Trends characterizing technological innovations that increase environmental pressure: A typology to support action for sustainable consumption

Abstract

Technological innovation is widely recognized as an endogenous element of capitalism driving economic growth and consumption. Although technological innovations have benefited human health, quality of life, and comfort, especially in high-income countries, uncontrolled industrialization of technological innovations and mass consumption exert strong environmental pressure on natural resources and contribute to the degradation of the environment. Apart from their endogenous role in economy and consumption, these innovations are characterized by specific trends that affect the sustainability of manufactured goods and consumption patterns, such as rate of market penetration, ownership of manufactured goods, product lifespan, reparability, and recyclability. This paper aims to contribute to a theorization of the relationship between technological innovation, consumption, and sustainability. To this end, we propose a typology of trends characterizing technological innovation to constitute a coherent framework. These trends are then documented to evaluate their magnitude, drivers, and related issues, following the broad principles of integrative literature reviews through a purposeful review sampling. The following trend framework emerged with regards to technological innovations: (a) accumulation; (b) diversification; (c) substitution; (d) complexification. The work contributes to identifying and formalizing: (1) the terminology regarding each trend, (2) related concepts that should be considered to theorize the relationship between technological innovation and (un)sustainable consumption patterns, (3) the main drivers that sustain these trends, (4) interactions between these trends, and (5) societal consequences on material and energy consumption and waste management.

Full text

TYPE Review
PUBLISHED 28 October 2022
DOI 10.3389/frsus.2022.901383
OPEN ACCESS
EDITED BY
Leila Elgaaied-Gambier,
Toulouse Business School, France
REVIEWED BY
Tian Zeng,
Université du Québec à
Rimouski, Canada
Fanny Reniou,
University of Rennes 1, France
*CORRESPONDENCE
Thierry Lefèvre
thierry.lefevre@chm.ulaval.ca
SPECIALTY SECTION
This article was submitted to
Sustainable Consumption,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Sustainability
RECEIVED 21 March 2022
ACCEPTED 30 September 2022
PUBLISHED 28 October 2022
CITATION
Lefèvre T, Déméné C, Arpin M-L,
Elzein H, Genois-Lefrançois P,
Morin J-F and Cheriet M (2022) Trends
characterizing technological
innovations that increase
environmental pressure: A typology to
support action for sustainable
consumption. Front. Sustain. 3:901383.
doi: 10.3389/frsus.2022.901383
COPYRIGHT
©2022 Lefèvre, Déméné, Arpin,
Elzein, Genois-Lefrançois, Morin and
Cheriet. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License
(CC BY). The use, distribution or
reproduction in other forums is
permitted, provided the original
author(s) and the copyright owner(s)
are credited and that the original
publication in this journal is cited, in
accordance with accepted academic
practice. No use, distribution or
reproduction is permitted which does
not comply with these terms.
Trends characterizing
technological innovations that
increase environmental
pressure: A typology to support
action for sustainable
consumption
Thierry Lefèvre1*, Claudia Déméné2, Marie-Luc Arpin3,
Hassana Elzein4, Philippe Genois-Lefrançois4,
Jean-François Morin1and Mohamed Cheriet4
1Centre de recherche sur les matériaux avancés (CERMA), Department of Chemistry, Université
Laval, Québec, QC, Canada, 2École de Design, Faculté d’aménagement, d’architecture, d’art et de
design, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada, 3École de gestion, Département de management et
gestion des ressources humaines, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada, 4Centre
interdisciplinaire de recherche en opérationnalisation du développement durable (CIRODD), École
de technologie supérieure (ÉTS), Montréal, QC, Canada
Technological innovation is widely recognized as an endogenous element of
capitalism driving economic growth and consumption. Although technological
innovations have benefited human health, quality of life, and comfort,
especially in high-income countries, uncontrolled industrialization of
technological innovations and mass consumption exert strong environmental
pressure on natural resources and contribute to the degradation of the
environment. Apart from their endogenous role in economy and consumption,
these innovations are characterized by specific trends that aect the
sustainability of manufactured goods and consumption patterns, such as rate
of market penetration, ownership of manufactured goods, product lifespan,
reparability, and recyclability. This paper aims to contribute to a theorization
of the relationship between technological innovation, consumption, and
sustainability. To this end, we propose a typology of trends characterizing
technological innovation to constitute a coherent framework. These trends
are then documented to evaluate their magnitude, drivers, and related issues,
following the broad principles of integrative literature reviews through a
purposeful review sampling. The following trend framework emerged with
regards to technological innovations: (a) accumulation; (b) diversification; (c)
substitution; (d) complexification. The work contributes to identifying and
formalizing: (1) the terminology regarding each trend, (2) related concepts
that should be considered to theorize the relationship between technological
innovation and (un)sustainable consumption patterns, (3) the main drivers that
sustain these trends, (4) interactions between these trends, and (5) societal
consequences on material and energy consumption and waste management.
KEYWORDS
ownership, product accumulation, product diversification, lifespan, obsolescence,
product complexity, consumption, technological innovation
Frontiers in Sustainability 01 frontiersin.org

