormous waste and needless destruction of value.’ Due to the everyday and often superficial nature of innovation, material culture has developed a transient, sacrificial and replaceable character. Our contemporary engagement with objects has become both disproportionate and volatile. In response to this trend, commercially viable strategies must be developed for emotionally durable objects which engage users on deeper and more profound levels, delivering intense and sophisticated experiences that slowly penetrate the user psyche over longer, more rewarding, periods of time. New, alternative genres of objects are needed that reduce the consumption and waste of resources by increasing the durability of relationships established between users and products, people and things. Even today, in the brave new era of environmental awareness, ethical consumption and sustainable design, a sense of instability continues to encircle design, production and consumption. It is imperative that we revisit the methodologies and paradigms through which product longevity and so-called ‘design for durability’ is addressed, and pioneer novel and provocative models of sustainable design.



Eternally Yours website (no longer active). Accessed on 5 May 2007 at: http://www.eternallyyours.nl/ (Eternally Yours was an international network of specialists in product life-spans, based in the Netherlands).

subject/object relationships and emotionally durable design

73

These creative new strategies for emotionally durable objects will empower consumers to transcend the superficial urgencies of conventional consumerism and forge deep emotive connections with their possessions. At a time of looming ecological crisis, increasing legislation and limited progress using sustainable design, they will provide the cornerstones to positive social, economic and environmental progress.

References BAGOZZI, R.P. (2001). The poverty of economic explanations of consumption and an action theory alternative. Managerial and Decision Economics 21 (3–4), 95–109. BALL, A.D. and TASAKI, L.H. (1992). The role and measurement of attachment in consumer behaviour. Journal of Consumer Psychology 1 (2), 155–72. BATTERBEE, K. and MATTELMÄKI, T. (2004). Meaningful product relationships. In: MCDONAGH, D., HEKKERT, P., VAN ERP, J. and GYI, D. (eds). Design and Emotion. London: Taylor and Francis, pp. 337–41. BAUDRILLARD, J. (1993). Symbolic Exchange and Death. London: Sage. BELK, R.W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research 15 (September), 139–68. CHAPMAN, J. (2005). Emotionally Durable Design: Objects, experiences and empathy. London: Earthscan. CHAPMAN, J. (2006). Modern Life is Rubbish. Blueprint 241 (April), 68–71. CHRISTER, K. and COOPER, T. (2004). Marketing durability: A preliminary review of the market potential for life span labels. Virtue in Marketing, Academy of Marketing Conference, 6–9 July, Cheltenham. COOPER, T. (2002). Durable consumption: Reflections on product life cycles and the throwaway society. In HERTWICH, E. (ed.). Workshop Proceedings, Lifecycle Approaches to Sustainable Consumption, 22 November, Laxenburg, Austria, pp. 15–27. COOPER, T. (2005). Slower consumption: Reflections on product life spans and the ‘throwaway society’. Journal of Industrial Ecology 9 (1–2), 51–67. CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, M. and ROCHBERG-HALTON, E. (1981). The Meaning of Things: Domestic symbols and the self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CUPCHIK, G.C. (1999). Emotion and industrial design: Reconciling meanings and feelings. 1st International Conference on Design and Emotion, 3–5 November, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.

74

Longer Lasting Products

DE GROOT, C. (1997). Experiencing the phenomenological object [online]. In: UDALL, N., DE GROOT, C. and YOUNG, M. (eds). Closing the Gap Between Subject and Object, Design Transformation Group, Birmingham, pp. 20–21. Accessed July 2009 at http://www.thewayofnowhere.com/nofo/knowledge/ DevelopingaPracticeofCo-Creation/1997-Closing-The-Gap.pdf DE GROOT, C. (2002). The Consciousness of Objects – Or the Darker Side of Design. Birmingham: Birmingham Institute of Art and Design, University of Central England. DESIGN COUNCIL (2002). Annual Review 2002. London: Design Council. DEVALL, B. (2004). The unsustainability of sustainability [online]. Culture Change magazine 19, Sustainable Energy Institute. Accessed July 2009 at http://www.culturechange.org/issue19/unsustainability.htm DITTMAR, H. (1992). The Social Psychology of Material Possessions: To have is to be. New York: St Martin’s Press. DUNNE, A. and RABY, F. (2001). Design Noir: The secret life of electronic objects. London: Birkhauser. FORLIZZI, J. and FORD, S. (2000). The building blocks of experience. In: BOYARSKI, D. and KELLOGG, W.A. (eds). Conference Proceedings, DIS (Designing Interactive Systems) 2000, 17–19 August, New York, USA, pp. 419–23. FROMM, E. (1979). To Have or To Be? London: Abacus. JÄÄSKÖ, V. and MATTELMÄKI, T. (2003). Observing and probing. DPPI (Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces) ’03 Conference, 23–26 June, Pittsburgh, USA. JÄÄSKÖ, V., MATTELMÄKI, T. and YLIRISKU, S. (2003). The scene of experience. Conference Proceedings, The Good, The Bad and The Irrelevant, 3–5 September, University of Art and Design, Helsinki, Finland. JORDAN, P.W. (2000). Designing Pleasurable Products. London: Taylor and Francis. LOFTHOUSE, V. (2004). Investigation into the role of core industrial designers in ecodesign projects. Design Studies 25 (2), 215–27. MACPHERSON, C.B. (1978). Property: Mainstream and critical positions. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. MANZINI, E. and JÉGOU, F. (2003). Sustainable Everyday: Scenarios of urban life. Milan: Fondazione La Triennale di Milano/Edizioni Ambiente. MCDONOUGH, W. and BRAUNGART, M. (2002). Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the way we make things. New York: North Point Press. NORMAN, D. (2004). Emotional Design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books. PACKARD, V. (1963). The Waste Makers. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

