E-waste is not only a waste of resources but also a danger to the health and safety of people and communities, especially in developing countries where e-waste is often dumped or burned without proper regulation or protection, writes Md Zahurul Al Mamun

HAVE you ever wondered why your smartphone becomes slow and outdated after a year, why your car needs constant repairs and maintenance, or why your clothes look faded and out of fashion after a few months? If you have, then you have experienced the effects of obsolescence, a phenomenon that makes products seem or become useless before their natural end of life. Obsolescence is not a natural or inevitable process but deliberate and calculated strategy manufacturers use to manipulate consumers and increase their profits. However, this strategy has severe consequences for us and our planet, leading to more waste, pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. We need to know how obsolescence works, how it all started, its environmental impact and how it can be regulated and prevented.

Obsolescence can be classified into two main types: planned obsolescence and perceived obsolescence. Both types of obsolescence aim to create artificial demand and encourage consumers to buy new products more frequently.

Planned obsolescence: Planned obsolescence is a term that describes the strategy of deliberately making a product have a limited useful life or deliberately engineering a device to fail before its expected lifespan so that it becomes outdated or useless after a certain period. This way, the manufacturer can encourage the consumer to buy a new replacement product sooner and increase the demand and sales. Planned obsolescence is especially prevalent with cars, technology, smartphones and fashion because these consumer goods have been transformed into status symbols. One example of planned obsolescence is smartphones, where manufacturers release new models each year with updated features, colours or styles. This makes older models quickly appear outdated, and they may stop receiving software updates or have limited availability of spare parts. Some researchers see this as a form of corporate crime that harms the environment and society. According to a study by Greenpeace, the average lifespan of a smartphone in 2023 was only 21 months, compared to 4.7 years in 2010.

Perceived obsolescence: Perceived obsolescence differs from planned obsolescence, where a product is intentionally designed to have a limited lifespan or functionality. Perceived obsolescence refers to when a product is perceived as no longer desirable or valuable, despite functioning well, due to changes in fashion, style or social pressure. This can happen because of changes in the product’s design, appearance, fashion or social pressure to buy the latest version. Perceived obsolescence is more about the psychological and emotional aspects of consumer behaviour. One example of perceived obsolescence is laptops, where manufacturers release new models with faster processors, larger memory, or better graphics. This makes older models seem slow, outdated or incompatible with newer software or games. According to a survey by Consumer Reports, the average lifespan of a laptop in 2023 was only three years, compared to six years in 2010. Consumers are replacing their phones, laptops and other electronic gadgets more frequently than ever, generating more e-waste and carbon emissions.

Historical background

PLANNED obsolescence is not a new phenomenon. It has been around since the late 19th century when inventors and manufacturers began experimenting with different ways to make their products more appealing, profitable and competitive. However, planned obsolescence became more widespread and systematic in the 20th century, as technological innovation, economic depression and consumer demand created new business opportunities and challenges. Here are some of the most notable examples of how planned obsolescence started in different industries.

Light Bulbs: The light bulb industry is one of the earliest examples of planned obsolescence. In 1879, Thomas Edison created a light bulb that lasted for 14 hours using a cotton thread filament. Other inventors followed suit, using different materials such as platinum and carbonised materials to create bulbs with longer lifespans. Over time, filaments evolved to tungsten, resulting in bulbs with longer lifetimes. By the early 1920s, the average lifespan of bulbs was around 2,000 hours, with some lasting up to 2,500 hours.

However, this trend stopped, and lifetimes began to decrease. In 1924, top executives from leading light bulb companies formed the Phoebus Cartel, named after Phoebus, the Greek God of light. The cartel aimed to control the world’s supply of light bulbs by working together. By 1934, the average lifespan decreased to just 1,205 hours. This led to a 25 per cent increase in sales for cartel members in the four years after 1926, with increased profit margins despite the reduced cost of components. The Phoebus Cartel claimed to increase the standardisation and efficiency of light bulbs. However, evidence suggests that the cartel’s primary motivation was to increase profits and sales, not to benefit consumers.

Nylon Stockings: The nylon stocking industry is another example of planned obsolescence. In the 1940s, silk stockings were replaced by durable nylon, which was so strong that it could be used as a parachute material. Nylon stockings became an overnight sensation that caused women to riot just to get their hands on them. However, when the manufacturers realised they had made the product too good, they didn’t destroy the fibre but did follow the example of the Phoebus Cartel. They directed their engineers and scientists to intentionally decrease the product’s durability, forcing customers to purchase more frequently. They also followed fast fashion cycles, making stocking styles and colours unfashionable each season. As a result, nylon stockings became one of the most disposable items in women’s wardrobes.