Lefèvre et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.901383
Introduction
Socioeconomic metabolism, also called social or industrial
metabolism (FischerKowalski and Haberl, 1997;Krausmann
et al., 2018) is a branch of industrial ecology that estimates the
environmental pressure exerted by society on the environment.
Quantifying the energy and material inputs and outputs of
society as well as the materials accumulated within it in
the form of durable manufactured capital (so-called in-use
stocks; Krausmann et al., 2017), documents the huge materials
consumption of nations (Krausmann et al., 2009,2018;Schandl
et al., 2016;Oberle et al., 2019).
At the global level, the annual raw materials extractions were
estimated at 89 Gt in 2015 (Krausmann et al., 2018). A large part,
59% (or 52 Gt/year in 2015), is used to build infrastructures and
manufacture durable goods (Krausmann et al., 2018). The use of
materials shows large disparities among nations. High-income
countries have higher material consumption, waste stream, and
in-use material flow (Dittrich et al., 2012;Wiedmann et al., 2015;
Krausmann et al., 2017;Oberle et al., 2019). On a per-capita
basis, the material footprint (MF) was 27 t for high-income
countries in 2017, as compared to 2 t for the low-income country
group (Oberle et al., 2019).
As income appears as a fundamental driver of material
consumption (Wiedmann et al., 2015;Pothen and Welsch,
2019) and CO2emissions (Davis and Caldeira, 2010;Blanco
et al., 2014), agencies such as the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2011) and the
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP; Fischer-
Kowalski et al., 2011) have encouraged a decoupling of
material consumption from economic growth. However, despite
extensive literature, signs of decoupling are scarce (Haberl et al.,
2020). When it occurs, decoupling has been only observed (1)
for short periods, (2) in relative terms (the footprint increases
less rapidly than GDP), not in absolute terms (the footprint
decreases while GDP increases), and (3) for production-
based (territorial) rather than consumption-based (footprint)
indicators (Wiedmann et al., 2015;Mardani et al., 2019;Haberl
et al., 2020).
In addition, the material consumption of high-income
countries continues to increase, although at a slower rate than
in the 1990’s. This goes against some views that saturation
of consumption should take place as countries become
industrialized and reach a certain wealth level, a theory called
the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis (Kuznets, 1955;
Selden and Song, 1994). Despite many studies and controversial
results (Seppala et al., 2001;Canas et al., 2003;Bleischwitz
et al., 2018), a saturation of materials consumption of high-
income countries has not been put into evidence for the MF
(Wiedmann et al., 2015;Plank et al., 2018;Oberle et al., 2019;
Pothen and Welsch, 2019). Faced with this evidence, academics
call for a profound transformation of the economic system and
an abandonment of the objective of economic growth in favor
of human wellbeing (Krausmann et al., 2017;Haberl et al.,
2020).
At the economic level, wealth is widely recognized to
sustain material consumption (Wiedmann et al., 2015;Schandl
et al., 2016;Oberle et al., 2019;Pothen and Welsch, 2019).
Additionally, manufactured capital determines in part the future
consumption of materials and energy, as resources will be
required to use, maintain, and renew existing infrastructures,
equipment, appliances, and other manufactured goods (Chen
and Graedel, 2015;Krausmann et al., 2017). Therefore, the
increase in in-stock flows of durable goods in developed
countries should be carefully considered.
Among the different drivers of consumption, technological
change is well-known to be of prime importance. It may
have positive effects on resource consumption, for instance by
reducing the material or carbon intensity of industrial sectors or
products, as well as negative effects by providing new products
to purchase or inducing the so-called rebound effect (Herring
and Roy, 2007). Emerging technologies may also result in waste
management challenges (Lundgren, 2012).
The role of technological innovation is particularly
important in developed countries since most of their activities
(industrial production, health, transportation, communication,
agriculture, leisure, etc.) rely on modern technologies, especially
electric and electronic appliances. As emerging countries follow
the same path, catching up with rich countries standards of
living, income, and way of life, it is crucial to understand the
role that technological change plays in societies metabolism.
Apart from the endogenous role that technological
innovations play in sustaining consumption and economic
growth, other factors related to technological innovation must
be considered. Several trends characterizing manufactured
goods can be observed, such as the increasing diversity of new
devices, the elevated renewal rate of appliances, the difficulty
in repairing them, and their ever-decreasing lifespan. Various
dimensions have been studied quantitatively in the literature
such as product ownership, obsolescence, or turnover.
A typology of these trends is proposed here to contribute
to a formalization of the relationship between technological
innovations, consumption, and sustainability. Four trends that
influence material consumption have then been identified
to characterize/analyze technological innovations: (1) the
accumulation of goods, (2) their substitution, (3) their
diversification, and (4) their increase in complexity.
Our primary aim is to formalize an integrate these four
trends (or theoretical constructs) into a framework, and then
illustrate how they characterize technological innovation. One
specific objective is to synthesize the literature regarding
four trends that have been preliminarily identified as playing
a role in unsustainable consumption patterns and that are
further inquired into. To this end, the work rests on
the broad principles of integrative literature reviews as per
(Snyder, 2019). As such, it does not propose nor seeks to
Frontiers in Sustainability 02 frontiersin.org

Lefèvre et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.901383
be an exhaustive and systematic account of technological
innovation and its link with sustainability. Alternately, it
does seek to synthesize and to a certain extent criticize
the extant literature on the topic, based on a purposeful
sampling strategy, so as to draw a theoretical framework (Suri,
2011).
To our knowledge, an integrative literature review adopting
this specific angle of inquiry does not yet exist in the
literature and therefore constitutes an original contribution
in terms of theorizing the impact dynamics of technological
innovation. Such a formalized view appears necessary as
societies increasingly rely on technology while technological
innovations are even regarded, in some circles of society,
as a unique solution to mitigate environmental crises (e.g.,
climate change).
After presenting the integrative literature review used
as a methodology (Section Methodology), Section The
environmental pressure associated with technological change
is dedicated to the contextualization of the four trends under
investigation and a short description of the relationship between
technological change and the economy, the societal drivers of
this relationship, and the ensuing impacts in terms of the four
trends. Section Technological innovation trends increasing
the environmental pressure provides a detailed description of
these four trends, as they present themselves in the literature. A
final section (Section Conclusion) summarizes the findings and
underlines knowledge gaps.
Methodology
The contextualization of the environmental impact of
technological change and the identification of the trends
characterizing it were made previously by the authors based on
the literature in the fields of sustainable development, economy,
technological innovation, waste management, etc.
As stated above, the four trends were preliminarily
viewed as a potential framework allowing to improve the
theorization linking technological innovation, consumption,
and sustainability. The objective of the present work is to
validate this hypothesis and develop knowledge. We would like
to answer specific questions such as: What is the amplitude
and evolution of these phenomena? What are their drivers?
What are their societal consequences? The objective requires
a thorough literature review and analysis was necessary to
document the four-trend framework (Section Technological
innovation trends increasing the environmental pressure).
Therefore, we carried out a purposeful sampling design which
allowed targeted bibliographic research and we were able
to find specific information and case studies (Snyder, 2019)
related to household ownership of particular products (car,
EEE), the number of products owned by households, or per
capita, the substitution rate (replacement) of manufactured
products, etc.
Literature search and selection process
Scientific literature searches were performed in the Web of
Science database (Clarivate Analytics), including the “Science
Citation Index Expanded,” the “Social Sciences Citation Index,”
and the “Arts and humanity Citation Index.” Various queries
were used to encompass the four trends identified as widely as
possible while looking for appropriate and relevant information.
The first queries used were broad to cover the subject from a
general perspective. This research step mainly provided general
arguments regarding the influence of technological change
on industrial goods consumption but few insights regarding
the four trends under study. However, these queries helped
improve the terminology subsequently used (keywords) to target
individual trends.
Specific queries were then ran. Articles were selected (see
below) and analyzed after each search in order to refine the
survey either by using more appropriate keywords or targeting
a specific topic. Table 1 highlights the search queries in the Web
of Science database and the number of articles retained.
The selection of the articles was based on their relevance
with regard to the trends under study. Only articles that clearly
and explicitly addressed the investigated trends, their drivers,
and/or that provided either quantitative annual or time-series
data were selected. We noticed that even using the most
precise keywords, many articles did not concern the trends
under investigation and were easy to discard. Also, to help
find specific data, some queries considered specific products
(i.e., cars).
This process led to the selection of 103 relevant articles
from a total corpus of 777. Emphasis was placed on articles
published in the last 10 years. To complement this purposeful
research, and consistently with a purposeful sampling, it
appeared efficient to add relevant papers cited by the selected
articles. The complete corpus encompasses about 200 articles.
It is noteworthy that this review focuses for a large part
on electric and electronic equipment (EEE), as the majority
of the literature is devoted to this type of industrial goods.
This is however an important sector which helps understand
the consequences and manifestation of the trends related to
technological innovation.
Data analysis
Data and arguments found in the different articles were
categorized according to the trends, their interactions, their
Frontiers in Sustainability 03 frontiersin.org