subject/object relationships and emotionally durable design

75

PAPANEK, V. (1995). The Green Imperative: Natural design for the real world. London: Thames and Hudson. PARK, M. (2004). Design for sustainable consumption. FutureGround, Design Research Society Conference, 17–21 November, Melbourne, Australia. PHILIPS DESIGN (1996). Visions of the Future. Eindhoven: Philips Design. SARTRE, J.P. (1969). Being and Nothingness: A phenomenological essay on ontology. London: Routledge. SCHULTZ, S.E., KLEINE, R.E. and KERNAN, J.B. (1989). These are a few of my favourite things: Toward an explication of attachment as a consumer behaviour construct. Advances in Consumer Research 16, 359–66. SEARLES, H.F. (1960). The Non-Human Environment in Normal Development and Schizophrenia? New York: International University Press. SESSIONS, G. (1995). Deep Ecology for the 21st Century: Readings on the philosophy and practice of the new environmentalism. Boston, MA: Shambhala. STAHEL, W. R. (1986). The Functional Economy: Cultural and organizational change [online]. Science and Public Policy 13 (4). Accessed July 2009 at http:// www.product-life.org/en/archive/the-functional-economy-cultural-andorganizational-change THACKARA, J. (2001). The design challenge of pervasive computing. Interactions 8 (3), 46–52. THACKARA, J. (2005). In the Bubble: Designing in a complex world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. THOMPSON, J. (2005). More than meets the eye. Exploring opportunities for new products, which may aid us emotionally as well as physically. In MCDONAGH, D., HEKKERT, P., VAN ERP, J. and GYI, D. (eds). Design and Emotion. London: Taylor and Francis, pp. 332–36. TREANOR, P. (2005). Why Sustainability Is Wrong [online]. Accessed November 2006 at http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/sustainability.html VAN DER RYN, S. and COWAN, S. (1997). Ecological Design. Washington, DC: Island Press. VAN HINTE, E. (ed.) (1997). Eternally Yours: Visions on product endurance. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers. VAN NES, N., and CRAMER, J. (2003). Influencing product lifetime through product design. Business Strategy and the Environment 14, 286–99. VERBEEK, P.P. and KOCKELKOREN, P. (1997). Matter matters. In: VAN HINTE, E. (ed.) Eternally Yours: Visions on Product Endurance. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, pp. 100–15 VERBEEK, P.P. and KOCKELKOREN, P. (1998). The things that matter. Design Issues 14 (3), 28–42.

76

Longer Lasting Products

WALKER, S. (2006). Object lessons: Enduring artifacts and sustainable solutions. Design Issues 22 (1), 20–31. WALLENDORF, M. and ARNOULD, E.J. (1988). My favourite things: A crosscultural inquiry into object attachment, possessiveness and social linkage. Journal of Consumer Research 14 (March), 531–47.



Defying Obsolescence

4

Miles Park

Abstract What can we learn from product design and consumer behaviour that might enable products to defy obsolescence? This chapter considers a range of product attributes, consumer behaviours and societal factors that are associated with prolonged product life-spans. It presents a range of examples mostly drawn from the consumer electronics sector, which is of particular interest due to rapid obsolescence. The life-spans of many such products (notably personal computers and mobile phones) are getting shorter and a significant proportion of these products are still in functional order when discarded. The examples presented are often informal responses to impending obsolescence; they are not planned or anticipated by the designer or manufacturer. The chapter concludes by considering the need for new and collaborative approaches between designers and users in meeting the challenge of engaging with obsolescence effectively in a fast-moving technological sector such as consumer electronics.

Introduction Product obsolescence first rose in prominence with the idea of ‘planning’ obsolescence. Although it can be traced back to the late 1920s (Slade 2006), it was not until after World War II that it became a widely practised strategy amongst designers and marketers, notably in the USA where industrial designer Brooks Stevens proposed that, by deliberately building in (planning) product obsolescence a struggling economy could be reinvigorated by creating fresh demand for new products (Adamson 2003). To the general public planned obsolescence first came to notoriety through the highly popular writings of Vance Packard (1963), who slammed Stevens in his bestselling book The Waste Makers. Packard’s contribution was to dissect obsolescence into three distinct

78

Longer Lasting Products

forms: obsolescence of function, quality and desirability, in the meantime popularizing another catchphrase, the ‘throwaway society’, a phrase that still maintains much currency today (Cooper 2005). Packard stressed the importance of how consumer psychology could be shaped to perceive a product as obsolete and to desire a replacement despite its functional condition. Today, nearly five decades later, his observations of ‘perceived’ or ‘relative’ obsolescence still remain relevant. Many terms and definitions have been used in association with the life-span of a product. The term ‘product life-span’ is used to denote the time between first acquisition and the ultimate disposal of a product. It is not to be confused with the marketing use of the term with reference to market life-span (market availability) of a product. A product’s life-span is the totality of its duration of use despite the possibility of changing owners or users, context and uses it may be subjected to. A product may also be acquired and disposed of many times during its life-span. The term suggests neither a preference for an extension or shortening of product life. Durability, another widely used term, implies notions of permanence and longevity. If a product is durable it is often thought to be reliable, rugged and generally resistant to wear and tear. Thus the term ‘consumer durable’ implies a relatively long lasting product that will not prematurely breakdown and, if it does, can be maintained or repaired. Curiously, when ‘durability’ is paired with ‘emotional’, as in the concept of ‘emotionally durable design’ (Chapman 2005), the term takes on a different and extended meaning. Emotional durability seeks to engage with the various forms of relative obsolescence, beyond the operational and functional constraints that determine ‘absolute’ product life. Likewise, the terms ‘longevity’ (Park 2003; Cooper 2005), ‘product lifeextension’ (Heiskanen 1996) and ‘product endurance’ (Van Hinte 1997) suggest long product life through resilience to the both forms of ‘absolute’ and ‘relative’ obsolescence. The terms mentioned immediately above imply that the objective is to mitigate obsolescence and extend product life. However, strategies designed   

