Why we can't ignore product sustainability

I was delighted to see this recent Which? article that highlights the fact that corded vacuum cleaners are likely to last longer and offer other benefits: https://www.which.co.uk/news/2019/03/5-reasons-why-you-shouldnt-write-off-corded-vacuum-cleaners/

Comparing the cost of ownership might show that cordless vacs are a costly choice and a contribution to the mountain of electronic waste.

Wavechange, your first paragraph could have been written by me!!!

We still have an old Goblin for dirty jobs that still has the original intact fabric collection bag.

In 2012, we bought a Black & Decker pole pruner with a rechargeable battery. A special offer at the time of purchase got us a free spare battery. With little use, after a couple of years the batteries would not charge. B&D replaced them as a gesture of goodwill. We were told to periodically discharge and recharge them, but we kept forgetting and they are now dead. So a perfectly good working pole pruner with no power, what a waste. There now seems to be a problem with availability for the 18v battery that fitted a range of garden products, so could be the premature end to quite a few garden tools.

The cost to replace 2 batteries was very similar to purchasing an electric pole pruner, so we opted for an electric one, easier to handle and available to use anytime you want (except wet conditions of course).

We also have/had a hand-held vac, shavers, toothbrushes, power tools, numerous torches that had/used specific or in-built rechargeable batteries that all failed prematurely. £130 to replace an oldish but still useable laptop battery was far too much so to invest in an expensive Dyson rechargeable doesn’t appeal at all.

Maybe rechargeable batteries are improving. We have had several AA/AAA battery chargers over the years that have all proved to be quite useless.

A few months ago, with so many items running on AA/AAA batteries, and torches always running out of juice, we decided to invest in Panasonic Eneloop Pro rechargeables. It is early days yet, but looking a lot more promising than previously. Forum discussions rather than product reviews helped us make up our minds.

One gripe I do have is not being able to buy them directly from Panasonic so we can be 100% sure they are genuine batteries. Some years ago, an eBay seller was selling “Genuine Nikon IOM Batteries” with a photo of the label also spelt IOM confirming he had not misspelled the description. So now I am always very wary where they come from.

Batteries definitely need to be standardised, affordable and easy to replace, but most of all, we all have a duty of responsibility to not contribute to the mountain of electronic waste.

I’ve been caught out too, Alfa. Many years ago I had a Black & Decker ‘Dustbuster’ and I followed the instructions and left it on charge. The nickel-cadmium batteries gradually lost capacity and from reading up on the subject I found that keeping them on charge causes the batteries to dry up. The advice to discharge these batteries regularly by using the tool is good. That prevents dendrites growing through the separator, which makes the battery unable to hold a charge. For other reasons it’s vital to stop using the tool when it starts to lose power or you will quickly wreck the battery. None of this applies to the lithium ion batteries that are quickly replacing older types. What matters here is to avoid leaving batteries fully discharged.

I remember your tale about the Nikon IOM battery. 🙂 I was wary about buying a replacement battery for my ‘old’ iPhone but used a supplier suggested by Ian and it works fine, despite the low price.

I’ve had very mixed success with AA and AAA rechargeables. I have had most success with lower capacity ones, but the higher capacity ones often lose charge in storage. It may be a single faulty cell in a set of four that is the problem and I must take back a set of Duracell rechargeables with this problem. It’s not possible to use lithium batteries as direct replacements for AA and AAA because the voltage per cell is 3.7V instead of 1.2V. I might have a look at the Eneloop or other precharged batteries.

We are buying the rechargeables as we need them so there will only ever be a spare set of 4 ready to use rather than storing too many. I think it is a good idea to keep track of rechargeables in remote controls to make sure batteries don’t stay in them too long and maybe recycle them in torches where they can be easily run down..

We have had a few of these high powered torches, brilliant at first, but they have a very short life.

They have to be plugged into the mains to recharge and usually between 6 months and a year they just stop charging. Most of them have gone back for refunds so don’t know what they look like inside and whether the battery can be replaced.

Most of the hand lamps like that use sealed lead-acid batteries, which won’t last long unless kept fully charged. It’s tempting to leave them on charge but that dries out the battery and shortens its life. LED torches are a better bet, in my view, and there are some powerful ones available if needed. It’s good to hear that you have managed to get products replaced, Alfa.

