It's a familiar story: just after the warranty has expired, the cordless screwdriver gives out its life in a puff of smelly smoke. If you then go to the trouble of taking it back to the DIY store, it's not uncommon to be amazed when the repair bill is higher than the purchase price. Well, then you can just buy a new cordless screwdriver. And that's exactly how manufacturers calculate. In technical jargon, this is called "planned obsolescence". This refers to a marketing strategy in which the (rapid) obsolescence of a product is planned and conceptualised by the manufacturer. Many manufacturers from different industries work according to this principle. They could build long-lasting products, but they explicitly want to avoid this in order to generate sales.
Durability and lasting value
Fortunately, there are more and more companies that are rethinking and turning away from this principle of the consumer spiral. In the bike industry too, manufacturers are increasingly advertising the longevity of their products - be it through extra-long guarantees, spare parts supply, product upgrades or repair services. The cycling and outdoor brands Triple2, Patagonia, Löffler, Vaude, Gore Bikewear and Assos, for example, repair functional clothing from their range that is sent in via retailers. Bike bag specialist Ortlieb not only offers a five-year guarantee on materials and workmanship, but also promises to supply spare parts for at least ten years. The Heilsbronn-based company also offers upgrades to newer technical details - such as mounting systems - where technically possible.
The pedelec manufacturer Coboc, known for its city, trekking and commuter bikes, is also focussing on longevity and lasting value. The Heidelberg-based company wants to extend battery life with a new series: in-house battery packs that have lost a certain amount of their capacity are to be analysed, repaired if necessary and installed in a correspondingly cheaper Coboc in a second life cycle. In a third life cycle, when around 70 per cent of the capacity remains, it is planned to install it in a large, mobile power bank.
Tyre manufacturer Schwalbe has long been committed to sustainability. Over the course of many years, Ralf Bohle GmbH has optimised its take-back system for broken bicycle inner tubes. The basic butyl material is now de-vulcanised in a separate process at the Schwalbe factory in Indonesia. Schwalbe has so far recycled six million old butyl tubes. 20 per cent of a Schwalbe inner tube is currently made from recycled material. The energy consumption of recycled butyl is 80 per cent lower than that of new butyl made from crude oil. Six million inner tubes, that's 600 tonnes of material. According to Sebastian Bogdahn, Sustainability Officer at Schwalbe, this does not save the manufacturer any costs. However, the benefits go beyond the purely ecological approach: "It makes us less dependent on crude oil - so it also has a strategic aspect for us."
Where there is planing ...
... chips fall, in the truest sense of the word. Components of lubricants, tyres and brake pads inevitably remain in nature. Experts call this "environmentally friendly use". Ambitious mountain bikers in particular ride wear-intensively. It can be assumed that around 200 grams of rubber abrasion, 10-20 grams of brake pads and around 80 grams of lubricants are used per person per season. In car traffic, tyre and brake pad wear causes more particulate matter that is harmful to health and the environment than diesel engines. Tyre abrasion from German car traffic is estimated at 120,000 tonnes per year. Bicycles add a rather homeopathic amount to this, but their pollutants (such as lead, zinc, cadmium, plasticisers) also accumulate in the environment. At least when it comes to lubricants, there are biodegradable alternatives. For example, the lubricant manufacturer Danico has been offering a sunflower oil-based chain oil for ten years that is categorised as "non-hazardous to water". In various practical and laboratory tests, the lubricating effect was also convincing.
Eco-label for bikes?
Comment by Jörg Spaniol
If the majority of all consumers in a survey find sustainability "important" or "very important" - wouldn't it make sense to use an eco-label for bicycles to make a purchase recommendation? In the same way that you can compare fridges based on their energy efficiency label? Bike blogger Martin Moschek (www.biketour-global.de) has suggested such a label. A nice idea. But not a good one. It's already hard to tell which of the many labels on a tin of fish or a cycling sock is more than just a fake advert. Once again, the best and most prominent example is the automotive industry. A CO2 label is supposed to provide information about energy efficiency. However, this is designed in such a way that an SUV weighing almost three tonnes can appear greener than a small car - even if it consumes twice as much fuel. This suits the lobby-driven car industry very well. US author Naomi Klein ("No Logo") therefore does not believe that more sustainability can be achieved through the conscious purchasing decisions of responsible and informed consumers if the manufacturers are throwing smoke and mirrors around: "We won't solve the problem in the shopping centre. We need political answers," she says. In other words, if we are serious about sustainability, we may well have to accept or even demand that legislation intervenes. The most harmful things, the biggest ecological offences must be banned or economically discouraged - even if the next car is not an SUV and the next bike is not made of carbon.
Greenwashing:
"When an eco-winch is mercilessly overemphasised."
INTERVIEW with Kathrin Hartmann
MYBIKE: Can you explain in a few words what greenwashing is - and what's so bad about it?
Greenwashing is a corporate strategy. Companies with a non-sustainable approach in particular present themselves as environmentally and socially responsible with individual projects or products. In doing so, they cover up their harmful core business. In doing so, they deceive consumers and, above all, signal to politicians that everything is okay and does not need to be regulated. It is easy to see that this voluntary approach has not got us very far so far.
It's better for a tyre manufacturer to produce 0.5 percent of its tyres with organically grown dandelion milk than to completely suppress environmental issues, isn't it?
If it does not amount to replacing one harmful raw material with another harmful one - as is the case with biofuel, for example - then it does no harm at all. However, if this eco-awareness is mercilessly overemphasised, it is classic greenwashing. And on the buyer's side, it is of course ridiculous when someone rides their bike into the mountains in a fat car and then believes that their "green" bike tyres make the trip environmentally friendly.
Who is harmed if high earners use the label "sustainability" as a mark of distinction or as a soul-soothing comfort against a guilty conscience?
It actually starts with the paradox that although the wealthy have the greatest environmental awareness, they also cause above-average damage to the environment through larger living spaces, bigger cars, more consumption and more long-distance travelling. On an individual level, eco-consumption is therefore a kind of indulgence trade. Socially, however, "sustainable" consumption leads to this vital issue being reinterpreted as a kind of hobby and a matter of the wallet. This depoliticises the problems. But they must be solved politically.
"It's easy to see that voluntarism hasn't got us very far so far."