‘Relative’ obsolescence is characterized by psychological, economic and technological factors that determine product life-spans, while ‘absolute’ obsolescence is associated with the functional (operational) durability of a product (Cooper 2004). Nicole van Nes (2003) uses the term ‘product lifetime’, an equally valid definition: ‘The product lifetime is the duration of the life of a product, starting from acquisition (new or second hand) and ending at the moment of replacement.’ See Chapter 1 (Cooper).

defying obsolescence

79

to increase product life may be simplistic and potentially inappropriate (Burns 2003). Life-span or lifetime ‘optimization’ refers to the proposition that the objective should not be the perpetual durability or endurance of a product but, rather, that product life should be ‘optimized’. For instance, one study concluded that the optimum life-span of a dishwasher is 8.1 years, after which it is environmentally beneficial to replace it with a more technologically advanced, eco-efficient model (Chalkley et al. 2003). In purely technological terms a ‘lifetime optimization analysis’ may be able to determine an appropriate product life-span. However, when other factors are accounted for, including actual consumer behaviour (the way products are really used) and other lifecycle impacts, lifetime optimization calculations may present an incomplete and misleading picture of environmental loads.

Ephemeral Electronics It is estimated that 20 to 50 million metric tonnes of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) is thrown away worldwide every year (UNEP 2006). Each year in the UK 2 million working personal computers are dumped in landfill sites (Waste Watch 2007), while in the US a staggering 14 to 20 million obsolete PCs, many still in functional order, are condemned as e-waste (UNEP 2006). Recycling consumer electronics remains a fringe activity: of the 15 million mobile phones discarded annually in the UK, only 4 per cent are recycled (Adam 2005). Worldwide, the volume of e-waste is expected to increase by 3 to 5 per cent annually. Developing countries are increasing their contribution to this total; they are expected to triple their output of e-waste by 2010 (UNEP 2006), illustrating the magnitude of the ‘throwaway society’. There is a strong correlation between product obsolescence and technological change (OECD 2002). In the electronics sector, technological innovation leading to the proliferation of electronic devices, communications networks and dramatic cost reductions conspires to escalate consumption. Electronic integrated circuitry increases in complexity relative to cost at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year. The implication of this is especially startling when a comparison is made between computers and automobiles. ‘If the automobile industry had made as much progress in the past fifty years, a car today would cost a hundredth of a cent and go faster than the speed of light’ (Kurzweil, cited in Slade 2006: 197). Despite the environmental benefits  

See Chapter 1 (Cooper). This is known as Moore’s Law and was first devised in 1965 (Slade 2006).

80

Longer Lasting Products

that often result from technological change (such as energy efficiency and the reduction of toxic substances), rapid technological change also leads to significant levels of obsolescence and waste. The average life-span of a computer is changing, from six to four years in 1997 to only two years in 2005 (Hai-Yong and Schoenung 2006). As a result, consumer perceptions have shifted from seeing many of these products not as durables but as consumables (Cooper and Mayers 2000). Over the last 20 years or so, electronics have migrated into new product areas that traditionally have been populated by manual or mechanical devices, including kitchen appliances (such as bread makers and electronic pepper mills), personal hygiene devices (electric toothbrushes and feminine razors) and children’s toys (electronic games and illuminated balls). Novelty, fashion and low cost are features of these increasingly ephemeral products. Some of the more bizarre examples include electronic ‘vibrating’ soap and battery-illuminated sweets. Vibrating soap consists of a disposable motor and battery assembly within a cake of soap that vibrates during use (IWOOT 2006). Lighting Bugs is a battery-illuminated confectionery: a pair of disposable tongs, containing a battery and LED (light-emitting diode), glow when used to pick up a translucent wine-gum sweet shaped as a bug (Kandy Kastle 2006) (Figure 4.1). The functional life-span of this throwaway electrical device is only as long as it takes to consume the packet of sweets. Purchasing cost is possibly the single most important factor in determining product lifespans (Bayus 1988). Consumer electronics have been subject to incessant price erosion over many years. The number of days required to earn the cost of a television (based upon average gross weekly earnings) has dropped from 44 in 1962 to Figure 4.1

Ephemeral electronics: Lighting Bugs, batteryilluminated confectionery

defying obsolescence

81

2.5 in 2000 and, for a refrigerator, 57 in 1962 to just 5 in 2000. This deflationary trend, by bringing new material benefits to those who could not previously afford such ‘luxuries’, can be viewed as ‘democratising consumption’ (Linstead et al. 2003). However, cost impacts upon product life-spans extend much further than just purchase price. The ratio between cost of repair and cost of replacement has dramatically reversed in recent years. A Scandinavian study found that over a 10-year period the cost of repair work for a television and a washing machine increased by 150 per cent and 165 per cent respectively (Consumers International, cited in Cooper 2005). Labour is a significant component of this cost, but even repairs undertaken by the owner may not be feasible due to the high cost or unavailability of parts. The ‘DNA’ of consumer electronics, with their complex inventory of components, sub-assemblies and material alloys, results in a significant environmental impact, far greater than for many other categories of consumer goods (Ryan 2004). The manufacture of consumer electronics is energy- and material-intensive, involving many toxic or non-renewable substances such as mercury, cadmium, lead and copper. The consumption phase brings other problems, the most significant being CO2 emissions resultant from the use of fossil fuels for electrical power generation. Further problems arise when a product reaches the end of its life and enters the waste stream, including potentially toxic or valuable materials ‘lost’ in landfill or through incineration. Attempts to reduce the amount of waste from these goods through regulatory instruments such as the WEEE and RoHS (Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment) Directives have so far had little impact especially upon design. Delays in implementation and mixed messages from the Government have compounded confusion about the legislation, stalling opportunities for action to tackle these concerns (Hill and Shaw 2005).

