Consumer goods environmental policy is increasingly focusing on product durability and product lifetime extension (PLE) to reduce their impact. Given the growing societal relevance of PLE, this review investigates the discourse about its environmental effects, and the empirical knowledge that substantiates this discourse. One hundred and nine relevant articles were selected from 388 distinctive records identified in two databases, Scopus and Web of Science. The statements about the environmental effects of PLE in these publications were extracted and analysed, and a detailed process of backward citation tracking was followed to identify the empirical base substantiating these statements, leading to 85 additional publications that were included in further analyses.
The findings show that the main environmental benefits expected from PLE are related to reductions in the volume of goods produced, which result from expected reductions in demand due to delayed product replacement. However, this reasoning is based on two under-researched assumptions about consumer and industry behaviours: that the demand for new products is driven by replacement, and that decisions on production volumes in the industry are driven by consumer demand. The empirical base in the field is dominated by quantitative assessments that reproduce these assumptions rather than studying them. The findings from a handful of field studies that investigate the presumed behaviour, question that it applies. Therefore, a research agenda is proposed to better understand the relations between product lifetimes and material flows and the influence of consumer and industry behaviour over them. Moreover, given the current gap between the durability discourse and the empirical knowledge that would be needed to substantiate it, recommendations are made for academics, policy makers, advocacy groups, and businesses environmental strategists to moderate their expectations from product longevity measures.
A new research article in Journal of Sustainable Marketing address EU’s Textile Strategy’s blatant avoidance of the volumes issue, and raises the question of why.
In the Journal of Sustainable Marketing, a new article penned by Irene Maldini and Ingun Grimstad Klepp, The EU Textile Strategy: How to Avoid Overproduction andOverconsumption Measures in Environmental Policy, takes the bull by the horn.
The analysis, which was just published, shows how the focus on product durability avoided addressing production volume reductions measures, leading to the exclusion of marketing-oriented regulation (applied to price, frequency of new products put on the market, product placement with influencers, advertising including social media strategy, etc.), which could have actually significant effect in tackling overproduction and overconsumption.
No volume-related questions
Instead, in the open hearings, no questions were asked that were volume-related, only related to durability (with the exception of overconsumption being mentioned once). In the answers, however, volume-related wordings are common – however, in the summary of the feedback, everything about volumes again disappears.
The article is based on the analysis of public documents and interviews with participants of the policy making process, the study unpacks the factors that enabled such a decision, and how it was integrated in the final document.
In sum, the analysis suggests that measures aimed at reducing production and/or consumption volumes were out of the scope of the Textile Strategy already from early stages. The public consultation process was designed, conducted, and analyzed in a way that ensured this exclusion, despite the efforts of some stakeholders and many survey respondents in bringing this issue to the table. The final document does not propose any mechanisms to check and ensure that these have an effect in volume reduction or on the environmental impact for that matter.
Only three peer-reviewed scientific articles
The analysis rather shows that by focusing on product durability, an explicit aim to reduce the volume of clothing was avoided, leaving potentially impactful marketing-related measures out of the scope. The study also uncovers that of the 56 different publications cited to provide the data base for the Textile Strategy, only 3 are peer reviewed scientific articles.
And this is not because there is no knowledge available on textiles and the environment impact from researchers. However, in a marketing journal, we think our perspective from consumption research ploughs new ground.
Thematically, there is a lot of overlap between consumer research and marketing research on consumption. Yet there is little cross-citation and little collaboration. This is probably related to a certain mutual skepticism. Consumer research is about taking the consumer’s position, while marketing is the opposite – at least initially, with the desire to sell something and later change consumers in one way or another. Therefore, it is extra gratifying that we have managed to overcome this barrier by publishing in a marketing journal. With great help from Diego Rinallo, Doctorate in Business Administration & Management, Bocconi University, Milan, Marketing Department. His input has been invaluable.
Irene and Ingun attending EcoAge’s round table on A fair phase-out of fossil fuels from the fashion industry.
The more we have seen the limitations of product perspectives (such as making products “repairable” and the ideas of “educating” consumers to act “sustainably”), the clearer it becomes that marketing must also be included in policy. We need knowledge about how it works and how it can be limited.
The EU, like Norway, is proud of its democracy. In the mapping of why policies develop as they do, and how and by whom decisions are made, it has been surprisingly difficult to gain insight. As the article shows, there was a lack of written documentation about the processes, a reluctance to be interviewed (although no personal questions or questions about opinions were included) and anonymity was ensured.
Sensitive stuff?
How are decisions made and are they really this sensitive to scrutiny? This begs a bigger question perhaps media should ask.
This raises questions not only about why transparency is not valued more highly in democratic countries/regions, but also about the relationship between the research community and policy.
The article sheds light on this relationship directly, and an analysis of what the EU strategy refers to, i.e. what kind of knowledge is used as a basis.
As first author, Irene Maldini reflects: “It has been an adventurous journey to develop my work into this area, and to experience the double role of trying to influence policy building on scientific knowledge (advocacy) and at the same time analyzing the processes of policymaking as an outsider (research). The former has also enabled the latter, because resistance to acknowledge the limits of the planet and economic interests in policy making processes become so clear when you are trying to bring the sufficiency agenda forward.”
Nina Heidenstrøm, Pål Strandbakken, Vilde Haugrønning and Kirsi Laitala
Abstract
The objective in this report is to better understand how the increased product lifetime option has been positioned in policies over the past twenty years. By means of policy document analysis, we explore product lifetime positioning in the EU’s circular economy policies, Norwegian political party programs and official documents, environmental NGO documents, consumer organisation policies and product policies. Overall, we find little focus on product lifetime between 2000-2015, however, there has been a massive increase over the past five years. There is still a long way to go in developing appropriate policy instruments to address product lifetime.
The textile and clothing industry is considered as one of the most polluting industries in the world. Still, the regulation of environmental hazards connected to the industry is very limited, and much responsibility is placed on the shoulders of consumers. One of the few ways that ordinary consumers can seek to influence the textile and clothing industry is through their own consumption practices and their wallet. This article departs from the discourse on sustainable consumption and the role of the consumer as an agent for change, and the article investigates the characteristics of the consumers who practice deliberate environmentally sustainable consumption of textiles and clothing. This is done through the lens of political consumption. Based on a cross-national survey conducted in five Western European countries, factors that have been found to predict general political consumption in previous research are tested on the field of textiles and clothing. The findings demonstrate both similarities and some discrepancies with previous studies of political consumption as well as significant country variations.