Lefèvre et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.901383
TABLE 1 Details of the search queries performed.
Searches in Web of Science Trend
targeted
Number of
results
Number of
items retained
(relevant)
“technological change” (TITLE) AND Sustainability (TOPIC) All 41 10
technolog* (change OR rate*) TITLE AND sustainab* AND consum* AND
(footprint OR impact) TOPIC
All 29 7
(impact OR footprint OR sustainab*) AND consum* AND (rate OR frequenc*)
AND product (renewal OR turnover OR substitution) AND technol*
Substitution 79 3
(technolog* OR innovation*) AND turnover rate* AND sustainab* TOPIC Substitution 44 2
“product turnover” AND consum* ALL FIEDS Substitution 9 2
(technolog* OR innovation*) AND substitution rate AND reduc* AND
sustainab* AND (footprint OR impact) AND consum*
Substitution 21 2
product substitution AND diffusion AND rate* Substitution 143 25
household ownership TITLE AND (good* OR product*) All FIELDS Accumulation/diversification 34 8
“per household” AND in-use ALL FIELDS Accumulation 22 5
Product lifespan AND consumption AND technol* ALL FIELDS Substitution 84 6
“innovation cycle” AND technol* AND product* TOPIC Substitution/diversification 41 4
ownership AND (car OR vehicle OR automobile) AND “per capita” AND
(OECD OR high-income OR industrialized OR developed) AND countries ALL
FIELDS
Accumulation/diversification 48 17
product AND diversi* AND household* AND sustainab* AND consum* ALL
FIELDS
Diversification 93 3
(product OR device) AND complex* AND recycl* AND sustainab* AND mater*
AND review ALL FIELDS
Complexification 89 9
Total 777 103
The symbol“*” is used with words’ lexical root for lemmatization purposes. The objective is to broaden the queries to consider inflected form of words and plurals.
drivers, etc., and used to build the framework presented in
the manuscript.
The environmental pressure
associated with technological
change
Context
Technological progress is at the root of much advancement
in people’s life as it (1) improves life quality (health, life
expectancy, food, housing, communications, mobility, comfort,
etc.), (2) contributes to the increase in wealth (income),
especially in developed and emerging countries, and (3)
improves material and energy efficiency, product durability and
recyclability, and promotes renewable energy development.
However, this progress has often resulted in material
consumption and environmental degradation. Technology
enhances the physical capability of Humans (i.e., allows them
to explore space and increasingly exploit more inaccessible
resources) and increases their industrial production capacity,
thus increasing their capability to modify their environment.
This remarkable capacity finds its ultimate expression in
the concept of Anthropocene (Crutzen and Stoermer, 2000;
Crutzen, 2002;Zalasiewicz et al., 2011). Human beings have
so transformed biogeochemical and biogeophysical processes
that five of the nine planetary boundaries have already been
exceeded (Rockström et al., 2009;Steffen et al., 2015;Persson
et al., 2022).
Endogenous relations between
technological innovation and economy
To clarify the subject of this work, a distinction between
technological change and technological innovation may be
beneficial to the reader. Technological change is viewed as
a three-step mechanism involving (1) an invention, (2) an
innovation (commercialization step), and (3) its diffusion,
i.e., the adoption of the innovation by the marketplace
(Schumpeter, 1942;Organisation for Economic Co-operation
Development, 1992;Jaffe et al., 2003). There is then a minor
difference between technological change and technological
Frontiers in Sustainability 04 frontiersin.org

