The case against In-built obsolescence

repair or discard?

Within circular-economic thinking one of the cornerstone processes of producing reusable items is the design and specification phase whereby strength and resilience should combine with ease of repair/refurbishment to allow an item to be used over and over again, with limited damage. At the same time allowing for any required repairs to be easily and economically achieved. This is the bedrock of reuse systems. It allows the overall cost per (re)use to be lower than that of a single-use item that is invariably designed and specified to survive only for limited use before (hopefully) being consigned to a recycling process or (even worse) being sent to landfill.

The downside of reusable items is that the upfront investment is often higher (funding the required strength and resilience) to support ongoing reusability - driving cost per use and environmental impact down.

But has short-sightedness and demand for low initial cost tempted us to ignore the economic (and environmental) sense of the circular economy model and encouraged the continued design and production of low-cost, limited life products? Are we as a society moving even further towards the application of inbuilt obsolescence in our design processes?

Short product lifecycles may be in the interests of businesses that rely on the make-consume-discard-replace cycle continuing. They will seduce their customers to invest in the latest incarnations of products, with the latest designs, new colours, greater functionality, new technology, inflated performance promises - even though the existing model still functions perfectly well.... until of course, it doesn't anymore.

I read some a few days ago....that research suggests that planned obsolescence is on the rise in household appliances - driven by the increase in technology that fails faster alongside existing appliances appearing outdated as the pace of technological change increases.

It's a double edged sword. On one hand I cannot count the number of cheap toasters we have purchased over the years. Eventually it dawns that a more robust more expensive one will proportionately be more economic over time; out-living the seemingly cheaper alternative - and toast-tech is not a fast evolving area. On the other hand I see how a 100k mile car was moving quickly and inescapably towards its end of life a few decades ago whereas now it's still mid-life at worst. So the inexorable rise of tech cuts both ways.

Many will read this and say - well it's ok for some - what if we can't afford the increased cost of a better-built, higher quality, reparable, but way more expensive item - simply because times are hard and money is tight. An increasingly understandable position for many. Well that's where rental models are able to play a pair in allowing participation in lower cost per use without the unaffordable up front costs.

In my childhood, renting a TV was the norm for many households - mine included. It was considered normal in those days. Nowadays renting appliances is somehow seen as a sign of poverty or even worse, a chance for business to make excessive profits from high credit risk families. But it doesn't have to be this way.

A circular economy system can work for everyone. The precursor is that we do need to remove the burden of inbuilt obsolescence whether caused by design, accelerated product lifecycles or fashion fads.

Let's not completely go full luddite-mode here. Technology changes quickly and for the better. I am not suggesting that the Model T Ford ( however lovingly and lavishly maintained) should still be your daily commute, or the floppy disk remains a viable data storage or transmission medium. Things change - for the better.

Even (some) mobile phones are being designed to last longer and be capable of repair or component replacement - even by the authorised dealers themselves - because consumer behaviour demands this and because the pace of technological change marginalises the benefits of the latest model over yesterdays. Maybe there is light at the end of the tunnel if product life cycles can be extended and technology is used to support this rather then inhibit this.

If things are built to last longer and reuse becomes embedded in our thinking then the environmental impact lessens. This seems to make sense to me.

Perhaps one day needless obsolescence will be.... well..... obsolete?