Built to expire ….Anam Zeb
Many of you will relate to what I am about to say: in our house, we still use the old blender and grinder appliance that, according to my mother, was bought around the time she got married (40 years ago, this year).
The machine is sturdy and has had parts replaced over the years, but it still outlived many newer versions that I have bought, mostly because their fancier names like ‘food processor’ were too tempting to resist. When the inevitable breakdown in the newer electronics began, my mother’s trusty repairman (also a mainstay for this generation) was usually unable to either find the right parts or have access to the newer technology that made these things work. The gadget was relegated to a corner, gathering dust until its inevitable journey to its final abode: the landfill.
What I have just described is planned obsolescence. Electronics, and even automobiles and clothing, from a few generations ago did not last longer simply because your father was better at looking after his microwave but because the microwave itself was built to last.
Most consumer electronics are now ‘built to fail’ where manufacturers deliberately design products to fail prematurely, with the failure built into the design of the product, such as software becoming out of date. This allows manufacturers to sell you the latest upgrade. The average lifespan of consumer electronics from the early days of mass production was an estimated 40 years; it is anywhere between 1.5 and 13 years today. For example, desktop computers are used between three and five years before being replaced, as are laptops. Smartphones are used for an average of three years, while smart TVs last between four and 10 years.
Many manufacturers also place obstacles in the way of repairing their products or updating them. For example, Toshiba faced criticism in the early 2010s for issuing aggressive takedown notices to repair manual providers, including YouTubers who shared these, and claimed that they contained information that only Toshiba and ‘authorized repair technicians’ were privy to.
Others also do not make their service manuals available to the public, among other companies. Keeping this information under strict copyright not only helps these manufacturers maintain control over the repair ecosystem but also restricts consumers’ ability to use these products for long. Manufacturers, however, claim that these measures are to ‘protect creative work’ and discourage knock-off versions of their products.
Because of the implications for consumer rights and product longevity, Australia, the US, and the EU have laws or initiatives that require manufacturers to disclose repair information, while France has an outright ban on planned obsolescence. Apple France faced legal action in 2017 as it violated a 2015 French law against reducing the duration of a product’s life to increase its replacement rate. In the infamous ‘Batterygate’, Apple France was accused of slowing down old iPhones. The company said the updates were to prevent the phones from malfunctioning due to poor battery performance.
From the manufacturer’s perspective, other than the obvious increase in sales and revenue, planned obsolescence may be a by-product of reducing production costs through less durable materials that are invariably cheaper, leading to cost savings. Playing on consumer behaviour, such as consumers’ desire for the latest technologies and upgrades, as well as competition in markets, may be the driving force.
Brooks Stevens, an American industrial designer who coined the phrase ‘planned obsolescence’, defines the concept as something that instills “in the buyer the desire to own something a little newer, a little better, a little sooner than is necessary”. In defence of the manufacturer, planned obsolescence can also be viewed as a consequence of increased research and development and evidence of an open society where innovation is rewarded and encouraged by both consumers and the government.
Regardless of the motives of the manufacturer, this has had catastrophic implications for the environment but has also presented economic opportunities. Estimates place Pakistan’s annual waste production at around 30 million tonnes, and it imports an additional 80,000 tonnes of plastic waste from the US, the EU, Canada, Australia, Dubai, Germany, Spain, Korea and Thailand, with the aim of salvaging valuable materials such as gold, copper, aluminium, rubber, paper and even plastics. And yes, the import of the waste is done after an NOC is granted by the government.
While the recycling infrastructure is informal at best, and downright exploitative at worst, if supported by legal backstops and environmental and safety concerns, e-waste recycling may be an emerging market. Of the waste imported by Pakistan, the National Hazardous Waste Policy of 2022 suggests that 954,000 tonnes are e-waste.
Anywhere between 10 and 14 per cent of domestic waste production is also e-waste. This ranges from Category A, fully functioning devices that are sold in the same condition as they are imported, to Category D, nonrepairable devices from which valuable components are extracted and the rest sold to scrap dealers. The social impact of the waste and overall recycling sector in Pakistan is the livelihood of multiple stakeholders, including workers and local communities – ranging from scrappers and garbage collectors to scavengers and the few recycling industries that are dotted across the country.
While it is wishful thinking to expect that Pakistan can compete with Europe and Japan that have e-waste recycling rates of 42.5 per cent and 22 per cent respectively, important lessons can be learned in accelerating the industry, given the growth in demand for consumer electronics, which was 5.9 per cent between 2017 and 2021, and is expected to grow.
Of the various stages of recycling – collection, sorting, dismantling, refining, recycling and disposal – the benefits for dismantling businesses are 1.19-1.27 times the costs. And for refining businesses, the benefits are 1.95-2.22 times the costs (Salsabil, 2021). The benefits for the recovery of precious metals and rare earth elements, as well as the creation of employment opportunities in both technical and non-technical roles and supporting local economies, are significant.
That being said, planned obsolescence, despite its pros, is, at its heart, an exploitative process that builds on consumer culture. Making hay while the sun shines, ie recycling e-waste and taking advantage of the opportunity of an increasing global waste footprint, will by no means absolve manufacturers of their responsibility towards increasing a product’s lifespan; affordable and accessible repairs; and cradle-to-cradle manufacturing.a
The writer is a climate change consultant.
Courtesy The News