How Does Planned Obsolescence Impact Consumers, Corporations, the Economy and the Planet?
Background Planned obsolescence, the intentional creation of products that are designed to break, is a recent phenomenon that encourages economic growth, but has a negative impact on the environment. Doing this greatly helps corporations make money and grow the economy but it is an unnecessary step. The Centennial Light Bulb, the world’s longest lasting light bulb, was created in the 19th century and is still fully functioning today. This is proof that products can be made to last for a long time, and should not be breaking down after several years of use. In the early 1920s, a group of businessmen from all around the world, later named the Phoebus Cartel, gathered together and created another lightbulb, but one with a shorter lifespan. Their plan was to have their light bulbs burn out after 1,000 hours of use, where light bulbs before then had burned for 1,500 to 2,000 hours. This incandescent light bulb was “higher quality, more efficient, and brighter burning” (Krajewski). Of course, these bulbs were more expensive and were clearly products made specifically for the cartel’s benefit. This new strategy interested other industries and planned obsolescence was born. Although, making all products to last from the 19th century into 2018 would not be the best for the economy and businesses would be forced to shut down after a good year of selling their product because no one would need to replace their products. So creating something that would last as long as people do would not be reasonable, but creating a product that would last longer than five years would be a reasonable and happy medium. If Dell decided to make a laptop that would last eight years as opposed to four years, consumers would be given the opportunity to actually make use of the money they spent, and Dell would still be making a profit because customers would still need to buy a new version of their expired product. The idea of creating a product just for it to break down is an idea many people believe companies are taking advantage of. However, consumers don’t necessarily seem like they are annoyed with this- probably because the consumer feels powerless and like they have no control over the situation. Companies are the ones creating these products and selling them with profit in mind, not the effectiveness of the product. Even when consumers are upset with their purchases continually breaking, they often times fail to speak up or speak out. Rather larger groups with more money and greater financial impacts on companies like Apple will file lawsuits to deter planned obsolescence (or at least lengthen life spans of products). The Brazilian Institute of Politics and Law Software sued Apple for creating another updated iPad just seven months after the creation of the previous version. Because of ridiculous actions like this, governments require certain products have a minimum life span. For example, in the United States seat belts must last 5 years for 50,000 miles. However, seat belts do prevent deaths and protect people while they are driving, so creating policies regarding how long a computer should function most likely is not a priority for politicians. Aside from the political implications, planned obsolescence also has a very negative impact on the environment. When a new product is bought, an old product is thrown away, which means another thing is added to a landfill somewhere. Planned obsolescence is prevalent in many products, but it is more commonly associated with electronics. Unlike food products and even papers and plastics, electronics contain materials like lead, mercury, and barium- all of which are very bad for the environment. Imagine if only half of the United States population had cell phones- that would be roughly 161.5 million cell phones. If each cell phone has a life expectancy of about two years (which seems to be the average life expectancy of a cell phone currently), then in 10 years about 807.5 million phones would be sitting in a landfill from the United States alone. Key Players Many people are involved in this issue because it surrounds all of us. In theory every company that makes a product for the public is involved in this issue. Specifically tech companies are the most common culprits of creating planned obsolescence products. These types of companies are in favor of planned obsolescence because it generates them more money. If a product has a smaller lifetime that means consumers will have to continue to buy that product and therefore companies get more money. Consumers are also key players in the topic of planned obsolescence because they are the people buying products. Everyone who has anything electronic; car, light bulb, cell phone, laptop, computer, is involved with this issue. The perspective of the consumer is a complicated one. Many consumers love to buy new clothing and new electronic products as they come out because who wouldn’t want the newer and better version of what they have. Yet, on the other hand some consumers are irritated with their things breaking down in such a short amount of time and would like to stop buying expensive new versions. Lastly, the government plays a key role in planned obsolescence because in a sense they are the only player to stop this problem by creating laws against it. Power Dynamic Analysis: There is a huge power dynamic between the companies that create planned obsolescence products and the people that buy them. In this dynamic, the companies hold nearly all of the power. This has been clear for some time now, looking at the example from before of the light bulb. Companies can determine when and how long they want any product to last. In theory, though, if customers did not want to support a company who creates planned obsolescence products they could just stop buying from them and the company would not be able to function any longer. But in practice this can be difficult to execute. In the case of Apple, planned obsolescence has been proven within their products when they put proprietary screws in iPhone 4 and Macbook Airs making it incredibly difficult to replace the battery. Recently, in December of 2017, Apple publicly stated that they create software updates that intentionally slow down older iPhones. Although they say this is only done because the battery often diminishes over time. Yet a world where everyone suddenly boycotted Apple, is not only a farfetched idea but nearly an impossible one. Giving up Facetime, iMessage, and Emojis to some is like giving up their first born child. The one thing that changes and infiltrates the power dynamic between the companies and the people, is the government and law. In many areas around the world there have been laws created to end planned obsolescence. For example, the Italian government requires all computers to last at least 2 years and in the United States all seatbelts are required to last at least 5 years with 50,000 miles. In France, there is a law that states it is illegal to intentionally make a product have a shorter lifespan with the goal of making customers replace their products sooner. Government has the ultimate control and power in this dynamic, over the people and companies. Yet, the government mainly makes laws regarding planned obsolescence in support of the people and puts restrictions on companies’ actions. Ethical Issues There are many ethical conundrums around this topic. One big one is whether or not an economy can survive without planned obsolescence. If every product lasted to full life time that it could last, then people would be buying far less. Planned obsolescence is just a good economic strategy, when a company has already saturated the market planned obsolescence can generate a huge amount of money for companies. It creates competitive markets and leads companies to always be improving. But on the flip side if products were not designed to be irreparable then companies such as Repair Cafe’s could function and generate just as much business for the economy. Unfortunately, in the case of many computers and phones repairing them can be nearly impossible with non removable batteries and spare parts not being available. In 1998 there were 4,623 repair companies in the US but by 2015 that number had significantly dropped by more than 50% to 2,027. Companies need to see the economic potential in relation to making products fixable with spare parts. The other ethical issue is the environmental aspect of planned obsolescence. Planned obsolescence becoming more and more popular means e-waste becomes more and more prevalent. In 2016 alone, 44.7 metric tons of e waste was generated around the world. According to National Geographic, that would fill 1.23 million 18 -wheel trucks. And this number is not stopping any time soon, it is predicted to grow 17% by 2021, making the number go from 44.7 to 52.2. This is a huge environmental issue as many of these products include lead, cadmium, mercury which can cause severe damage to our planet. The problem becomes not only that products cannot be fixed, but they also cannot be recycled or disassembled. 25-75% of the electronic products sent to Africa are completely useless, yet companies argue sending them to developing companies is a way to bridge the “digital divide”. And within these products, if they were made to be recoverable and recyclable, there is gold, silver, copper, coltan platinum, palladium, and many other high-value metals. It is estimated that about 250,000 dollars worth is lost each year in e-waste. Although it is clear planned obsolescence is boosting and helping the market, there is money to be made in the environmentally healthier alternative. |
|