Automobile Industry: In 1908, Henry Ford introduced the Model T, a mass-market car designed as an affordable tool that wouldn’t wear out. However, by 1920, 55 per cent of American families who could afford one owned a car, and a slight economic downturn led to a decline in sales for both Ford and General Motors. In 1921, DuPont, a chemical and paint company, acquired GM, leading to the testing of various car paint colours. Prior to this, Henry Ford maintained that black was the only colour available for his cars, regardless of what customers preferred. In 1924, GM launched their first cars in varying colours, introducing a technique called ‘dynamic obsolescence’ to make Ford’s Model T appear outdated and encourage customers to trade in their old cars for new ones. Harley Earl, GM’s head of design, later acknowledged his role in this development. The average car ownership period decreased from five years in 1934 to just two years in 1955, making GM the world’s most valuable company, selling half of all vehicles purchased in the US annually.

Modern day obsolescence

THE Phoebus Cartel’s plan failed in the 1930s due to internal disagreements and external pressures. However, their strategy of planned obsolescence has had a significant impact on modern consumer culture. Nowadays, many companies intentionally design items with a shorter lifespan to encourage repeat purchases and increase profits, which appears to have been copied directly from The Phoebus Cartel’s playbook.

Electronics: One of the most prominent examples of planned obsolescence in electronics is Apple, one of the world’s top three phone producers and the most valuable company globally. Apple uses a combination of perceived and design obsolescence to make its customers buy new products every year. Apple creates perceived obsolescence by releasing new models with minor changes every year, making older models seem outdated or inferior, even if they still function well.

Apple also uses marketing strategies to create a sense of exclusivity and status for its products, such as using distinctive designs and features. Apple also uses design obsolescence by making its products hard to repair or replace parts, using proprietary software, hardware or parts incompatible with other devices or tools, and limiting the availability or affordability of spare parts or repair services. Apple also uses software obsolescence by slowing down older devices with updates or making them incompatible with newer applications.

Unfortunately, this is not just Apple; every other consumer e-product manufacturer today uses planned and perceived obsolescence. This trend in the electronics industry is harmful not only to overall consumption but also puts a heavy burden on the environment. According to a study by The Guardian, Apple’s iPhones emit 70 per cent more carbon dioxide than in 2012. This means that Apple’s planned obsolescence strategy harms both their customers’ wallets and the environment.

Fashion: The fast fashion industry is a prime example of planned obsolescence in the fashion industry, which produces cheap and trendy clothing that quickly fades or goes out of style. Brands release new collections every few weeks, creating perceived obsolescence for their customers. Design obsolescence is also common in fast fashion, using low-quality materials or techniques that cause clothes to wear out faster.

Fast fashion is one of the most polluting industries in the world, as it consumes enormous amounts of water, energy, and chemicals and generates massive amounts of waste and greenhouse gas emissions. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation report estimates that the global fashion industry produces 1.2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent annually, more than combined emissions from international flights and maritime shipping. The report also estimates that less than 1 per cent of clothing is recycled into new clothing, meaning that most of it ends up in landfills or incinerators.

Automotive: Tesla, one of the world’s leading electric car manufacturers, is a prime example of planned obsolescence in the automotive industry. Tesla releases new models every few years with major changes in features, performance and design, creating a perceived obsolescence for its customers, who need to upgrade their cars to have the latest and greatest technology. Tesla also uses design obsolescence by making cars difficult to repair or modify, such as using proprietary software, hardware or parts. Software obsolescence limits the functionality or performance of older cars with updates or removing previously available features.

Tesla’s planned obsolescence strategy may seem contradictory, as the company claims to be environmentally friendly and sustainable. However, critics argue that Tesla’s strategy harms not only its customers’ wallets but also the environment, as electric vehicles still significantly impact production, battery disposal and electricity consumption. According to a study by Transport & Environment, electric vehicles emit 66 per cent less carbon dioxide than conventional vehicles over their lifetime, but the study also warns that electric vehicles are only as green as their power source.

Environmental impact

OBSOLESCENCE has become prevalent in various sectors, causing concerns about environmental sustainability and the consumer’s right to long-lasting and durable products. It makes consumers spend more money on new products and creates more competition among producers. Specifically, this practice has been observed deliberately in the electrical and electronic equipment industry, which encompasses a wide range of devices such as computers, televisions, refrigerators, washing machines and cell phones. The industry is known for designing products with shorter lifespans, leading to frequent replacements or disposal, resulting in significant e-waste, one of the world’s fastest-growing waste streams.

In 2019, there were about 53.6 million tonnes of e-waste, but only 17.4 per cent was properly collected and recycled. By 2050, this could increase to more than 120 million tonnes. Most of the pollution and costs of making e-products come from the design stage, where planned obsolescence is decided. E-waste is also difficult to treat because it is made of different components and materials that require different technologies and methods.

