Summary

We live in a throwaway system. Smartphones are replaced every three years, laptops often within five, and even appliances like washing machines rarely make it past the decade mark. But from a climate perspective, this model doesn’t hold up. According to recent data, these products should last two, three — or even ten times longer to make environmental sense. In this post, we break down what the data shows, why this mismatch exists, and how brands can respond.
Illustration of one hand passing a smartphone to another with planet Earth in the background, symbolizing reuse, circularity, and global responsibility.

We’re replacing things too soon

Let’s be honest — it feels like products don’t last anymore. And it’s not just a feeling. Across Europe, the majority of consumers would rather repair than replace, yet end up buying new devices anyway. It’s not because they want to — it’s because the system makes it hard not to.

Repairs are expensive. Spare parts are unavailable. Many devices aren’t built to be opened, let alone upgraded. At the same time, advertising and product cycles constantly push the idea that newer is better. The result? Perfectly functional products are discarded, and new ones take their place — again and again.

But this cycle comes at a cost. And most of it is hidden from view.

The real climate cost is hidden in the factory

When we think of emissions, we often think of use: the energy a product consumes once it’s in our hands. But for many electronic devices and appliances, the majority of greenhouse gas emissions happen long before we ever plug them in.

The Coolproducts report, published by the European Environmental Bureau, shows just how significant these “non-use phase” emissions are. For smartphones, up to 92% of their total climate impact comes from production, transport, and disposal. Laptops aren’t far behind, with figures ranging from 40 to 64%. Even washing machines — long considered energy-intensive during use — get up to half their emissions from being manufactured and distributed.

As energy efficiency improves and electricity grids decarbonize, this hidden footprint becomes even more important. The cleaner the use phase gets, the harder it is to ignore how dirty the production phase still is.

How long should a product last?

If we want to justify the emissions embedded in manufacturing a product, we have to use it long enough for those emissions to “pay off.” And the answer to how long that takes is often… shocking.

Take smartphones. While most are replaced every three years, the climate-optimal lifespan is estimated to be anywhere from 25 to over 200 years — depending on efficiency assumptions. Laptops, which currently last four to five years on average, would need to be used for 20 to 40 years to fully offset their environmental impact. Even washing machines, which already have longer lifespans, fall short: they would need to stay in service for at least 25 to 40 years.

In other words, even if newer models are more efficient, their benefits rarely outweigh the emissions generated to produce them. Holding onto your current product is almost always the greener choice.

Illustration of a hand holding a smartphone, with a floating calendar and clock icon beside it — symbolizing extended product use and lifespan awareness.

So why aren’t we keeping things longer?

The short answer: we’re not set up to. Most products are not designed with longevity in mind. They’re difficult to open, difficult to repair, and expensive to maintain. Batteries are glued in. Spare parts are unavailable. And when something breaks, the default recommendation is to replace — not restore.

Software plays a role too. Operating systems evolve faster than the hardware can keep up, making perfectly functioning devices feel slow, outdated, or incompatible. Meanwhile, marketing tells us that owning the latest version is aspirational. As a result, many people upgrade not because they have to — but because it’s the path of least resistance.

What this means for brands and manufacturers

This mismatch between climate reality and product design isn’t just a problem — it’s an opportunity.

Brands that acknowledge this gap can lead the shift toward longer-lasting, more circular products. That means rethinking how products are built: not just for durability, but for upgradeability, repair, and resale. It means offering alternatives to replacement — like trade-in programs, refurbishment services, and access to spare parts. And it means owning the second life of your product, instead of losing it to third-party resellers.

At koorvi, we help manufacturers and retailers make this shift. Our platform makes it easy to take back products, assess their condition, and reintroduce them into the market — all while automating the logistics and compliance behind the scenes. Extending product life doesn’t just reduce emissions. It increases customer retention, unlocks new revenue streams, and builds brand trust in a circular economy.

Design like lifespan matters

We’ve spent decades optimizing how much energy a product uses. Now it’s time to ask how long it will last. Not just for the sake of durability, but because lifespan is climate strategy.

If we want to reduce emissions, reduce waste, and build a business that works in the long run, we need to stop treating products as temporary. The data couldn’t be clearer: the most sustainable product is the one you already own.

👉 Want to build a strategy around products that last — and do more after the first sale? Let’s talk.

FAQs

Why do we replace products too early despite wanting to repair them?

Across Europe most consumers prefer repairing over replacing but end up buying new anyway. Repairs cost too much, spare parts are unavailable, devices aren't built to open or upgrade. Advertising and short product cycles push newer as better. Perfectly functional items get discarded in endless replacement loops. The system makes keeping things longer the hard path, not the default one.

Where do most emissions really come from in product lifecycles?

People think of usage energy but for electronics the real climate cost hides in factories. Coolproducts report shows up to 92% of smartphone impact from production, transport, disposal. Laptops 40-64%, even washing machines get half their emissions pre-use. As grids decarbonize and efficiency rises, dirty manufacturing becomes impossible to ignore. Cleaner use phase spotlights production footprint.

How long should products actually last to be climate-friendly?

Smartphones average 3 years but need 25-200+ years for emissions payback. Laptops 4-5 years real, 20-40 years optimal. Washing machines require 25-40 years service. Newer models rarely offset production emissions through efficiency gains. Keeping your current product beats upgrading almost always. Lifespan isn't optional, it's core climate math.

What stops products from lasting longer in practice?

Design fights longevity: glued batteries, unrepairable builds, missing parts make fixes expensive. Software obsolescence hits too, OS outpaces hardware making good devices feel obsolete. Marketing frames latest as aspirational. Result: upgrades happen from convenience not necessity. Brands could fix this but profit from planned short lifecycles instead.

How can brands turn product lifespan into business opportunity?

Climate-design mismatch creates leadership space. Build for durability, upgradeability, repair, resale not just first sale. Offer trade-ins, refurb services, spare parts access. Own second life instead of losing to resellers. Platforms like koorvi automate take-back, condition checks, market re-entry plus logistics compliance. Extends life, cuts emissions, boosts retention, unlocks revenue, builds circular trust.