Extending the lifetimes of consumer electronics can play an important role in reducing the environmental impact of today’s consumption. For this reason, policy attention is currently given to repair practices (e.g., Right to Repair) to support consumers in repairing malfunctioning products.

However, we must not forget that consumers also dispose of many consumer electronics quickly and prematurely, while they are still functioning well. For example, 58% of replaced TVs and even 16% of replaced washing machines were working perfectly fine at the moment these were replaced [1].

This premature replacement means that  the actual lifetime of many consumer electronics is often much shorter than the potential lifetime. Extending products’ first life through interventions other than repair can change the way consumers assess the value of products, keep them in use for longer and greatly reduce their environmental impact.

The importance of product values for the replacement decision

When consumers consider replacing their consumer electronics, a trade-off is made between the current values that are offered by the owned product and the expected values and costs of a new product [2].

Products can provide different kinds of value such as:

Functional value: the utilitarian performance of a product

Emotional value: the emotions and special meanings that products can arouse

Epistemic value: the novelty and surprise value that products can arouse

On the one hand, the owned product offers specific values to the owner, such as the functional value due to its functioning, or emotional value, if the product has an attractive appearance or reminds the owner of a special event.

On the other hand, new products often offer better functional performance due to technological updates, fashionable appearances (another emotional value) and these new features can also provide epistemic value.

During a replacement decision, consumers make the trade-off whether these extra values are worth the financial investment of the new product. This trade-off of values is not static and even well-functioning products experience a decline in perceived value over time for various reasons.

First, continued product usage may bring about dirt or scratches, which will reduce the product’s emotional value. Second, the repeated use of the same product can cause feelings of satiation, which refers to a decrease in the consumer’s enjoyment and a reduced desire for continued use and consumption after repeated exposure to the same stimulus [3]. Such satiation negatively influences a product’s epistemic value.

Consumers’ calculation of a product’s value is negatively influenced by short lifetime expectations

Products will also slowly lose value as a result of consumers’ mental accounting process, which consumers unconsciously apply to their products during ownership [2]. Over time, consumers mentally depreciate the initial value of a product, so to speak, creating a “mental book value” for this product.

This represents how much remaining value the product still has left. This mental book value is the result of the expectations that people have concerning the ‘normal’ lifetimes of different products and when they can conclude that the product has yielded its value.

Over time, unfortunately, the total lifetimes that consumers expect from their electronics has decreased [1].  Consequently, products are replaced prematurely, because it is often thought that the expected service life is limited and that the product will therefore malfunction in the near future.

For example, many consumers would expect smartphones to last 3-4 years, while washing machines are expected to last 8-10 years [1]. This lifetime expectancy will then influence how consumers interact with their products and make decisions concerning future usage.

Just to illustrate, if the touchscreen of a 1-year-old smartphone would show a crack that does not affect its functioning, the remaining mental book value will hinder consumers from replacing the smartphone. After all, the lifetime expectancy would give consumers the impression that it is a shame to replace smartphones after only 1 year as they have not yet made their money worth.

Following this principle, consumers may decide to replace a perfectly functioning washing machine after 12 years of ownership, because they perceive it is time for a new one. This is reinforced by their expectations that a 12-year-old washing machine is likely to break down relatively soon as it has already passed its ‘normal’ lifetime.

Therefore, to prevent premature replacement, it is important to increase the lifetime expectancy that consumers have of products and thereby change their mental accounting process in a way that products’ value remains high for a longer period of time.

Interventions to increase the lifetime expectancy of consumer electronics

Increasing the lifetime expectancy of consumer electronics can happen at different moments in the product lifecycle, here are two interventions which might help:

Pre-sale information on product lifetimes:

First, consumers can be encouraged to actively search for long-lasting products at purchase. Unfortunately, today only limited opportunities exist to do so. Whereas the electricity consumption of consumer electronics is clearly communicated in stores, information about lifetimes is absent. This however does not suggest that it would not be possible to offer this to consumers. A lifetime label would give consumers insights into the relative lifetime of a product compared to alternatives at purchase [4].

