After a decade of engagement in the consumer computing field and working within the academic environmental world it becomes clear that our electronics-enabled lifestyles consume resources at an alarming pace. My ongoing love of tinkering with electronics, building servers from old hardware, and building computers comes with a caveat: I am undeniably contributing to the growing problem of electronic waste and mass consumption of consumer electronics. When I analyze portable computers, smartphones, and PCs of all form factors I see a disturbing trend: fewer opportunities to repair, upgrade, maintain, and extend the product’s lifespan. With evidence that the majority of impacts for mobile computing devices being incurred in manufacturing [1]–[5] indicates that extending product life is of high importance to reducing overall consumption. With France already deploying a consumer facing Reparability Index [6] it is clear that increasing sustainable purchase information is possible and the barriers to implementation relatively low.

[1] B. V. Kasulaitis, C. W. Babbitt, R. Kahhat, E. Williams, and E. G. Ryen, “Evolving materials, attributes, and functionality in consumer electronics: Case study of laptop computers,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 100, pp. 1–10, Jul. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.03.014.

[2] L. Deng, C. W. Babbitt, and E. D. Williams, “Economic-balance hybrid LCA extended with uncertainty analysis: case study of a laptop computer,” Journal of Cleaner

After a decade of engagement in the consumer computing field and working within the academic environmental world it becomes clear that our electronics-enabled lifestyles consume resources at an alarming pace. My ongoing love of tinkering with electronics, building servers from old hardware, and building computers comes with a caveat: I am undeniably contributing to the growing problem of electronic waste and mass consumption of consumer electronics. When I analyze portable computers, smartphones, and PCs of all form factors I see a disturbing trend: fewer opportunities to repair, upgrade, maintain, and extend the product’s lifespan. With evidence that the majority of impacts for mobile computing devices being incurred in manufacturing [1]–[5] indicates that extending product life is of high importance to reducing overall consumption. With France already deploying a consumer facing Reparability Index [6] it is clear that increasing sustainable purchase information is possible and the barriers to implementation relatively low.

[1] B. V. Kasulaitis, C. W. Babbitt, R. Kahhat, E. Williams, and E. G. Ryen, “Evolving materials, attributes, and functionality in consumer electronics: Case study of laptop computers,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 100, pp. 1–10, Jul. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.03.014.

[2] L. Deng, C. W. Babbitt, and E. D. Williams, “Economic-balance hybrid LCA extended with uncertainty analysis: case study of a laptop computer,” Journal of Cleaner

Need/Opportunity for Action: (522 of 600 words)
Over the past decade the amount of electronic waste produced has increased substantially, with 53.6 Mt produced annually as of 2020, more than 20kg per capita in Canada [1]. This simplified increase over time is occurring alongside the reduction in the overall waste in places like the United States as a result of product lightweighting, but overshadowing this is a global trend of increased production, consumption, and waste generation [1], [2]. With such a substantially greater per-capita e-waste generation in Canada and developed nations as compared to developing regions (Africa – 2.5kg/capita, Europe – 16.2kg/capita) [1], more can and must be done from the design phase to reduce the lifecycle impact of consumer electronics in Canada. This is due to the vast majority (70%-80%) impacts being determined at the design phase for many consumer products, including electronics [3]–[6].

With so much e-waste produced, industry and governments have turned to recycling to allow for the re-entry of materials into the economy. While a reasonable prospect for some products, the reality is that recycling is a lossy [7]–[9], dirty process that has not been able to process or account for large amounts of e-waste even in developed countries such as Canada. Even wealthy regions such as Ontario in Canada have, under previous systems of regulation, failed to account for more than 25% of estimated generation within its limited reporting and collection [10]. Even with the changing composition of e-waste (CRT Tvs to flatscreens) the drop off does not mirror collection and processing rates in Europe or other developed nations [11]. With the low recovery rates, even when accounting for the narrower scope of e-waste classification in North America, the recycling system is not going to reduce the lifecycle impact alone. Indeed, design phase changes are required to meaningfully reduce the impact of the products operating within the dominant linear economic business model of: extraction, refining, manufacture, use and disposal [4], [12].