Examples of Defiance In the face of the many forces that drive product obsolescence and the throwaway society, there are examples of products, behaviour and societal factors that defy obsolescence. Many are informal or unplanned and have evolved due to particular situations or individual circumstance. Informal or unplanned actions are determined by the user, whereas formalized or planned responses to prolong product life-spans determined during the product design phase are much less common. For instance, eco-design strategies often make 

Data from Australian Bureau of Statistics cited in ACA (2000).

82

Longer Lasting Products

mention of extending product life (Lewis and Gertsakis 2001; Tischner 2001), typically by employing strategies such as upgradeability or modular design approaches, but in practice are often not implemented. Examples presented in this section are grouped at three levels: Product (features), Individual (behaviour) and Societal (socio/economic). They are intended to be representative but by no means provide a comprehensive review of possible obsolescence-defying circumstances. The relationship between the categories, ranging in scale from micro to macro, is demonstrated in Figure 4.2. ‘Micro’ refers to features that are specific to a product. These concern the physicality of a product, including materials, surface treatments and finishes, product form and component configurations. The middle ring represents individual behaviours that can influence product life-spans. ‘Macro’ refers to the wider socio/economic contexts that can influence product life-spans, including secondary markets, information networks and certain business models. These are societal factors that are typically collective, networked or organizational, involving social, cultural and economic practices.

Figure 4.2

Defying obsolescence: category groupings, from micro to macro

Product Level Product-level attributes are features found within the actual product. They include materials, surface treatments, finishes, construction, subassemblies,

defying obsolescence

83

components and product structure. Examples of particular attributes that can lead to a prolonged product life-span are described in further detail below: ageing gracefully, upgrading strategies, scripting, piggybacking, silent performers, system interdependence, reassignment and luxury products.

Ageing Gracefully Materials are of great importance when assessing a product’s durability and ongoing desirability. Plastics are one class of materials closely associated with consumer electronics and industrial design that offer a range of qualities and performances unrivalled by other materials. However, they have a number of persistent shortcomings, including the perception that they are often an inferior substitute for other, more ‘quality’, materials (Lefteri 2008). The initial manufacture of products in plastic polymers has been described as a process of ‘substitution, imitation, and innovation’ (Meikle 1995: 11). Plastics’ bad reputation can also be attributed to design. When first introduced, the new material was poorly understood, resulting in the design of flawed and inferior plastic products (Meikle 1995). Its reputation is also condemned by the many environmental impacts associated with its use. When discarded, the slow degradation of plastic products can have many detrimental impacts. Indeed degradation often starts before they are discarded as the ageing of plastics results in aesthetic and functional performance degradation in the form of loss of clarity, crazing, cracking, warping, dusting or colour bleaching. For example, aesthetic degradation of facia panels and external housings is likely to result in ‘yellowing’ when the material is exposed to ultra violet (UV) radiation (sunlight) for sustained periods. Aesthetic degradation of products can also be accelerated by poor design, or disregard by consumers during frequent use. Spray painted, polished or smooth-surface finishes are common on many portable consumer electronic products, such as laptops, mobile phones and digital cameras. Polymers such as ABS can be finished using a plating or vapour metal deposition process that allows for mirror finishing which provides a chrome or metallic appearance. The problem with these and similar finishes is that despite improved surface hardness, polished surfaces are prone to surface scratching, a highly visible form of aesthetic degradation. The Apple iPod, with its mirror-finished surfaces and crisp edges, is an example of how product wear can be accelerated – hence the popularity of ‘skins’ or covers to protect such devices (Figure 4.3). In such cases, the designer plays an influential role in determining the rate of aesthetic degradation through decisions about materials, surface texture, finish and

84

Longer Lasting Products

product form. The use of generous edge radii, uniform polymer pigmentation (rather than surface finishes) and textured (rather than smooth) surfaces are just three simple practical measures that can slow aesthetic deterioration of a product.

Figure 4.3

iPods, new and not so old

In some circumstances, marks and scratches that a product acquires in its lifetime can become a desirable feature. The aesthetic ageing of products was a theme explored at an event in 1997, the Eternally Yours Congress. This addressed perceptions of product quality, ageing and wear and revealed positive examples of aesthetically acceptable wear (Van Hinte 1997). The patina of wear can be a record documenting a product’s life-span (McCoy 1997), hence the appeal of items such as antique furniture, a well-worn leather belt or wooden hand tool. However, users are less tolerant of patina on electronic products (perhaps for good reason, as such markings often indicate misuse or misadventure, although not all such patina need to be condemned in this way). Wear on so-called ‘semi-professional’ equipment can be advantageous, by linking aspirations of the amateur consumer to professional usage of the product. For example, through materials selection, surface texture and 

Eternally Yours ran a second event in 2003, Time and Design, which expanded upon this theme (Van Hinte 2004).

defying obsolescence

85

detail, the Bosch GSR cordless drill range communicates a message about toughness to its owners and their ‘professional’ DIY aspirations. Bosch (2009) further reinforces the distinction between professional and consumer markets by colour-coding their product range: green for domestic users and blue/green (teal) for professional users. The logic of these carefully marketed goods presupposes that professional equipment is manufactured to a higher specification than an ordinary product, to take the knocks and abuse of daily professional work. Ribs, bumps, dimples, textured surfaces and generous radii on corners are stylistic devices deployed by designers to enhance the perceived qualities of professional ruggedness. They are commonly found on consumer goods such as camping and gardening equipment, and power tools. Once used by the owner, minor nicks and scratches on such products are often considered acceptable and in some cases enhance their rugged appearance (Figure 4.4).