In the European project PROMPT  a testing programme to assess the lifetimes of four consumer electronics (washing machines, TVs, vacuum cleaners and smartphones) was developed. This programme is used by consumer organisations but could also be implemented on a larger scale via policy.

The availability of such lifetime information will help consumers to select products that will last longer, thereby raising their expectations about what can be expected from the product, and preventing premature replacement. Also, detailed lifetime information enables consumers to move beyond the simple heuristics of brand and price to assess lifetime expectancy. This is important as many consumer segments do not necessarily have the financial means to choose for expensive brands.

Understanding product ‘mileage’:

Lifetime expectancy can also be influenced during product usage via specific interventions. The intensity of usage is likely to affect the lifetime of many consumer electronics.

For example, a washing machine that is used 8 times a week is expected to break down sooner than one that is only used 3 times a week. Consequently, consumers will believe that the frequently used washing machine has yielded its value sooner as well. Unfortunately, consumers currently have little to no opportunities to gain insight into the use frequency even though that would be worthwhile.

By way of comparison, several options exist for cars to give a more detailed interpretation of the expected lifetime than just the car’s age. Cars have an odometer that consumers can use as an indication of the number of kilometres they could logically still drive. Even if a car is 15 years old, if it has only driven 100,000 kilometres, everyone would agree that it is likely to last for many more kilometres to come.

It would be worthwhile to also implement such solutions for various consumer electronics, such as televisions, coffee machines and washing machines. In combination with a proper reference of what can be expected from these products, such prior usage information is likely to increase the trust that consumers will have in the remaining lifetime, and postpone the moment that the product has yielded its value and thus that of its replacement.

Building trust in longer lived product performance and safety

Cars can also be an inspiration for consumers’ lack of confidence in the continued high performance of ‘older’ consumer electronics.

When a consumer electronic reaches the lifetime that consumers expect from this product, their trust in continued proper functioning decreases.  However for cars, this trust is reinforced by the annual service, which increases consumers’ confidence in their car’s functioning for the upcoming year.

Similarly, consumers could also be encouraged to perform more regular maintenance activities, via which the products can provide indications of continued good functioning.

In summary, to lower the environmental impact of consuming electronics, it is critical to move beyond a focus on repair practices and strive for increasing their lifetime expectancy. This will encourage consumers to make longer use of their products and thereby prevent premature replacement.

Acknowledgements

This publication is part of the project “Slowing down premature obsolescence: Keeping the value of consumer electronics high by design” with file number VI.C.221.020 awarded to Ruth Mugge of the research programme VICI which is (partly) financed by the Dutch Research Council (NWO) under the grant Talent Programme (Grant number: https ://doi.org/10.61686/#####)

References

[1]       Magnier, L., & Mugge, R. (2022). Replaced too soon? An exploration of Western European consumers’ replacement of electronic products. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 185, 106448.

[2]       Van den Berge, R., Magnier, L., & Mugge, R. (2021). Too good to go? Consumers’ replacement behaviour and potential strategies for stimulating product retention. Current Opinion in Psychology, 39, 66-71.

[3[    Hou, C., Jo, M. S., & Sarigöllü, E. (2020). Feelings of satiation as a mediator between a product’s perceived value and replacement intentions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 258, 120637.

[4]   Van den Berge, R., Magnier, L., & Mugge, R. (2023). Until death do us part? In‐depth insights into Dutch consumers’ considerations about product lifetimes and lifetime extension. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 27(3), 908-922.

About the author:

Prof. Dr. Ruth Mugge is a Full Professor in Design for Sustainable Consumer Behaviour at the faculty of Industrial Design Engineering of Delft University of Technology. Her research focuses on exploring and investigating new design interventions to stimulate sustainable behaviours. She has a specific focus on consumer behaviours in a Circular Economy, such as encouraging consumers to repair, to adopting refurbished products and to extending the lifetimes of their consumer electronics. She has received various national and European grants to execute her research and published her outcomes in many scientific journals.