The modes of obsolescence, especially social and stylistic obsolescence play a distinct roll in determining the outcomes, lifespan, and end of life treatment for consumer electronics. The modes of obsolescence are known to be especially problematic for high-cycle rate and short use-phase products such as smartphones [13]–[16]. It is therefor imperative to address not only the product design from a repair, refurbishment, reuse and material recovery perspective, but also the marketing aspects that lead to the high turnover rate. Such “new every year” and “newness is better” aspects of products are pervasive in a market capitalist and corporately driven linear economy. The overarching goal of changing business models to be more long term needs incorporate the changes in product design that reflect a more long-term product [3]. While stylistic obsolescence drives many new purchases (many smartphones are disposed of even when functional [12]), efforts such as the French Indice de Réparabilité (Reparability Index) puts some consumer facing public information in the hands of consumers enabling a rudimentary grading of a product to determine how “reparable” a product is within its category [17]. While this cannot undo years of marketing, seeing a numeric colour coded score can help to make more informed decisions.

V. Forti, C. P. Balde, R. Kuehr, and G. Bel, “The Global E-waste Monitor 2020: Quantities, flows and the circular economy potential,” 2020.

[2] S. Althaf, C. W. Babbitt, and R. Chen, “The evolution of consumer electronic waste in the United States,” Journal of Industrial Ecology, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 693–706, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1111/jiec.13074.

[3] M. Ercan, J. Malmodin, P. Bergmark, E. Kimfalk, and E. Nilsson, “Life cycle assessment of a smartphone,” 2016.

[4] J. Chapman, Ed., Routledge handbook of sustainable product design. London ; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017.

[5] European Parliament and Council, Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products (recast) (Text with EEA relevance). 2009.

[6] Industry Canada, Design for environment: innovating to compete. Ottawa, Ont.: Industry Canada, 2009.

[7] K. Habib, K. Parajuly, and H. Wenzel, “Tracking the Flow of Resources in Electronic Waste – The Case of End-of-Life Computer Hard Disk Drives,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 49, no. 20, pp. 12441–12449, Oct. 2015, doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b02264.

[8] M. Ueberschaar, J. Geiping, M. Zamzow, S. Flamme, and V. S. Rotter, “Assessment of element-specific recycling efficiency in WEEE pre-processing,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 124, pp. 25–41, 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.04.006.

Citations continued in supplementary materials.

The proposed action seeks to provide consumers with a simple, but more holistic labeling system to better drive their purchase habits towards long-lived products, specifically portable consumer electronics. Derived in part from similar assessment methods to the French reparability index, the proposed Projected Product Lifespan (PPL) would incorporate key factors in determining its rating. This PPL would be mandatory for all smartphones and laptops sold in Canada. Products that: have easily replaceable high wear parts, guaranteed long term software support, ongoing security updates beyond the timespan of the regular updates, have access to manuals, parts, and services for prices that are reasonable as a function of the total product price to deter new purchases would be given better scores, and labelled as such [1]. These factors would not be given in a vacuum, but would be reassessed on a yearly bases and crucially compared to other products. If no product in the category lasts longer than 4 years, and many of the criterion are being met, then is it reasonable to assign the higher tier score to such products. The objective must remain encouraging better design practices, and thus improvements and rolling increases to the maximum attainable longevity should be made within reasonable limits. The scoring of the core attributes would be done by the companies themselves, while real world longevity data would be gathered separately. Some products will do better, and thus will be discarded after a longer period. Survey data gathered through similar surveys to the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA) could be modified slightly to incorporate a simple question of what the model or PPL to verify that the labeling standard accurately reflects the reality of the products [2]. By gathering data regarding which attributes lead to a better, long-lasting product the label would become more accurate over time.

