The central social context that contributes to the issue of America’s ever-growing e-waste is that of planned obsolescence. In short, the principle of planned obsolescence is such that an item does not last as long as it potentially could, meaning that consumers are prompted to replace old items more frequently than would be necessary had the manufacturer not intentionally shortened its life cycle. For example, textbook publishers frequently publish new editions of their textbooks with ever so slightly altered practice questions and definitions to diminish the used textbook market and force students to obtain the newest edition of the book even though most of the material carries over (Iizuka 2004).

Although it is easy to dismiss planned obsolescence as a product of corporate greed in a capitalist society, it is important to understand what causes manufacturers shy away from producing durable goods. When a product is successful its market becomes saturated but producing more durable and long-lasting products lengthens the repeat purchase cycle, retarding growth. So too does the second-hand market, raising the level of competition between new and used goods while simultaneously lowering the price of replacement goods. Increasing the frequency with which users replace their products stimulates market growth, limits competition from the used market dragging down profit, and increases the value of replacement goods (Guiltinan 2009). Adult smartphone ownership in the United States has jumped from just 35% in May 2011 to 77% in November of 2016 (Pew Research Center, 2017), meaning there are more soon-to-be obsolescent electronics in our country than ever.

As it pertains to the issue of electronic waste in the electronics life cycle, planned obsolescence occurs in three forms: limited functional life design, design for limited repair, and design aesthetics that lead to reduced satisfaction. In that first case, manufacturers deliberately limit a product’s life cycle. This is illustrated in 1924, when the Phoebus cartel of light bulb manufacturers standardized that light bulbs should last one thousand hours, even though up until that point light bulbs regularly lasted up to twice that duration (Krajewski, 2014). Similarly, users of inkjet printers frequently experience similar falsities with computer chip-equipped ink cartridges. These chips are coded to stop providing ink to the printer when the ink within the printer reaches a certain level. However, in the case of the Brother HL-2140 Toner cartridge, covering its sensor after receiving an “out of ink” prompt will yield the user an additional 200 pages (Aladeojebi, 2013).

Second, some products are manufactured in such a way that they become prohibitively costly to repair when they break, prodding the consumer to replace a product as opposed to seeking repair. This principle is particularly present in Apple’s line of products. One particularly offensive example finds Apple charging $49 for a battery replacement for its iPod Shuffle, which coincidentally retails for $49 (Aladeojebi). More pressing to the Lafayette community however is a construction feature of Apple’s laptop computers.

According to our survey on e-waste administered to 135 Lafayette students across all four class years, 71% of students owned a laptop manufactured by Apple (Mapping the E-Waste Lifecycle, 2017). The late 2013 MacBook Pro and the MacBook Air of the same generation feature batteries secured with industrial strength glue and hard drives soldered to the computer’s logic board. These features, in combination with Apple’s usage of proprietary screws and Apple-specific tools needed to open the computers’ casings make these laptops near impossible to repair without doing so through the parent company. Repair costs out of warranty can approach the cost of a new computer, encouraging the consumer to replace instead of repair. Given that the majority of students surveyed replace their laptop computers every 5-6 years, it is likely that many members of the Lafayette community use computers that were manufactured with this construction (Mapping the E-Waste Lifecycle, 2017).

Thirdly, some products are designed in a way such that they wear quickly and appear aesthetically dated just in time for the new product to roll of the assembly line. Quick production of a new version of a product gives the consumer the perception of quality in the new product, and minute details like a new color finish or a slightly different camera bezel design are enough to give the impression that a consumer’s old smartphone is no longer current. Automobile manufacturers generally make slight aesthetic changes for a model’s mid-cycle refresh—usually three years into the model’s life cycle—to prompt lessees and buyers to trade in for the newest model even though the vehicle is often mechanically identical.

This planned obsolescence is not just the fault of companies that produce these products. At Lafayette College, 57% of students replace their cell phones every 2 years or less (Mapping the E-Waste Lifecycle, 2017). These phones are more often than not still usable. The iPhone is still able to operate using data, to search through the web using wireless internet, to hold music, to call and text, to take pictures, etc. The iPhone X features a new shape, face recognition software and many other features through a new camera, though none of the necessary functions of what makes it a smartphone have changed. However, the iPhone X is currently priced at $999 (apple.com) and “a new research note from reputed analyst Ming Chi-Kuo relays that iPhone X production during the current holiday quarter will fall somewhere in the 25-27 million range… production is set to increase by upwards of 45% during the first quarter of 2018 (Heisler, 2017).” A new operating system does not constitute a $1000 purchase for a new device to put in one’s pocket. The consumer’s desire to have the newest piece of technology is a big part of what drives planned obsolescence.

At Lafayette College, the social context that precludes proper e-waste disposal, reuse, or recycling is lack of awareness of the problem. And amounting e-waste is in fact a problem. Electronic waste amounted to 41.8 million tons worldwide in 2014. This figure, amassed of 12.8 million tons of small equipment, 11.8 million tons of large equipment, 7 million tons of temperature exchange equipment, 6.3 million tons of screens and monitors, 3 million tons of small IT, and 1 million tons of lamps, is expected to reach 49.8 million in 2018 with an annual growth rate of 4-5 percent. The United States generated 11.7 million tons of that e-waste, about 28 percent of the world total. Ironically, though nearly all electronic waste is recyclable, only about 29 percent of e-waste in the United States is actually recycled, and only 15-20 percent is recycled worldwide (E-Waste Recycling Facts and Figures, The Balance).

On Lafayevte’s campus and in the world as a whole, we can attribute much of the lack of recycling to a lack of awareness of the problem and how to remedy it. As a result of our survey we found that 89% of Lafayette students have little to no knowledge of the school’s program for dealing with its electronic waste (Mapping the E-Waste Lifecycle, 2017). One reason for this gap in knowledge is likely that the Office of Sustainability was created only last year, appointing Marie Fechik-Kirk as its first director in November, 2016 (Kevin Gray, news.lafayette.edu, 2017). Since its founding the Office of Sustainability has been expanding programs such as the student run “Eco-Rep” program, Green Move Out, and their current administration’s e-waste program, which will be discussed in more detail in the political context.

This project is meant to provide a context for the Office of Sustainability through which to expand its work into student e-waste, and we will continue to work alongside them when creating our physical maps. If the school were to have a good buy back program of electronics waste, students would likely use it. Most students see reselling or saving electronics, such as smartphones, as their only real options.

This illustrates the lack of availability as another social context aspect that must be addressed to properly deal with electronic waste. There are Big Green Boxes in some academic buildings that allow students to recycle items such as batteries and empty ink cartridges, but there are no real e-waste recycling options for students. Even as it pertains to the school’s most publicized e-waste recycling option, Electronics Recycling Day during Earth Week, only 9% of students surveyed said they were aware of the event and its ongoings (Mapping the E-Waste Lifecycle, 2017). Until the Office of Sustainability implements a program, there are few options that could actually appeal to students. One potential incentive that could appeal to students is informing them of when a product (such as an iPhone) is about to decrease in value, giving students the urgency and incentive to sell back their phones before they become obsolete.