My remote controls are not used often, so I tend to go for non-rechargeable batteries. Kodak ones are cheap and unlike more expensive brands such as Duracell, I have not had problems with leakage. Kodak and some other cheaper brands perform poorly in Which? tests because of lower capacity, but that’s not important for products such as clocks that have a low power consumption. Apart from that I try to use rechargeables where possible.

I see no problem in manufacturers insuring their guarantees. I would hope that the insurer would assess the risk properly and give better terms to better products. Inherently better products would still be what I want to buy.

I would be happier if JL had made it clear that I was buying an insurance-backed extended warranty rather than an extended guarantee.

One of the reasons I have avoided extended warranties is because I have heard of so many problems, including some on Which? Convo.

I assume that many of us want products that will prove durable and have suggested that information could be obtained from independent field service engineers, who repair appliances regularly. Obviously this information will not be available when products are launched.

Historic performance would certainly be a great source of information – Which? Connect could also contribute to that. However, an independent field service engineer, or someone with similar experience and knowledge, could dismantle a new product and assess its component and build quality and pronounce on its likely durability, problems area, how easy or difficult to repair and so on. Which? may need to find such people; they are not the same necessarily as test lab staff.

Until our Connect surveys ask important questions such as how much products have been used, they are going to sacrifice useful information that we could provide. I’m sure that I’m not alone in owning some products that have been little used. For example I have a carpet cleaner that is rarely needed because I don’t have pets or children and take off my outdoor shoes. It was still a useful purchase but it would not be useful if I responded to a survey and said how long it had lasted.

It’s always useful to inspect goods for repairability, but for this to be useful we need to know that spares are available and will remain so for a reasonable time – either from the manufacturer or a third party supplier. With popular products there is more chance of third party spares. Friends kept their dishwasher going for 23 years because spares were cheap and readily available. At one time it was used two or three times a day, thanks to a large family.

The recent survey on small appliances asked how often my kettle was used:
O – Every day
O – Every 2-3 days
O – Every 4-5 days
O – Once a week
O – Every 2-3 weeks
O – Once a month
O – Less often than once a month
O – Not sure
🙄

Our kettle is used at least 6 times a day. One option for day, but 3 options spanning a week covering 1-4 uses (does that make sense?)

Maybe the power of marketing is convincing us that we need cordless cleaners. 🙂 I don’t find it difficult to use a wired vacuum cleaner, even to do the stairs. On the other hand, I would not be without my cordless drills, mainly because I use them away from home, and away from mains power. I’m surprised how long the lithium batteries are lasting compared with the earlier ones with NiCd batteries.

Batteries have a nasty habit of running out in the middle of jobs.

I know; I can never find mine…

Which? could do well to review all the comments made on this topic in previous Convos (maybe they have). Such points have been made a number of times – cycles by washing machines, dryers, dishwashers and many appliances are a relevant durability criterion, but the type of cycle is also important, and no doubt so are other factors such as the load in a washing machine and the spin speed selected.

One option would be to lease an appliance and simply have it replaced if it fails. I have an instinctive dislike of such things – someone usually makes an extra profit out of this and i believe it can lead to more waste, but am prepared to be wrong. I prefer to own what I need to use exclusively.

I think Which? should review this whole topic from the ground up and publish a report that can be developed into action. Convo contributions can be one source of view, opinion and information.

Meanwhile, assessment of real durability and repairability would be a big step forward. I hope Which? will keep us informed as to how they are tackling this.

Jon asked a question in his opening comment “what would a great review that includes product sustainability data look like for you?” . In my view a simplistic answer would be: this product should last for……(years, cycles, hours) ….without failure, an unconditional guarantee is offered for…..(excluding abuse and misuse) and these product areas can be repaired/replaced at this cost should they fail. It should also say what cannot be repaired or replaced, or a repair that would be excessively expensive.

I am not sure whether we are going to be able to get much useful information on corporate social responsibility for goods made in the Far East under a European or American brand name. That’s not a reason not to pursue it, however.

Many clothing retailers have outstandingly good CSR documents in their annual reports but have been caught out in relation to their suppliers and sub-contractors. The same could be true in respect of consumer durables.

I agree that it’s not easy and that you cannot rely on what the companies may claim, hence the need for independent assessment. The publicity of poor ethical practices in the clothing and electronics industries does seem to have had a positive effect.