Figure 4.4

Nicks and scratches are aesthetically acceptable on rugged tools

Upgrading If a product is designed to be flexible in its configuration, through being upgradable, it has a better chance to resist the complex dynamic of users’ motivations to replace it with a newer product (Van Nes 2003). Upgradeability allows for the replacement of certain parts, either hardware or software, to keep up with the latest technology or to enhance functionality. In some instances, it may be mandatory in order to correct a flaw or shortcoming within the product, notably when product safety is involved. Computer software upgrades are

86

Longer Lasting Products

probably the most familiar example of upgrading. The upgrading of computer hardware may be an equally valid approach but is fraught with difficulties for the inexperienced. One formalized way that upgrading could be made easier is through modularization of sub-assemblies within a product. Nicole van Nes (2003) discusses the concept of upgradeability in terms of ‘fast’ and ‘slow’ technology. Using the example of a personal computer, she describes how technological ageing is uneven. Computer memory is an example of fast technology, where technological innovation is rapid, whereas the computer power supply is much less subject to technological change. Thus a potential upgrade to the power supply is of little benefit, whilst a memory upgrade may offer significant improvement in performance. Van Nes proposes the adoption of a modular design upgrade strategy as a way to even out these discordances between fast and slow technology within a product. Upgradeability can also be applied to aesthetics and provide a means to slow down obsolescence arising from fashion. The surface or ‘skin’ of a product may be replaced to change and personalize its look or to replace worn surfaces. The system of replaceable covers was common with mobile phones during the 1990s, although it has now fallen out of favour. More recently, suppliers have exploited this concept by offering replaceable skins or covers for Apple iPods that enable protection as well as personalization of the product.

Scripting For the designer, a practical eco-design approach to improve product life-spans is to design products that can be made more durable (Lewis and Gertsakis 2001). However, for consumers, deciding on when and how to upgrade a product is a less clear proposition. One approach that may address this kind of problem is scripting, a process that weaves product design with user psychology. In a film or play, the role of the script is central to defining actors’ dialogue and actions. Similarly, a designer may devise a script for a product to define a role for the user to follow; the script is a means by which a technology ‘configures its user’ (Ingram et al. 2007: 5). Thus scripting attempts to modify or guide user behaviour through product design such that the user behaves in a prescribed or ‘scripted’ manner (Jelsma and Knot 2002). Bruno Latour (1992) provides a dated but often-cited example of older-style hotel key fobs that were designed to be large and heavy

defying obsolescence

87

to encourage their return to the reception desk. Behaviour is ‘inscribed’ into the key fob, guiding user behaviour to act as scripted. Similarly, product life-spans can be scripted. A coffee cup can illustrate this. A ceramic mug is inscribed with a script of reuse, while a foam or paper cup is inscribed with an opposing script of ‘dispose of after use’. The materials used in making the coffee cup are inscribed with a value that is expressed as a narrative of how we organize such products around our daily lives (Verbeek and Kockelkoren 1997). Other products may contain a maintenance script. For example, leather shoes require the periodic application of polish to restore the finish. Although shoes are rarely sold with maintenance instructions, maintenance behaviour is culturally inscribed within the materials chosen for the product. Other examples of scripted behaviours include initiating a selfcleaning routine on a computer printer or defragmenting a hard disk on a computer. These simple examples demonstrate how scripting might be applied to guide user behaviour in prolonging product life-spans. To be successful, a script needs to align with user logic by making use of cognitive biases and psychological heuristics (Fogg 2003) that are logical, learnable, economical and desirable (Jelsma and Knot 2002).

Piggybacking ‘Piggybacking’ is a term that may be used to describe an opportunity to renew or enhance functionality in a product through the addition of a secondary device or component. As with upgrading, piggybacking is an attractive strategy for consumer electronic products prone to technological obsolescence by offering a means to balance out fast- and slow-changing technology . However, it differs from upgrading in that it involves a supplementary component or device being added to the original product. The piggybacked devise is fitted adjacent to or upon the original product. The current migration from analogue to digital TV broadcasting offers a good example of the potential value of a piggybacking approach. Fear that many televisions sets would become obsolete as the new digital services started broadcasting has been overcome by widespread adoption of digital ‘set-top box’ receivers. These devices piggyback alongside the existing analogue television set and extend its functional life-span into the digital age. The rapid evolution from film to digital photography similarly appears to offer the potential for a piggybacking approach. Many SLR (single lens reflex)

88

Longer Lasting Products

film cameras have become obsolete as a result of digital photography. In theory, functionality for millions of dormant cameras could be extended through a piggybacking strategy of introducing a digital film module saddled onto the existing camera mechanism. One company claimed to have developed such a product (Digital Photography Review 2000), although it failed to achieve a market breakthrough.

Silent Performers An old adage suggests that ‘the only time you notice your shoes is when they pinch.’ So it is with numerous electrical products that inhabit our homes such as water heaters (‘boilers’), smoke detectors and ceiling fans. Many offer long and reliable service, only drawing attention when they fail. These ‘silent performers’ are often hidden or go unnoticed. They are mostly unencumbered by fashion or rapid technological change and the antithesis of ‘display’ or ‘positional’ goods commonly associated with goods such as cars, mobile phones, watches and jewellery that signal social status (Hirsch, cited in Jackson and Michaelis 2003). Silent performers are often hard-wired or installed in such a way that replacement is not easy. The need for specialist knowledge for installation (and removal) and associated expense contributes to an unwillingness to replace them unless absolutely necessary. Replacement thus usually only arises when the product fails and is uneconomical to repair. A variation of the ‘silent performer’ theme is when a product is downgraded to a secondary or back-up role within a household. The introduction of DAB (digital audio broadcasting) radios in the UK has seen many old analogue radios relegated to secondary roles within the household, displaced to less prominent locations such as the bedroom, study or garage (Figure 4.5). Despite their replacement, they still maintain a value to the user in their new, but demoted, role.

System Interdependence When electrical or electronic products are interdependent with one another, either obsolescence is delayed or the replacement of a one product triggers another (interdependent) product to be made obsolete. System interdependence is an issue that many computer owners face when considering the replacement of equipment: will new equipment be compatible with the old? Users may 

Report published on 17 September 2001. Accessed 15 May 2009 at http://www.imagingresource.com/NEWS/1000760900.html

defying obsolescence

Figure 4.5

89

A silent performer: demoted within the household but still valued

be reluctant to embark upon a path of equipment replacement because interdependent computer peripheral devices are often linked to specific software and hardware. System interdependence works on similar logic to mutually assured destruction (MAD): replacing one component device can cascade, rendering other interdependent equipment inoperable, and thus obsolete. The result is often to ‘make do’ for longer with the existing equipment and defer purchasing until the entire system can be replaced as a whole. A variation of this theme is a type of surrogate interdependence. For example, a VCR (video cassette recorder) may continue to remain in service, despite its technological displacement by newer digital technologies, as a means to play a videotape collection. To discard the VCR would mean loss of utility of the owner’s videotape collection.

Product Reassignment Products may in certain circumstances be transformed or reassigned from their original function and purpose into something entirely novel, a new service or utility undreamt of by the original designer and manufacturer. Product reassignment, or ‘repurposing’, is a reconfiguration of an entire product

90

Longer Lasting Products

through software or hardware additions that enable it to perform entirely new tasks. Not to be confused with recycled products (i.e. products made from reprocessed materials), reassignment is particularly applicable to electronic products that can be reprogrammed. Reassignment often arises in circumstances of economic necessity. In Cuba, for instance, examples exist of products being reassigned to perform entirely new tasks such as a plastic oil container reassigned as a rooftop illuminated taxi sign and a child’s squeaky toy reassigned as a bicycle horn (Pentagram 2003). Similarly, Russian curator Vladimir Arkhipov (2006) has collected an extensive range of contemporary Russian folk art examples of improvised reassigned household products. Some of more intriguing examples including television aerials fabricated out of kitchen forks and flowerpot bases made out of gramophone records. The Japanese phenomenon of Chindōgu, a word coined for the ‘art of (un)useless ideas’, offers a light-hearted approach to product reassignment through the appropriation of everyday products to new and often bizarre purposes (Kawakami 2004; Ichiki and Umehara 2005). Children have always been taught to make new things by reusing parts from discarded items (Figure 4.6).

Figure 4.6

Aeroplane made out of discarded packaging and sticky tape

defying obsolescence

91

Beyond these quirky examples, product reassignment has commercial design potential. The ratio of software to hardware in consumer electronics is shifting dramatically. Such products are increasingly reliant upon programmed firmware and software functionality. Whereas in the past a designer would need to consider specifying an array of buttons, switches and knobs on a product, software-driven interface displays have become common. Clearly if a product’s function and interface is programmed, it could be reprogrammed, enabling the product to be reassigned to a new use. For example, with 15 million mobile phone handsets discarded annually in the UK, one company, Nokia, has been experimenting with this concept by transforming used mobile phones into alarm clocks, handheld games and television remote controls (Adam 2005).

Luxury Products Expensive and premium positioned goods are often marketed – and perceived by consumers – as high-quality, durable, long term purchases. Designed for long life-spans, they are intended to defy both relative (psychological, economic and technological) and absolute (product malfunction) forms of obsolescence (Cooper 2004). Unlike an expensive watch or car, electrical and electronic goods such as premium range domestic appliances, toasters and vacuum cleaners may not entice strong emotional attachment from their owners but are likely to outlive their cheaper counterparts. The Dualit polished stainless steel toaster retails for approximately 20 times more than its cheapest rival but through its build quality, reputation and availability of replacement parts has secured a strong reputation (Brown 2005). Offsetting the high purchase price against long service life, such products may offer better economic value over the long term. The residual value of such products is also higher when traded on secondary markets: an Internet search for second-hand Dualit toasters attests to this assertion.

Individual Level Evidence suggests that there is significant inconsistency in consumer attitudes and behaviour in relation to product life-spans (Evans and Cooper 2003; Cooper 2004). Nonetheless, consumers do have a considerable influence and in 

Firmware is a combination of software and hardware. Computer chips that have data or programmes recorded on them are described as firmware.

92

Longer Lasting Products

some instances their attitudes and behaviour provide a distinctly positive role towards product life-spans. Individual behavioural types that offer a glimpse of people who defy product obsolescence are described below: the collectors, embalmers and tinkerers.

Collectors Collecting is a form of behaviour that demonstrates selective defiance to product obsolescence through the accumulation of specific types of good. Often a formalized, structured activity, it can be an involving and passionate mode of consumption (Belk 1995) (Figure 4.7).

Figure 4.7 A passionate collector who never threw anything away! Photo: Jeremy Park. Motivations behind collecting are varied: collectors may seek items of particular personal interest or items that are rare or have economic or cultural value. A collector may maintain an interest in a type of product for no other reason other than ‘liking it’ or have a deeper emotional attachment such as it being linked to important memories of previous events, associations or a past aspiration of ownership (Chapman 2005). Economic reasons are another strong motivation for collecting. The collected artefact can become an investment that could in future be traded for profit (Gregson and Crewe 2003). In its most formalized expression, the collector will seek out particular items to complement or complete a collection. The collection of fine wine or artwork

defying obsolescence

93

can be a highly structured activity in which the collection may be catalogued, archived or displayed. Often this form of collecting is targeted and measured in economic value and scarcity, with the greatest accolade reserved for obtaining a collected artefact that becomes ‘priceless’.