The physical appearance of the PPL label would be rather simple, a coloured bar of varying lengths to indicate the projected product lifespan given the factors used in the product assessment. A graduated colour scheme from red to green, with a few simplified labels indicating particularly good features such as extremely easy to replace batteries, screens, or exceptionally long software support could be added to provide positive marketing attributes. Within the coloured bar would be the projected life, spelled out in French and English, in varying font sizes depending on the size of bar. This simple score, measured here in years, would give the consumer an idea of how long the product is likely to last. This, in combination with other metrics that could be accessed through an easy to search online database could provide consumers with a wealth of information and few barriers to entry. While the French implementation sought to provide such a system, the implementation has left much to be desired, with many products lacking any information as to why they earned the reparability score they did [3].

Allowing consumers to make decisions that are driven by product longevity can decrease cycle rates of devices, and provide more information about products, for free, in an accessible manner. This scoring system does not introduce minimum design standards but could show consumers the potential of their products. While the initial rating would be dif ficult: there would be less data to indicate what the product life is in real-world conditions, and thus would weight the design features more strongly. While this may cause some confusion in the initial implementation, an ongoing data driven approach should result in increasingly accurate reflections of PPL and the end goal of rewarding longer lasting products would still be met.

[1] French Ministry of Ecological Transition, “Indice de réparabilité,” Ministère de la Transition écologique, Feb. 22, 2021. https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/indice-reparabilite (accessed Feb. 24, 2021).

[2] Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, “CWTA Surveys 2010-2020.” Dec. 21, 2020.

[3] Spareka, “Ordinateur portable MICROSOFT Surface Book 3 – 13,5″ – Core i7 – RAM 32Go – Stockage 512Go SSD – AZERTY,” Indice de Réparabilité. https://www.indicereparabilite.fr/produit/ordinateur-portable-microsoft-surface-book-3-135-core-i7-ram-32go-stockage-512go-ssd-azerty/ (accessed Sep. 09, 2022).

The Projected Product Lifespan (PPL) is a labeling and information standard that can be applied to smartphones and laptops. This simple label would contain information regarding the expected product’s life, measured in years, and notable aspects of its design, such as an easily replaceable battery needing no or few tools. Supplementing this simplified label, a website providing more information would be available online, searchable based on the product’s brand and model number. This information can be used to make informed, more environmentally conscious decisions. As climate change becomes more obvious and apparent, the need to use resources and products more efficiently becomes more important.

The reason why the PPL is applied to smartphones and laptops is due to their very high manufacturing impacts on the environment. While many products that last a long time use energy, and in many cases create pollution, these products consume relatively little while in use. These products consume many scarce and rare resources that are difficult to mine and process, so by purchasing and using longer lived products, we can ensure that fewer resources are extracted and refined, reducing the overall environmental cost.

No country currently has a consumer facing scoring system for electronics longevity, the closest analogue being the French Reparability Index. Smartphones and laptops are targeted here for their high manufacturing environmental impact, and relatively low use-phase impacts. While compared to implementing minimum design standards for products, this less proscriptive approach allows flexibility while maintaining integrity and separation from corporate interests. Auditing of the scoring of products that are especially popular would be simple, given that the resources, such as manuals, parts, and services must the available to the public, any public servant, academic actor, or independent citizen could verify the information. With the full scoring and reasoning laid out for the end-user, a more open and transparent way of assessing new purchases, or the reusability of products can be realised with only moderate effort and no design changes.

This proposal puts more information into the hands of consumers, in an effort to change the problematic mindset of the current dominant linear economic system. Without changes in attitude, purchase habit, and fundamental drivers of product obsolescence, the demand side of consumer electronics will not encourage longer-lived products. Laptops and smartphones are targeted here as they suffer from many design changes that further reduce lifecycle extension, and by proxy reduce product life in the event of any sub-assembly breakage or performance issue. The extension of product life is not a universal solution, and the viability of the labeling system must be assessed on an ongoing basis to ensure it is promoting the lifecycle reduction of environmental impacts [1]. The PPL is framed here as a part of a solution, an initial step to spreading accessible knowledge about products that have become ubiquitous in society. This work is also unique in that it would provide directly comparable scores, and attributes that contributed to the score, through a database.

[1] C. Bakker, F. Wang, J. Huisman, and M. den Hollander, “Products that go round: exploring product life extension through design,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 69, pp. 10–16, Apr. 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.028.