Lefèvre et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.901383
innovation in that the former includes the adoption of the
innovation by consumers, which exactly corresponds to what the
studied trends are about. However, for simplicity reasons and
because innovation designates the product that is consumed,
while technological change designates the process, we focus
on innovation.
The definition of technological innovation retained
is based on the Oslo Manual of the (Organisation for
Economic Co-operation Development, 1992) and integrates
the definition of both technologically new and improved
products, as follows: a technological innovation refers
here to a new commercialized product, i.e., a purchasable
product “whose characteristics or intended use differ
significantly from previous existing products,” or to an
improved product, i.e., that have “higher or upgraded
performances.” Novelty may result from “radically new
technologies, can be based on combining existing technologies
in new uses, or can be derived from the use of new knowledge.”
Improvement can result from the “use of higher-performance
components or materials, or a complex product which
consists of a number of integrated technical sub-systems
may be improved by partial changes to one of the sub-
systems.” This definition distinguishes new and improved
industrial products, which are at the heart of consumption.
It is then helpful in better underlying what is at stake in
technological innovation.
Technological innovation and economy constitute
a very effective interrelated duo to grow the economy.
First, technological innovation is widely recognized as an
endogenous element of capitalism driving economic growth
and consumption (Schumpeter, 1939;Hasan and Tucci, 2010;
Borri and Grassini, 2014;Mercure, 2015;Pesch, 2018).
Second, although technological advances generally
increase the carbon or material efficiency of production, these
improvements are often outweighed by the increase in resource
and energy consumption induced by wealth growth. This
phenomenon has been observed at national scales, notably
in developed countries, where the benefits of lower domestic
material intensity have been counterbalanced by an increase in
consumption, resulting from an increase in GDP and imports
(Schandl et al., 2016;Oberle et al., 2019). For example, despite a
decrease in material intensity of 25% over the period 2000–2016,
the material footprint of North America increased by 3% due to
population and affluence growth (Oberle et al., 2019).
At the global scale, gains in material intensity until the
beginning of the twenty-first century partially offset the increase
in material consumption resulting from economic growth
(Schandl et al., 2016;Oberle et al., 2019). Afterward, however,
material intensity constantly raised at a global level, although
it decreased for most countries. This paradox is mainly due to
the increase of imports from developed countries, which shifts
the production from low material intensity countries to higher
material intensity ones (Schandl et al., 2016;Oberle et al., 2019).
The same conclusion has been drawn from a study, spanning
over a century, investigating, with a historical perspective
different world and U.S. activities such as aluminum production,
electricity generation from coal or natural gas, freight rail travel,
motor vehicle travel, and residential refrigeration (Dahmus,
2014). The data show that progressive advances in efficiency
have not outpaced increases in the number of goods and services
provided (Dahmus, 2014). A similar observation was made at
the household level in industrialized countries where the benefits
of technological efficiency improvements on environmental
impact have been counterbalanced by the increase in demand
(Duarte et al., 2013;Ryen et al., 2014).
The latter example shows that technological improvements
and less material and energetic-intensive products and
infrastructures may have unexpected behavioral responses
which induce undesirable outcomes called the rebound effect
(Jevons, 1906;Binswanger, 2001;Kohler and Erdmann, 2004;
Hertwich, 2005;Zink and Geyer, 2017;Freeman, 2018). This
phenomenon occurs when a decrease in material or energy
intensity of processes or services is partly, completely, or more
than counterbalanced by an increase in resource or energy
consumption, thus leading to fewer environmental benefits or
a higher environmental pressure or degradation than expected
from efficiency improvements.
The rebound effect can manifest itself in different ways. As
seen above, gains in material efficiency at a macroscale have
been more than compensated by the increase in consumption.
At the household level, a rebound occurs when an increase
in product consumption or ownership, or the consumption
of more resource-intensive products (larger, better performing,
and more feature-laden; Herring and Roy, 2007). It has
been observed in numerous sectors, including the demand
for energy services (Fouquet, 2014;Havas et al., 2015),
building construction (Liu and Lin, 2016), and information
and communication technologies (ICT; Kohler and Erdmann,
2004;Deng and Williams, 2011). The rebound effect may
also induce indirect effects. The increase in efficiency provides
results in more available income, which in turn is used for the
consumption of additional products or services (Herring and
Roy, 2007).
Other trends related to technological
innovations
In addition to these principles inherent to the current
techno-scientific economic system, the industrialization of
technological innovations has several specific consequences that
accelerate consumption, thus multiplying the environmental
footprint of goods and services. Different factors characterize
consumption, including the rate at which innovations are
brought to market, the longevity of manufactured products,
Frontiers in Sustainability 05 frontiersin.org

Lefèvre et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.901383
their renewal by households, their (ir)reparability, the difficulty
to recycle them, etc. The origin of these effects is technological
(increased performance, miniaturization for example), but it is
also strongly influenced by socio-economic, notably business
decisions, competitive pressure, and consumer behavior.
As will be detailed below, there is an increase in the number
of material goods per household (number of appliances of
the same type, number of different appliances) in developed
countries, an increase in the frequency of innovation cycles (i.e.,
substitution cycle and rate of introduction of new products and
new technologies), while the design and physical constitution
of products tend to increase energy consumption or make
repairing and recycling more complex.
The various trends in technological innovations (or
industrial products) can be grouped into four classes: (1) the
accumulation of durable goods, (2) their substitution, (3) their
diversification, and (4) their increase in complexity. These
theoretical constructs are defined in Table 2. Such a typology
may help formalize the relationship between technological
innovation, consumption, and sustainability. This theorization
rationale is described in Table 2, which contextualizes the four
trends in terms of their relation to technological innovation and
economy/consumption (see Figure 1).
Technological innovations are tightly linked to the economy
and its underlying consumption patterns: these patterns are
self-sustaining, as they contribute themselves to increasing
consumption intensity and economic growth, despite, and
sometimes even because of efficiency improvements (rebound
effect phenomenon). Product accumulation, diversification,
substitution, and complexification can thus be regarded as
four interrelated manifestations or forms of counterproductive
dynamics inherent in socio-technological innovation systems
and, at a large scale, the global economy.
The consequences of technological
trends
An increase in product ownership, diversification, and
substitution, especially with more complex products, can put
more pressure on the quantities and types of resources used.
This issue is particularly relevant for electronic equipment as it
induces some risk of shortage, especially for certain materials
such as rare earth metals (Wäger, 2011) and elements of the
platinum group, which are distributed quite heterogeneously
across the world. This question is accentuated by geopolitical
issues that may make material supply critical in the near future,
and certain nations dependent and vulnerable (Friege, 2012;
Greenfield and Graedel, 2013;Ciacci et al., 2018;Hache et al.,
2021).
Another important potential consequence includes the
intensification of waste streams and/or the appearance of new
ones. In particular, the replacement of manufactured goods by
new product generations can lead to new waste management
and recycling difficulties. Although many of them stem
from inadequate or non-existent legislation, shortcomings are
accentuated by the elevated pace of technological innovations,
short product lifespan, and complexification which rapidly
modify the nature and/or the flows of materials intended
for recycling (Althaf et al., 2019). The replacement of old
technologies with new ones indeed modifies the type of end-of-
life (EoL) materials, requiring sustained efforts by the recycling
industry and legislation to (attempt to) adapt. Because reaction
time is not instantaneous, recycling infrastructures does not
necessarily exist for emerging products or obsolete ones that may
end up in the waste stream.
Product diversification and complexification
(miniaturization and lightweighting) lead to low concentrations
of raw materials in the products and difficulty in material
recovery, and therefore fragile economic sustainability (Friege,
2012;Gotze and Rotter, 2012;Lundgren, 2012). The EoL of
products also involves international issues since considerable
quantities of waste from developed countries are often illegally
sent to developing ones (Cucchiella et al., 2015) in Asia and
Africa (Friege, 2012;Lundgren, 2012;Sthiannopkao and Wong,
2013).
When recycling facilities are not available, many products
are landfilled. This disposal leads to the release of toxic
substances, such as heavy metals (antimony, arsenic,
mercury, and lead), persistent and bio-accumulative organic
chemical substances (polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and
halogenated flame retardants), and ozone-depleting substances,
that threatens humans, biodiversity and the environment
(Cucchiella et al., 2015;Bakhiyi et al., 2018). Waste streams,
however, represent significant volumes of potential resources
for secondary inputs, so-called urban mining (Sanchez et al.,
2005;Brunner, 2011;Zeng et al., 2018); but the low recycling
rates induce huge losses of materials for secondary inputs.
The links between technological
innovations and other societal sectors
The economy, public policies, and social factors also
influence the above-mentioned technological trends
(Figure 1). The industrial competition, which promotes
innovation, pushes companies to sell more products,
and new products, and to target new customers. These
objectives may motivate various industrial strategies
including offering products with higher performance, new
functions, or which are more convenient; proposing cheap
products; attracting customers with marketing or easy
payment; etc.
Frontiers in Sustainability 06 frontiersin.org

Lefèvre et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.901383
TABLE 2 Links between technological innovation and economy/consumption.
General relations •Efficiency gains due to technological innovations
•Decrease in material and carbon intensity (in relative terms)
•Increase in consumption and economic growth (in absolute terms)
•Rebound effects
Specific trends Accumulation Diversification Substitution Complexification
Definitions Increase in the number of
ownerships of a given
(equivalent) product
Increase in the number of
different products owned
Replacement of the product
by a new one (equivalent or
more performant)
Increase in the complexity of
product structure
(heterogeneity, number of
component materials)
FIGURE 1
Rationalization of some trends associated with technological innovations and their societal drivers (public policies, economy, and social factors).
In return, technological innovations play the role of the driver by influencing the economy, public policies, and social behaviors. The four trends
identified are also interdependent as indicated by double-headed dotted line arrows.
At the social level, consumers directly influence the
rate and number of product acquisitions or renewal of
manufactured goods. Consumption is influenced by citizens’
values (comfort level) and habits, social norms, income,
culture (materialism), product accessibility (credit access,
possibility of online purchase, period of store opening), store
experience, and marketing. Other social factors include the
citizen’s perception regarding the ecological crisis (denialism,
underestimation, misunderstanding, and unconsciousness) and
their propensity to purchase goods (impulsive or compulsive
Frontiers in Sustainability 07 frontiersin.org

Lefèvre et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.901383
consumers or minimalist and moderate ones; Lefèvre,
2016).
Public policies also affect how technological characteristics
influence the environmental pressure of societies. Governments
have various means to promote more sustainable innovations
by stimulating producers’ responsibility and practice changes,
and modifying consumer behavior. Public policies may also
reduce the impact of consumption by encouraging recycling.
These political tools include among others: taxes and subsidies,
laws, guidelines, and regulations. They can in particular
influence product reparability, the ease of material recovery, the
collection of manufactured goods, the information provided to
the consumer, more sustainable innovation, etc. With politics
that act further upstream, the innovation ecosystem may be
reinforced by promoting collaboration and knowledge sharing
between stakeholders (academics, industrials, and networking
organizations) to improve the integration of sustainable
innovations (Genois-Lefrançois et al., 2021).
The technology trends considered here, and their
relationship with the other societal sectors, should be considered
as they may explain, at least partially, the growth in material
consumption in developed countries and whether they represent
a break for implementing the socioecological transition that
is required to allow societies functioning within the planetary
boundaries. The following section is intended to better
understand the different processes related to technological
innovation that drives an ever-ending consumption increase in
our societies.
Technological innovation trends
increasing the environmental
pressure
Accumulation (ownership)
Ownership [or “abundance” (Ryen et al., 2014)], is the
number of a given manufactured good per household or capita
(such as desktop computers, freezers, or motor vehicles), and
accumulation is the increase in household ownership of a given
product over time. Product ownership has to be characterized
with regard to its extent, trend, and drivers since household
consumption influences material, energy, water, and land use
(Cabeza et al., 2014;Di Donato et al., 2015;Ivanova et al., 2016).
Ownership is often evaluated at national levels and is thus
given as average values per household. Per capita indicators
are provided sometimes as well. Acquisition by consumers
of technological innovation as a function of time (market
penetration) traditionally follows an S-shaped curve, also called
a logistic curve, which characterizes a three-step process: initial
adoption, development (growth), and saturation. This process
has been observed historically for emblematic appliances such
as refrigerators or washing machines, for which ownership
in households eventually reached 100% in many developed
countries (Cabeza et al., 2018) and in China (Liu et al., 2020).
Studying the historical evolution (1800–2010) of in-use stocks
of 91 products distributed among 10 U.S industrial sectors,
Chen and Graedel concluded that many products or groups
of products have reached or will reach saturation (Chen and
Graedel, 2015).
The beginning of the expansion phase and the saturation
level of a given product depends on the country and period
considered (Cabeza et al., 2018). Developed countries generally
acquired refrigerators or washing machines before developing
countries (Cabeza et al., 2018). The most recent market
penetration of computers and mobile phones is, however,
almost simultaneous in many countries. Some products do not
necessarily reach 100% saturation as shown by clothes dryer
ownership that is still expanding in many countries (Cabeza
et al., 2018). The ownership of some appliances eventually also
decreases (phase-out) as they are replaced by new generations
of products, as has been observed for black-and-white TV sets
or video recorders (Ryen et al., 2015) or with the replacement
of cathodic ray tube (CRT) TV sets by the liquid-crystal display
(LCD) and plasma ones (Ryen et al., 2015;Kasulaitis et al., 2019;
see also Section Substitution).
The acquisition rate and ownership of durable goods
generally depend on household income (Ivaschenko and Ersado,
2008;IEA, 2018;Liu et al., 2020), with low income being a barrier
to owning certain technology assets. The influence of income,
however, has to be tempered since it is also context-dependent.
Car ownership is a relevant example. If income seems to be
a significant driver of car ownership (Wu et al., 2014;Yang
et al., 2017), it applies particularly to developing countries, which
undergo strong urbanization, in contrast to developed nations
that are suggested to have reached saturation (Metz, 2013).
Other factors also have been considered to describe car
ownership such as access to credit (Verma, 2015); urban
environment (e.g., urban form, city size, population density,
and availability of public transport) (Verma, 2015); demographic
factors such as age and population aging (Kuhnimhof et al.,
2013); lifestyles (Metz, 2013), etc. Cultural/social factors may
also drive product ownership such as interest in technology in
the case of electronic devices (Kasulaitis et al., 2021). As for air
conditioners, climate unsurprisingly comes before income as a
determinant of ownership (IEA, 2018).
Several appliances have reached ownership above 100% on
average per household or in some parts of the population
of developed nations. CRT TV is a representative example.
Average ownership was three CRT TVs per U.S. household
in 2007 (Ryen et al., 2015), 2.5 in Japan in 2005 (Cabeza
et al., 2018), and 1.4 in China 2005–2010 (Liu et al., 2020).
Interestingly, taking into account all types of TV sets (CRT,
plasma, and LCD), the total number of TVs remains saturated
at three per U.S. household between 2000 and 2010 despite
the progressive phasing out of CRT TVs, which were replaced
Frontiers in Sustainability 08 frontiersin.org

