{"id":1166,"date":"2025-03-19T19:07:53","date_gmt":"2025-03-19T11:07:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/jointings.org\/eng\/?p=1166"},"modified":"2025-03-19T19:24:04","modified_gmt":"2025-03-19T11:24:04","slug":"jm-review-planned-obsolescence-isn%e2%80%99t-the-only-path-to-sustainable-business-growth","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jointings.org\/eng\/archives\/1166","title":{"rendered":"JM Review | Planned Obsolescence Isn\u2019t the Only Path to Sustainable Business Growth"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u3010\u4f01\u4e1a\u793e\u4f1a\u8d23\u4efb\u4e0e\u53ef\u6301\u7eed\u53d1\u5c55\u3011| CSR & Sustainability<\/a><\/p>\n

For Sale<\/a><\/em><\/em><\/p>\n

By Tea\uff0cJointing.Media, in Zhuhai,\u00a02024-12-31<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Modern products are increasingly short-lived, often failing within just a few years of use. When minor issues arise, consumers are frequently advised to replace rather than repair devices\u2014a trend driven by scarce replacement parts and repair costs that often exceed the price of new purchases. This intentional shortening of product lifespans, coupled with manufacturers discontinuing support for older models, constitutes a deliberate corporate strategy termed\u00a0planned obsolescence (or \u201cplanned\u6c70\u65e7\u201d). By designing products to become technologically outdated, functionally limited, or physically irreparable, companies artificially stimulate demand, boost sales, and fuel short-term economic growth.<\/p>\n

Key Characteristics of Planned Obsolescence<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Planned obsolescence is an industrial strategy rooted in consumerism, defined by four core practices:<\/p>\n

1. Engineered Product Shortevity
\n<\/strong>Products are deliberately designed with limited lifespans through:
\nSubstandard materials: Use of wear-prone components or fragile parts.
\nNon-repairable designs: Sealed units (e.g., glued batteries) or components that degrade irreversibly.
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n

2. Forced Technological Redundancy
\n<\/strong>Older products are rendered obsolete via:
\nHardware incompatibility**: New technical specifications (e.g., charging ports, processing standards) that break backward compatibility.
\nSoftware manipulation**: Updates that throttle performance (e.g., slowed smartphones) or disable functionality (e.g., non-supported apps).
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n

3. Systematic Repair Barriers
\n<\/strong>Manufacturers actively hinder maintenance through:
\nProprietary restrictions: Specialized tools (e.g., pentalobe screws), unavailable spare parts, or encrypted repair software.
\nCost inflation**: Repair pricing strategies that make fixes economically irrational (e.g., replacing a $300 smartphone screen vs. buying a new $400 device).
\nPhysical sabotage: Fragile connectors, adhesives replacing screws, or components prone to planned failure (e.g., printer ink chips).
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n

4. Artificial Demand Generation
\n<\/strong>Sales cycles are accelerated by:
\nFunctional expiration**: Products programmed to self-disable (e.g., ink cartridges blocking use after preset page counts).
\nPerceived obsolescence**: Marketing campaigns framing older models as inadequate (e.g., \u201c5G-ready\u201d labels stigmatizing 4G devices).<\/p>\n

Planned Obsolescence vs. Sustainable Innovation<\/h3>\n

The earliest documented case of planned obsolescence traces back to\u00a0lightbulbs. In 1924, a secret pact known as the\u00a0Phoebus Cartel\u00a0was signed in Geneva by global monopolies\u2014including Germany\u2019s Osram, the Netherlands\u2019 Philips, France\u2019s Compagnie des Lampes, and the U.S.\u2019s General Electric. This collusion aimed to\u00a0artificially shorten bulb lifespansto maximize profits. Pre-cartel bulbs lasted 2,500 hours; post-agreement, they were engineered to fail at 1,000 hours. Violators faced penalties\u2014calculated in Swiss francs\u2014for exceeding lifespan limits.<\/p>\n

Modern-Day Planned Obsolescence: Industry Case Studies<\/strong><\/p>\n

This strategy remains pervasive, particularly in tech and consumer electronics:<\/p>\n