Embalmers The embalmer’s activities are informal and less structured than those of the collector. Embalming behaviours range from casual storage of temporarily ‘out-of-use’ products to habitual hoarding and accumulation of obsolete ‘never used’ products. Many products that exist within households are awaiting use or reuse (Boyd and McConocha 1996). Attics, cupboards, spare rooms, garages and even space under beds conceal all sorts of products that have become obsolete in terms of current household needs but are held onto in the belief that one day they will again become useful or valuable. In many instances products move in and out of use. Some kitchen gadgets and power tools are stored for long periods of time between short periods of frantic use. For longer periods of inactivity, when products enter a ‘twilight zone’,10 they may be ‘embalmed’ in boxes and bags and possibly moved ‘off-site’ to one of the growing number of self-storage centres. A more acute form of embalming behaviour is ‘hoarding’, which can result in significant amounts of household clutter. Hoarding is often associated with the generation who grew up during and soon after the Second World War. Government austerity measures, encapsulated in the catch phrase ‘Make Do and Mend’, galvanized a nation into stockpiling items to provide vital parts and materials to repair worn-out clothing and household goods (Board of Trade 1943). In more recent times, a new, extreme form of hoarding has been diagnosed. ‘Compulsive hoarding’ is a social pathology that has been linked with psychological disorders including schizophrenia, forms of dementia and obsessive-compulsive disorder (Neziroglu et al. 2004; Steketee and Frost 2006).

Tinkerers Some hoarders may also be tinkerers. The tinkerer is a person defined by an ability to repair, refurbish or modify a product, thereby bringing it back into useful service. Tinkering that resurrects a product from the dead can provide a great sense of satisfaction and achievement. 10 See Chapter 16 (Shipton and Fisher).

94

Longer Lasting Products

Many household products that have failed or show signs of wear can be repaired or refurbished with a fairly basic knowledge of product construction, materials, mechanisms or electronics. Those that are easy to disassemble, or consist of relatively simple mechanisms, are the most obvious candidates for tinkering. Nonetheless, an alarming number of household products are discarded with only minor functional or aesthetic problems. Many factors conspire to discourage tinkering, including an increase in electronics, sealed unit sub-assemblies, and the use of tamper-proof or hidden fasteners within products. Warning labels stating that the ‘warranty will be void’ if the product is disassembled or that there are ‘no serviceable parts inside’ have contributed to a declining willingness by owners to tinker with their possessions. Many small appliances such as hairdryers, toasters and food processors fall into this category. Failure of any one component can terminate their life-span and it is rarely worthwhile to tinker with such devices since many have to be damaged to gain entry to internal components.11 Despite such obstacles devised by manufacturers, tinkering remains a widely practised activity, whether because of economic necessity, as is the case in many developing countries, or as a leisure activity in more affluent countries. Practitioners benefit from several magazines and specialist websites devoted to exploring modern-day tinkering such as the magazine Make: Technology On Your Time, which promotes a contemporary DIY culture of tinkering with a stance summered up by its slogan: ‘If you can’t open it you don’t own it’ (Jalopy 2005: 154).

Societal Factors Societal factors, the structures and systems that help to shape societal norms, values and behaviours, are extremely important in determining product lifespans. Despite evidence that they often contribute to ‘locking-in’ behaviour and actions that underpin the throwaway society, counterpoints exist that demonstrate opportunities to prolong product life-spans. Characteristically, these operate at a macro level, as the infrastructure or ‘plumbing’ in which behaviour and actions that influence product life-spans take place. Factors discussed in this section include fashion cycles, design classics, secondary markets, information networks and product-service systems.

11 See Chapter 7 (Stahel).

defying obsolescence

95

Fashion Cycles Despite fashion being a significant cause of product obsolescence it can also play a positive role in extending product life-spans. Fashion is often cyclic; past fashions are revived, rediscovered and appropriated by contemporary consumer culture. Examples of revived fashion styles include mock Georgian architectural housing, Scandinavian furniture from the 1950s and retro-styled cars. Whilst examples in consumer electronics are less common due to rapid technological change, examples do exist. The JVC Spaceman television, an iconic product of the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the space race reached its zenith with NASA’s Apollo programme, is now a rare collectors’ item. Its current market value has eclipsed its original price. Early Bakelite goods are also keenly sought after. A Bakelite desk phone from the 1940s representing the retro-chic of film noir is commonly encountered in vintage and antique shops, while Art Deco Bakelite valve radios are keenly collected. Retro fashion styling has been picked up by several manufacturers as a marketing strategy, to tap into this yearning for nostalgia. For example, Roberts produce a range of portable radios that are styled incarnations of their earlier 1950s portables, although the technology and materials have little resemblance to the original design. The company’s marketing strategy declares ‘Sound for Generations’, highlighting the importance of retro styling as a part of the brand heritage (Roberts 2006).

Design Classics Some products attain a long life-span through recognition as a ‘design classic’. Such an appellation can be achieved through the reputation of the designer, critical acclaim by specialist commentators, scarcity or market desirability. Design classics often attain high prices when traded, being keenly sought after by collectors. Examples such as the Morris Mini by Alec Issigonis, Ant chair by Arne Jabsobsen and Tizio table lamp by Richard Sapper are discussed in numerous books on design by authors eulogizing about the significance of one design over another (McDermott 1997; Sparke 1998; Polster 1999; Baker and Baker 2001; Albus et al. 2004; Phaidon Editors 2006). The term ‘design classic’ is, however, problematic and has been devalued through arbitrary overuse in contemporary culture; products are marketed at their launch as a ‘design classic’ even though their long term survival, reputation and significance is highly speculative.

96

Longer Lasting Products

One retail company that tries to negotiate such concerns is Manufactum (2005), which claims that many items in its mail order catalogue are ‘classics’ that have stood the test of time and will outlive any trend or fashion. Manufactum markets its products’ durability in terms of both function and fashion. This includes tangible and intangible aspects of a product, from the physical quality of manufacture to abstract values that touch on emotional, traditional and cultural significance. The company’s catalogue also emphasizes the relationships between designer, producer, distributor and the customer by, for example, telling a background story of a product highlighting the providence of its design and manufacturer.