We know that familiar companies are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with all relevant safety and other standards and many do this well, even if their products are made in the Far East.

Whether consumers will pay much attention to CSR and sustainability remains to be seen but it surely it would be good to praise the companies that are making an effort.

It’ll be a bit like “Mission Statements”. I wonder how Apple would fare in this?

That’s why I am keen on independent assessment.

Thanks for that, Vynor. Sustainability and ethical issues are far from simple. I agree that government should act, not only to tackle ethical issues but to require companies to hold spares for our larger appliances for a minimum period and to ban the use of integrated assemblies that would cost more than certain percentage of the original cost to replace. I don’t believe that Which? should ignore these issues and assume that what Mike has in mind is that Which? should help make us more aware of information that already exists.

Here is a relevant article that heads today’s Which? homepage: https://www.which.co.uk/news/2019/03/the-hidden-cost-of-your-smartphone/ Towards the end of the video we are given sensible advice: Keep your phone and don’t be tempted to upgrade sooner than you need to, and if the power is not lasting as long as it used to, replace the battery rather than the phone. Unfortunately, in an article on power bank chargers we are told: “Batteries don’t last forever – if your smartphone has given up the ghost, check out our best smartphone recommendations for a great range of top-rated mobile phones.” As someone who has kept their phone for five years and replaced the battery, I have tried to take the responsible approach and it has saved me the cost of a new phone. My battery was firmly glued to the case, yet the manufacturers could have used simple clips to hold it in place. I wish Which? and other consumer associations had worked together to tackle the growing problem of phones and other mobile devices without user-replaceable batteries, but now all the main manufacturers are using batteries that cannot easily be replaced by the user.

As far as I know, all brands of smart TVs will lose functionality within a few years of purchase. I would like to see Which? reports provide information about whether we can make a claim under the Consumer Rights Act and the various options to restore functionality by adding a plug-in device.

Mine is important because I can set it to reach the temperatures I want during the day/night and I can forget about it. Additionally, it is portable and can be placed where the ambient temperature is an average for the house. I don’t need to control it remotely and am suspicious of the way this control works via the internet. Yesterday my router crashed -one minute there, the next not. I took the power supply out and replaced it and everything came back to normal. Control of things, using the router and WIFI might set everything to a default and not the settings I have chosen.

One of my main concerns about smart thermostats is they could stop working over the Christmas holidays, when I’m hundreds of miles away and there is a risk that pipes could freeze. If it gets really cold I can ring a neighbour and ask them to turn up the thermostat, but I cannot really expect them to sort out the router.

I agree with you that being able to move the thermostat round the house is useful. At present I just nudge mine up or down a bit when passing.

I am with you in spirit, daes0707, and I should like to see your proposals develop, but there are some practical difficulties where the use of an appliance is outside the manufacturer’s control. With a washing machine, for example, the extent to which the machine is loaded, the programmes set, whether or not it has been maintained correctly, and whether there has been any misuse, all have a bearing on durability.

The quality of materials used in equipment will have an environmental impact as well as cost implications. Unfortunately there has been a race to the bottom in appliance manufacture in order to produce more affordable machines. Unless there is an internationally set benchmark this will continue to be the case.

Some appliances, like refrigerators and freezers, enjoy a more passive life and are less prone to the whims of use so are much more conducive to your proposals.

Frequent changing of model design is a bugbear of mine, especially for purely cosmetic rather than functional reasons, as it affects the availability of spares.

I have advocated a minimum guarantee period of five years for products such as white goods. That would improve the standards of construction because without evidence of abuse, the retailer would have to pay for repairs during this period. That should ensure that most of us could look forward to products lasting considerably longer.

For products to last decades they will have to be maintained and repaired when necessary. Manufacturers often make this difficult. Parts might not be available and the move towards circuit boards and other integrated assemblies can mean products that cannot be economically repaired. For example, in most modern washing machines the bearings cannot be replaced without replacing the drum and tub as a unit. The change in design has cut down on manufacturing costs and in some cases (e.g. circuit boards) improved reliability but this has a major effect on repairability.

I’ve seen plenty of examples of what I consider poor design in products. For example, when I switch on my washing machine it will default to maximum spin speed for most programmes. That will just create more stress on the bearings, particularly with a heavy load. John mentions loading in his post. I now remember to lower the speed before starting the machine and it does an adequate job, and it’s quite.