Lefèvre et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.901383
by more recent technology-based ones (Kasulaitis et al.,
2019).
Another typical example is provided by mobile phones
which growth rate was very rapid (around 8%) in various
countries (Cabeza et al., 2018). Ownership values were around
3.5 mobile phones per household in 2010 in the U.S. (Ryen
et al., 2014). In Australia, values of 5.1 in 2014 (two phones
per capita; Golev et al., 2016) and 3.5 in 2017–2019 (Islam
et al., 2020) have been reported. It is noteworthy that not all
appliances owned by people are actually in use. It is estimated
that the fraction of mobile phones kept in storage in Australia
continuously increases up to 50% in 2012–2014 (Golev et al.,
2016). This is due to the fact that mobile phones are frequently
renewed and that the replaced item is stocked rather than resold
on the secondary market.
Other examples are given by desktop computers,
videocassettes, and digital cameras which ownership was
1.6, 1.7, and 2.0 per household, respectively, in 2010 in the U.S.
(Ryen et al., 2014). Almost 23% of U.S. households owned two
or more refrigerators in 2009 (Dahmus, 2014). It is noteworthy
that ownership of some products may trigger others [Section
Diversification (diversity)].
The ownership of many kinds of material-intensive
appliances in a household is related to a large extent to the floor
area of that household. For example, the number of TV sets and
air-conditioners is partly determined by the number of rooms
(Liu et al., 2020) or by second house property. Ownership may be
driven simply by convenience, as consumers may want to watch
TV in different settings, which implies buying several products
of the same type (Kasulaitis et al., 2021).
Unfortunately, data on ownership of durable goods are
scattered, incomplete and heterogeneous due to the scale
and region of studies, period, and evaluation methods used.
Ownership is not well-documented in all spheres of the material
needs of households. While electric and electronic appliances are
relatively well-documented, this is not the case for instance for
kitchenware or gardening and renovation tools.
Diversification (diversity)
This section discusses the diversity of durable goods owned
by households or citizens, and diversification, the arising trend
of continuous increase in the variety of products owned, i.e.,
products that fulfill different functions. Some drivers at the
origin of this trend are also addressed.
Quantification of product diversification
Diversification is obvious when considering, as an archetypal
example, the uninterrupted introduction of new electronic
and electrical appliances in the last decades as illustrated
qualitatively in Figure 2. With ownership, diversification is a
trend that increases device proliferation and its contribution to
environmental impacts. This trend in high-income countries can
be traced back to the beginning of the twentieth century when
industrialization and mass consumption began.
Quantification of product diversification is far from being
exhaustive in the literature, except for electric and electronic
appliances, although even in this case it remains restricted to
some countries. Chen and Graedel studied various products
in three economic sectors (transportation facilities, home
appliances, and electronic products) over a period encompassing
one century (Chen and Graedel, 2015). They found that in-
use products increase in the U.S. from two products in 1900
to nine in 1950 and 14 in 2000. This long-term trend seems to
be supported by more recent works. An increase in the average
total number of electronic devices owned by U.S. households has
indeed been reported, from four in 1992 to 14 in 2007 (Ryen
et al., 2015). According to a more recent study, the number
of electronic products in stock in U.S. households increased
from just over three on average in 1990 to more than 16 in
2010 (Kasulaitis et al., 2019). The latter value corresponds to 7.4
electronic products per capita. In the same study, it is evaluated
that the acquisition rate of new devices increased from 0.5 per
year in 1990 to 3.5 per year in 2021 on average in the U.S., i.e.,
a 700% increase in 30 years (Kasulaitis et al., 2019), showing the
rapid increase in product diversification in households.
The time series of annual inflows show that the number
and type of electronic products in the U.S. rapidly increased
between 1990 and 2010, particularly due to the introduction
of small mobile devices such as digital cameras, MP3 players,
tablets, and mobile phones (Babbitt et al., 2017). Product
consumption seems, however, to have plateaued and slightly
declined since 2010 (Althaf et al., 2021). This has been related
to the replacement of single-function devices (camcorders,
MP3 players, digital cameras) with multifunctional ones
(smartphones; Althaf et al., 2021), a phenomenon called device
convergence (Ryen et al., 2014). However, it should be noted
that these evaluations are based on a limited number of
products and do not necessarily consider accessories and other
peripheral devices (Bluetooth R
/Wi-Fi headsets and speakers,
dock stations, webcams, routers, chargers, power bars, etc.).
In parallel to this increase in electronic devices consumed,
a lightweighting of the mean product mass has been observed
(Kasulaitis et al., 2019). These two input mechanisms are at
the origin of two output phenomena that impede EoL material
recovery and recycling, i.e., dispersion and dilution, respectively
(Kasulaitis et al., 2019; see also Section Complexification). The
former mechanism results from the distribution of materials in
more products, the latter from the decrease of material mass in
each product.
Despite a continuous shrinking of the mean weight of
individual electronic products, the corresponding total weight of
material consumed has not diminished in the U.S. between 1990
and 2010. More precisely, the mass inflow of electronic products
Frontiers in Sustainability 09 frontiersin.org