Secondary Markets Market forces are implicated as a central cause of product obsolescence, as previously noted, but certain markets offer a means to extend product life. Secondary markets such as auctions, classified advertisements and car boot sales (Figure 4.8) offer a range of opportunities for extending product lifespans (Gregson and Crewe 2003). Products no longer wanted or needed by one owner can be sold or donated to others by harnessing the market economy to prolong product life.

Figure 4.8

Car boot sale

defying obsolescence

97

In recent times, the Internet has proven to be a particularly potent tool for secondary markets by connecting owners of obsolete products to potential new owners. On websites such as eBay and Freecycle people trade, exchange or donate products. eBay in particular has been enormously successful in popularizing the trading of second-hand goods, with 181 million registered users worldwide and three million items listed for sale at any given time. Consumer electronics are one of its top seven traded categories (Ellis and Haywood 2006; eBay Inc. 2006).12

Information Networks As well as Internet sites such as eBay, other forms of information technology offer an opportunity to address product obsolescence. In When Things Start to Think, Gershenfeld (1999) points to a future in which the digital world merges with the physical world, driven by the proliferation of network technologies and emerging digital infrastructure. Not only do computers continue to talk to each other, but other products, from toasters to washing machines, join in the conversation. Bruce Sterling (2005) goes a step further by suggesting that an emerging ‘Internet of things’ will enable the existence of ‘Spimes’. A Spime is a product conceived from within a network that has a unique digital identity that can be tracked (geo-location) and searched for through a search engine; such a development would enable products to be tracked and better managed throughout their life-spans. Many product operations are increasingly controlled through software as opposed to traditional hard-wired electronics or electro-mechanical devices. As noted earlier, if a product can be programmed, the opportunity exists for it to be reprogrammed to take advantage of new operating conditions or technological improvement. By simply changing the software, product life can be renewed. People are familiar with this concept for computers in the form of software upgrades, but what about other products? German manufacturer Miele already offers an upgradeable operating system in its dishwashers, allowing for changes in washing cycles, new washing chemicals and better power management. Similarly many other products could benefit from this approach: sewing machines, for example, could be upgraded to take account of new fabric, threads and stitches (Ryan 2004).

12 Many new goods are also offered for sale on eBay, but a substantial proportion of items traded are second-hand.

98

Longer Lasting Products

Another example is RFID (radio-frequency identification), a widely used technology in manufacturing and retail distribution supply chains, which could be used to access embedded information within a product at various points during its life cycle.13 When a consumer electronics product is passed on as a ‘hand me down’ or traded in a secondary market, the new owner may have a number of concerns: what is its condition, how does it work, how can it be upgraded/repaired, and so on? Through RFID, the embedded product intelligence could be used to provide ‘onboard’ user manuals, with information about the supplier, spare parts and a log of the product’s condition such as hours of use, faults detected and energy consumed (Ryan 2004). Likewise, QR (Quick Response) codes, two-dimensional matrix barcodes, could enable product information to be decoded using nothing more than an operating system equipped ‘smart’ mobile phone (Figure 4.9).14

Product-Service Systems The concept of product-service systems (PSS), ‘a marketable set of products and services capable of jointly fulfilling a user’s need’ (Goedkoop et al., cited in Mont 2004: 18), has attracted much interest from designers exploring sustainable design solutions (Stahel 2001; Manzini and Jégou 2003). Productservice systems offer the potential to displace the physical ownership of products by offering a serviceFigure 4.9 QR code, containing 250 based solution to customers: their characters emphasis is addressing customer needs rather than selling physical ownership. Such an approach often requires a different approach to business and social arrangements such as leasing, shared ownership schemes and subscription

13 See Chapter 15 (Simon). 14 QR codes are common in Japan, where they were developed in 1994. They offer a much higher information density than standard barcodes whilst sharing similar benefits. Java and Symbian are types of programming language commonly used to programme smart phones and PDAs.

defying obsolescence

99

services. Leasing, already a well-established business-to-business model, has potential advantages for product life-spans.15 An example of shared ownership schemes is car sharing, where membership entitles access to jointly owned facilities, thereby maximising use of the product during its life-span. The potential benefit of product-service systems is that they can encourage businesses to supply products capable of long life-spans (Van Hinte 1997; Stahel 2001; Manzini and Jégou 2003). In such instances, life-span is more meaningfully measured as service use (i.e. intensity of use during a product’s life-span) as opposed to ownership years.

Design for Product Life This chapter has demonstrated that there are products, types of user behaviour and societal factors which can prolong product life-spans. Technological change and market systems that currently conspire to promote obsolescence can be harnessed to prolong product life-spans. Similarly, specific types of individual behaviour can offer a model for wider change in social attitudes and behaviour towards product life-spans. The examples presented offer opportunities to develop, formalize and incorporate change in design and business practices that could have a profound impact on the way we acquire, consume and discard products. This will require a more collaborative approach between designers and users. Users would be more involved in the design of products (and services) and these would be adaptable to meet their particular circumstances. Such an ‘adaptive product’ approach will require designers to create products that are intentionally ‘unfinished’ or ‘open’. The user would be offered the opportunity to become a ‘co-producer’ in a continual process of product reconfiguration that would be contextually relative and specific to users’ changing needs. The role of the designer would remain primary, but would be broadened to allow a delegated role to the user in a two-way traffic between designer and user. Such delegation may be confined to a set of defined, prescriptive or closed actions, or offered as a more open-ended field of user-determined possibilities in the pursuit of prolonging product life-spans.

15 See Chapter 7 (Stahel).

100

Longer Lasting Products

Such change will require a shift in the view held by many design professionals that the designer (as product ‘shapers’) determines product