Certainly a longer warranty – repair or replace – will focus the lower-quality cheaper manufacturers maybe on improving quality but they will factor in the cost of repairs for 5 years in the price. I want products built to work for at least 10 years; why should I have to think of buying a new major appliance every 5 years?

Economical repairs can be a design philosophy. There is no reason why replacing a circuit board – just one part of the whole appliance – should be prohibitively expensive. The one on my fridge freezer was a 10 minute job.

No reason not to have integrated drum and bearings – just use sufficiently robust quality components.

Quality of design, build, and components could be part of Which?’s reports if they used experts to dismantle machines as part of the assessment process, as well as accelerated testing.

We must also be fair when considering “life”. For some appliances, like washing machines, dishwashers, dryers the number of cycles/total duration of use is the correct measure whereas for a fridge, for example, in continuous use it might be years.

Some people might want, or can only afford, to pay less for a machine that they will use very little so we don’t want them priced out. We need to give a choice, but a fully- informed one.

We have manufacturers already producing long-lived appliances. It is not rocket science.

A by-product of all this might be the resurgance in appliance repairers. That would a good thing.

If an appliance is guaranteed for five years then the company cannot afford to pay for many repairs during this time. If the product is sufficiently durable for a low failure rate during the first five years, it’s likely that most of the appliances will last considerably longer.

Printer manufacturers often give an indication of what use their products are designed to cope with, for example the number of pages per month. The same could be done for white goods. It would help in deciding what is fair to the consumer and the retailer in cases of premature failure.

“No reason not to have integrated drum and bearings – just use sufficiently robust quality components.” It’s not that simple. Bearings will fail if water is forced past seals, for example if the machine is overloaded or too much detergent is used. Components fail even in expensive products and integrated assemblies can make products uneconomical to repair.

Manufacturers may not make spares available to independent repairers or the public. At least in the case of more popular makes/models, spares may be available from third party suppliers.

l don’t want an appliance to fail and have to be repaired in the first 5 years – its very inconvenient apart from the lack of sustainability. I want to buy an appliance that will last on the whole without attention. If it should fail I want ot to be economic to repair it. A guarantee/warranty should also be provided for protection in the first part of its life but that should not remove the need for producing durable products for those who want them.

There are manufacturers whose appliances do not fail, and whose bearings do last so not only can it be done, it is done. Good bearings and seals are standard in engineering.

Part of “sustainability” would require parts and servicing to be available through independent outlets (just as we have with cars).

We need to approach sustainability by constructive thinking, not assuming nothing can be changed. Just as we must approach plastic packaging waste, access to cash, with a “how can we do this” not “why we can’t”. I am sure a cooperative effort from Convo contributors can help provide the “how” and, hopefully, Which? will take this forward.

None of us want appliances that fail and have to be repaired, but periodic servicing is important. The previous owners of my home offered to remove the dishwasher, that ‘was no longer effective’ as the put it. It took about five minutes to remove the limescale from the jets on the spray arm. More recently, the dishwasher stopped working and that was easily sorted out by a bit of cleaning inside. That’s twice it has been reprieved. I’ve seen washing machines infested with mould because the owners have not bothered to do maintenance washes.

I believe that if products were properly maintained they would stand a better chance of having a longer trouble-free working life.

I agree. The “without attention” I mentioned in my comment referred to a repair. Low quality machines – poor motors, bearings, pumps, compressors for example – will still fail earlier than those built with decent quality components. Most require, and have no provision for, little or no routine servicing (other than, say, cleaning and removal of lint).

I wonder if Which? have any plans to look harder at the likely durability and build quality of appliances (large and small) when they report on them? Educating the consumer is one road to encouraging us to buy longer-lived appliances which, in the end, are likely to offer better value for money and be real “best buys”.

A minimum guarantee of five years would remove the low quality machines, as I said earlier. If people don’t want to spend much, there are plenty of secondhand machines available.

With expensive appliances the profit margin is likely to be higher and in some cases parts are only available to authorised agents. The best value for money may be mid-priced products, which are less likely to have unnecessary bells and whistles.

I’ve suggested before that Which? could gain useful information about reliability of white goods from field service engineers that repair all makes rather than a single brand. That would supplement information collected in surveys.