Lefèvre et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.901383
FIGURE 2
Illustration of the introduction of new product as a function of time (not exhaustive) as illustrated by electronic devices. Colors indicate new
waves of products. Note that some products progressively phase-out (CRT TVs and monitors, video recorders) and are removed for more recent
years (data source: Ryen et al., 2015;Althaf et al., 2019).
increased from ∼10 kg per household in 1990 to ∼18 kg per
household in 2000 and then decreased to ∼10 kg per household
from 2000 to 2010. The latter observation is mainly due to
the retirement of large and heavy appliances such as CRT TVs
and monitors (Babbitt et al., 2017;Kasulaitis et al., 2019). This
relation between mass and units of products has also been
observed in Sweden for TV sets and monitors (Kalmykova et al.,
2015). The decreasing mass of electronic waste (e-waste) from
U.S. households since 2000 has been confirmed with more recent
data covering the period 1990–2018 (Althaf et al., 2021).
Drivers of product diversification
Some technological drivers that induce diversification. It can
first be driven by the ownership of other goods. For instance,
a TV set is related to that of auxiliary devices such as video
recorders, Blu-ray displays, decoders, game consoles, speakers,
and power bars, since their use is associated with TVs. Similarly,
desktops and laptops are linked to the use of printers, Internet
(Wi-Fi) routers, scanners, speakers, etc. This trend may be
influenced by the desire to benefit from the full potential of the
device or to customize it (Déméné and Marchand, 2016). It is
Frontiers in Sustainability 10 frontiersin.org

Lefèvre et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.901383
noteworthy that not only the acquisition of a given product can
generate the acquisition of peripheral others, but it may also
be for decoration reasons, at least for TV sets (new armchairs,
sofas, cushions, or carpet; Déméné and Marchand, 2016). This
mechanism operates as well when the consumer who needs to
change a dysfunctional appliance (e.g., refrigerator), changes one
or more others (cooking stove and dishwasher), still functional,
in order to keep the decorative layout of the interior of the house.
It also occurs when the purchase of a piece of clothing triggers
the purchase of others to match the initially purchased item.
These phenomena have been observed for a long time and have
been called the Diderot effect (Lorentzen, 2008).
Product diversification is also related to the introduction
of new functions. In the electronics domain, examples of
functions are playing videos, recording images, emailing, or
web browsing. Figure 2 illustrates the increase in product
diversity (or functions) in recent years (Ryen et al., 2015). More
quantitative analyses show that the number of product functions
increases with time, from almost exclusively a single function in
1990 to multifunctional devices for 80% of all mobile products
by 2000 and 100% by 2010 (Ryen et al., 2014). On average,
each product provided one new function between 1990 and 2010
(Ryen et al., 2014).
There is, however, a high level of functional redundancy
(Ryen et al., 2014), i.e., products that provide the same function
with equivalent quality. Households are equipped with multiple
devices that fulfill identical functions. For example, image
recording and video playing functions can now be fulfilled by
up to 12 and 15 products, respectively (Ryen et al., 2014).
Product convergence could therefore be beneficial in
reducing the number of appliances necessary to perform all the
functions that satisfy consumer needs and desires. The decline
of specialized devices such as digital cameras, camcorders, and
MP3 players is attributed to the growth of multifunctional
ones, i.e., tablets, and smartphones (Babbitt et al., 2017;Althaf
et al., 2019,2021). Similarly, the regression of Blu-ray and DVD
players is associated with the appearance of streaming services
(although it is not a product per se in this case; Babbitt et al.,
2017;Althaf et al., 2019). A tablet is an interesting appliance
since only some of its functions are used and turns out to be
a redundant device rather than a replacement (Kasulaitis et al.,
2021).
Substitution
Product substitution (also called replacement, renewal, or
turnover) is the mechanism by which a product is replaced
by an equivalent or an improved one. Although saturation of
ownership of a given device or function may have occurred,
replacement of this device or function perpetuates and/or
diversifies material consumption. Substitution occurs when the
product no longer works, cannot be repaired, can no longer be
used, or is no longer considered reparable or useful. Substitution
is then strongly related to product lifespan (or lifetime) or
obsolescence and is influenced by the rate of introduction of
technological innovations (innovation cycle).
Lifespan, end-of-life, and obsolescence
Product lifespan is closely related to product obsolescence.
Whereas lifespan refers to the period of use of a product,
obsolescence can be defined as an ensemble of processes by
which a product is (considered) no longer working or reparable.
A typology of obsolescence has been proposed in the literature,
including absolute (physical and functional), technological (or
systemic), and perceived obsolescence (den Hollander et al.,
2017;Zhilyaev et al., 2021). Another classification distinguishes
absolute from relative obsolescence (Cooper, 2004). The former
refers to non-functional products, the latter to functional
ones. An exhaustive review identified the various forms of
obsolescence and notes the responsibility of users and/or
manufacturers (Déméné and Marchand, 2015).
Obsolescence can be driven by technological, social,
or economic factors. Technological drivers of obsolescence
refer to the effective end of functioning, either because the
product or one of its elements is deteriorated or broken
and not reparable (the device is not dismountable, spare
elements are discontinued), or because it is obsolete (no
more compatible with actual appliances or systems; Ropke,
2001;Longmuss and Poppe, 2017). Technological factors
might include advances that make older products outmoded
and to the introduction of new products that are more
performant or offer new functions or other experiences, a
process called generation substitution (Michalakelis et al.,
2010).
An example is provided by the evolution of audio listening
systems that have made several devices and supports obsolete
with time, from the phonograph and wax cylinders to MP3
files/displays or streaming listening today, via tape cassettes,
vinyl records, and CDs (Ropke, 2001;Lefèvre, 2016). Apart
from replacement due to technological progress regarding the
product itself (for example, from CRT to LCD or plasma
TVs), replacement may occur due to the evolution of the
system in which it takes place. For TV sets, this phenomenon
occurred upon the introduction of HD TV sets, but also upon
the transformation of broadcasting or analog transmission to
digital transmission (TV cable, Internet cable, Wi-Fi; Kalmykova
et al., 2015;Gusukuma and Kahhat, 2018). Obsolescence may
also occur due to backdated capacity, a situation encountered
particularly for computers and smartphones (Islam et al.,
2020).
Social factors refer to cases where the consumer’s perception
accelerates product EoL, for example by lassitude, comfort need
(Bedir et al., 2013), values, social comparison, fashion (new
aesthetics) (Kalmykova et al., 2015), identity formation (Ropke,
Frontiers in Sustainability 11 frontiersin.org