E-waste is not only a waste of resources but also a danger to the health and safety of people and communities, especially in developing countries where e-waste is often dumped or burned without proper regulation or protection. According to a World Health Organisation report, e-waste exposes workers and residents to various hazards, such as chemical exposure, physical injuries, infections, mental stress and social problems.  The report estimates that up to 12.9 million women who work in the informal waste sector are potentially exposed to hazardous substances from e-waste.

Moreover, planned obsolescence leads to more consumption of natural resources to produce e-products. For example, smartphones use rare earth metals mined in places with poor human rights and environmental standards. According to a study by the United Nations University, one smartphone requires up to 60 different elements to function. The study estimates that in 2016 alone, about 435 kilograms of gold worth $11.5 billion were used to make smartphones. However, only about 20 per cent of this gold was recovered from e-waste recycling. The study also states that mining these metals causes environmental damage, such as deforestation, soil erosion, water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

How to counteract the negative impact

MANUFACTURED obsolescence fuels consumerism and environmental degradation in an already overconsuming world. These practices make our quest to embrace climate-aligned actions such as reusing and reducing consumption much harder. Additionally, planned obsolescence is relevant to achieving the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, particularly Goal 12, which focuses on sustainable consumption and production. The goal aims to reduce waste generation by implementing prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse measures, including extending product lifespans. Although the targets of SDG 12 were initially set for 2020, they have been extended to 2030, and it seems unlikely that they will be achieved unless planned obsolescence practices are addressed and measured. There has been a growing concern about planned obsolescence in recent years, and consumers are now fighting back against this trend. However, there are some potential measures and alternatives that can counteract the negative impacts of this practice.

Regulatory intervention: Obsolescence is not only a problem for consumers but also for governments, who can regulate and restrict it. Governments can enact laws and policies that require companies to be more transparent and responsible about their product’s quality and durability and disclose their products’ expected lifespan, warranty and environmental impact. The government can also impose standards and incentives encouraging companies to design more durable, repairable or recyclable products. Governments can also support research and innovation that foster the development of more efficient, affordable and sustainable products. By intervening in the market, governments can help counteract the negative impacts of obsolescence and promote more sustainable consumption.

For example, there have been proposed laws in the European Union and over 25 states in the US, which aim to enshrine the right to repair. In 2019, the European Union introduced new rules to make household appliances and electronic devices more energy-efficient and easy to repair. These rules include providing spare parts and repair manuals for up to 10 years and displaying a repairability index. The rules also set minimum energy efficiency standards and labels for appliances, promoting more repairable or recyclable products, cost savings and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Consumer awareness: Consumers can fight back against obsolescence by becoming more aware and active. First, they can reduce their consumption and waste by buying less, buying better and buying used. They can also take care of their products, repair them when needed and donate or resell them when they are no longer needed. Second, consumers can also demand more durable and repairable products from manufacturers by choosing products with a longer warranty, a higher repairability score or a lower environmental footprint. Consumers can also support the right-to-repair movement by advocating for laws and policies requiring manufacturers to provide spare parts, repair manuals and diagnostic tools. Third, they can also use their collective power to challenge and change the practices of companies that use obsolescence as a strategy. They can boycott products designed to fail or become obsolete quickly or pressure companies to improve their quality, lifespan, or repairability, which will eventually benefit society by reducing waste generation, resource consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

Manufacturer responsibility: One of the most effective ways to combat planned obsolescence is to design products for durability, longevity and repairability. This means that manufacturers are responsible for using high-quality materials and components that can withstand wear and tear and making their products easy to disassemble, fix and upgrade. This would not only extend the lifespan of the products but also reduce the environmental impact of producing and disposing of them. By designing products for durability and repairability, manufacturers can contribute to a more circular and sustainable economy, where products are used for as long as possible and waste is minimised.

Circular economy model: Another approach is to adopt circular economy models designed to keep resources in use for as long as possible. A circular economy model makes products and services that last longer, use fewer resources and create less waste. It involves designing products and services that can be reused, repaired or recycled instead of thrown away. It also involves creating new ways of delivering value to customers, such as leasing, renting or sharing products instead of selling them. By adopting a circular economy model, businesses can save money, reduce their environmental impact and create new opportunities for innovation and growth.

Conclusion

OBSOLESCENCE is terrible for everyone, as it makes products more expensive, less trustworthy and dirtier. Obsolescence also makes the world a messier place, as it creates a lot of waste that is hard to clean up and dangerous to health and safety. However, obsolescence can be stopped by different actions and choices that make its impacts less harmful and make consumption and production greener. These actions and preferences include policy regulation, consumer awareness, business innovation, social movement and technology development. One way to promote responsible product design is through regulations that hold companies accountable for product quality, lifespan, warranties and environmental impact. Laws and policies can incentivise companies to create durable, repairable and recyclable products. We can live in harmony with the planet by prioritising people and the environment. Imagine how wonderful it would be if we could completely eliminate obsolescence.

Md Zahurul Al Mamun is an independent climate researcher and columnist.