From ownership to access
We’re
seeing regulations aimed at balancing the economic objective of stimulating
production with its environmental cost
In
the garage of a fire department in Livermore, San Francisco, there’s a bulb
that was switched on in 1901 and has been burning ever since. With over a
million hours of continuous service, it is, officially, the longest lasting
incandescent in history. In an age where even the best quality light bulbs
don’t last more than a couple of months with continuous use, the Livermore
light bulb is the stuff of urban legend. But as I dug deeper into the
mythology, it became clear to me that this quaint anachronism hides a fantastic
tale of cartelization and corporate intrigue that’s left a mark on the
technology industry of today.
1924
was a terrible year for the light bulb industry. Technology had improved to the
point where socket saturation was taking a toll on turnover. In the preceding
year, the annual sales of Osram, the world’s largest manufacturer of incandescents,
fell from 63 million to 28 million bulbs, prompting all the leading
manufacturers of the time—Philips, Osram and General Electric—to meet in Geneva
to try and find a solution.
That
meeting gave birth to Phoebus, the world’s first transnational cartel, which,
over the next few years, systematically reversed decades of innovation to
ensure that the life of the incandescent light bulb would never again exceed
1,000 hours. This was the first recorded example of planned obsolescence—a
concept that, today, sits at the heart of our economy.
Consumption
is one of the cornerstones of capitalism. Economists argue that the more we
produce, the more we purchase and the more we purchase, the greater is our
prosperity. This philosophy drives innovation, forces industry to develop new
products and creates new jobs—and eventually results in the advancement of
society. But sometimes the technology is so good that consumers have no
incentive to buy new products, as was the case with long-lasting electric
bulbs. At times like this, there is a need to retard development to ensure
continued consumption.
We
see examples of planned obsolescence all around us, in the disposable razors
we’ve been taught to favour over longer-lasting cut-throat blades, in
appliances that miraculously give up the ghost just days after the warranty
runs out and personal electronics that feel sluggish just when a new model is
announced. And while the impulse to replace our existing stuff with newer,
shinier stuff makes economic sense, the environmental impact of continuously
disposing of old, useless products, does not.
Governments
around the world have begun to take note of this. We’re seeing regulations
aimed at balancing the economic objective of stimulating production with its
environmental cost. India has imposed extended producer responsibilities on
manufacturers, making them liable for the environmentally sound disposal of
their end-of-life products. France tried a different approach and required
manufacturers to declare upfront the planned lifespan of their product and for
how long they intended to support it.
But
these regulatory measures will do little more than re-allocate financial
responsibility. If we are looking for a lasting solution to the malaise of
constant consumption, we need to fundamentally change the economic basis of
consumerist capitalism.
Not
so long ago, the software industry was based entirely on planned obsolescence.
Companies regularly released new versions of their software and we felt
compelled to buy them or else face security risk and performance failure. This
model is a thing of the past. It’s been replaced by subscription models that
deliver software as a service allowing us to pay for what we use. The entire
industry has moved from selling ownership to charging rent.
We’ve
witnessed a similar transformation in the media industry. There was a time when
the only way you could listen to music or watch movies was by buying CDs and
DVDs. Today, digital media services like Apple Music, Spotify, Hulu and Netflix
offer monthly subscriptions to an all-you-can eat buffet of digital content.
A
decade ago, we would have been hard-pressed to conceptualize how we might
effect the same sort of transformation in the world of physical goods. In the
past few years, companies like Airbnb and Uber have shown us that we no longer
need to own stuff if we can build business models that allow us to access them
whenever we need to. And, while these companies have been reviled for operating
on the fringes of the law, they have managed to change the way we think about
physical assets.
Regulators
would do well to reflect on the bigger picture. If we can encourage the
Uberization of all things, we will effect a transition from an ownership
economy to the access economy. Done right, this could incentivize technological
advancement independent of replacement economics.
And
then maybe, just maybe, we’ll be able to drag ourselves out of the death spiral
of constant consumption.
Regards
Pralhad
Jadhav
Senior
Manager @ Library
Khaitan
& Co
Upcoming Events | BOSLA-NIFT ANNUAL LECTURE
SERIES-2016 on Saturday,
20th August 2016 at 10.00 hrs in National Institute of Fashion Technology, Kharghar, Navi
Mumbai.
Note | If anybody use these post for forwarding
in any social media coverage or covering in the Newsletter please give due
credit to those who are taking efforts for the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment