The Rise of Planned Obsolescence
During the Great Depression of 1932, planned obsolescence found its champion in Bernard London, who published his essay, “Ending the Depression Through Planned Obsolescence.” The essay invoked economic optimism based on advances in manufacturing and agriculture. Planned obsolescence was associated with choice, jobs, innovation, value engineering, and a thriving economy.
The Modern View of Planned Obsolescence
Unfortunately, planned obsolescence has now come to signify vast landfills, impractical products, and the pollution of our environment. In economic terms, it is associated with big businesses making a profit at the cost of the environment and hoodwinking consumers into buying things they do not need. This outcome is a far cry from what the original proponents had envisaged.
Obsolescence has a place, much like cholesterol, where there is a good type and a bad type. Bad obsolescence introduces cosmetic changes that improve neither utility nor performance. This is referred to as “pseudo-functional obsolescence”. Good obsolescence, however, involves “value engineering” with the purpose of using as little material as possible while providing an acceptable lifespan. This type of obsolescence is well-suited to high-tech goods and fosters continuous innovation.
The Main Failure of Planned Obsolescence
In my view, the main failure of planned obsolescence lies in the lack of planning around what happens to a product when it is deemed obsolete. It still exists as a product, so what happens next? Although the stock response is to reuse or recycle it, this is often impractical and takes more time, effort, cost, and energy than making a new one.
‘Reuse’ and ‘recycle’ are useful end-of-life concepts; however, their execution often fails in technology products such as phones, cars, and PCs because it is an afterthought. The situation would be greatly improved if ‘reuse’ and ‘recycle’ were considered at the idea stage and designed-in. Reuse at the design stage means creating modular and upgradable products, and ‘recycle’ involves minimising reprocessing and remanufacturing effort.
The Role of Consumers
As consumers, it is possible to support this design effort with purchasing power. Buying a product is akin to casting a vote for the product. Without sufficient votes, it will fail. The challenge lies in getting the right product information into the public domain so that informed ‘votes’ can be made. This responsibility cannot be left in the hands of marketing executives, who often appeal to our faculty for making irrational decisions.
It is essential to rethink the concept of planned obsolescence, ensuring that reuse and recycling are integrated into the design stage. By making informed purchasing decisions, consumers can drive the market towards more sustainable practices.
Regards,
Brian O’Reilly
Director at EGG Lighting
Let us know if you agree. Learn more about this topic and what we’re doing differently.