Lefèvre et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.901383
2001), family structure and interactions, equity associated
with a brand, attraction by products that exhibit better
performance, new functions or new experiences, convenience,
or simplification of everyday life (Ropke, 2001;Kalmykova et al.,
2015;Longmuss and Poppe, 2017;Girard et al., 2018;Zhilyaev
et al., 2021). For example, it has been estimated that 40% of
LCD TV sets were discarded within 5 years of purchase while
they were still functioning (Kalmykova et al., 2015). This was
attributed to the premature replacement of CRT or LCD TVs,
in the latter case to have a larger TV or one with new/additional
features (Kalmykova et al., 2015).
Economic factors include income, product price, reparation
price and accessibility of manufacturer support services
or repairing services, marketing (advertising), second-
hand market opportunities (Zhilyaev et al., 2021), etc.
The question of planned obsolescence, i.e., defined as any
practice of producers intended to accelerate the devaluation
of consumer goods (Wieser, 2017), will not be covered
herein because the subject is beyond the scope of this
article. We will simply mention that obsolescence is a
shared responsibility between manufacturers and consumers,
while government decision-makers may strongly influence
stakeholders’ decisions and actions (Déméné and Marchand,
2015).
To illustrate the short lifetime of products, one can turn
to mobile phones. In Australia, the average lifespan goes from
about 6 years at the end of the 1990’s to about 5 years in the
early 2000’s and seemed to be constant in 2014 at around 4
years. A more recent work evaluates the lifespan at 3.17 years
in 2017–2019 (Islam et al., 2020). Moreover, the active use
of mobile phones was estimated in the range of 2.0–2.6 years
(considering the first use and reuse; Golev et al., 2016). For
European countries, the U.S., and China, the average life cycle
of smartphones range from 17 to 24 months between 2013
and 2015 (Baldé et al., 2017) while Korean consumers typically
replace their mobile phones every 28.8 months on average (Jang
and Kim, 2010).
The phenomenon of substitution is as old as the appearance
of the first industrial products. It is however generally admitted
that product lifespans of electronic and electric appliances in
industrialized societies have steadily declined over the past
decades (Karagiannidis et al., 2005;Babbitt et al., 2009;Bakker
et al., 2014). For example, the lifetime of CRT for the period
1996–2014 in Sweden was 15 years while that for the more
recent LCD TVs was 6 years (Kalmykova et al., 2015). At the
same time, the average size of TV sets progressively increased
(Kalmykova et al., 2015). In Australia, the average lifespan
for a mobile phone decreased from about 6 years in the late
1990’s to about 5 years in the early 2000’s and then stabilized
at around 4 years (Golev et al., 2016). In the educational
sector, the life span of computers has been found to decrease
from 10.7 years in 1985 to 5.5 years in 2000 (Babbitt et al.,
2009).
FIGURE 3
Schematic illustration of the market penetration of various
products (successive innovation cycles) as represented by their
logistic curves. The figure exemplifies actual trends, i.e., the
decrease in penetration time and intergeneration interval over
time.
The acceleration of consumption due to ever-shorter cycles
of replacement has however been partially contested and has
been proposed to be often taken for granted, therefore only
representing one facet of the reality. The lifespan lengthening
has indeed been observed for three products (plant breeding,
automobiles, and mobile phones). In particular, mobile phones
showed an increasing period of use in the U.K., from 12 months
in 2006 to 24 months in 2016 (Wieser, 2017). Similarly, no
decreasing trend was observed for several types of electronic
equipment in Switzerland (Thiebaud et al., 2018). It is then
inferred that, although the strategy that consists in offering
products incorporating new functionalities or new performance
undoubtedly works in many cases to reduce lifespan, it does
not always work if the novelty that is proposed is not sufficient
to justify a new purchase (Guenveur, 2017;Wieser, 2017).
Then, Wieser et al. call for an empirically grounded theory
that can explain both periods of extension and shrinking of
lifespan (Wieser, 2017). However, the question as to whether
these cases fundamentally question a more general rule of
lifespan shrinking with time, at least for electronic products,
remains doubtful.
Innovation cycle
This section is about successive cycles of innovations,
the rate at which they follow each other (or innovation
rate), and their penetration time. As mentioned in
Section Accumulation (ownership) the innovation cycle
is usually represented by three-step S-shaped curves,
eventually characterized by a fourth declining step
corresponding to products’ phasing-out (Figure 3). These
curves may be smooth or abrupt and may succeed more or
less frequently.
Frontiers in Sustainability 12 frontiersin.org

Lefèvre et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.901383
The innovation rate can be monitored by the intergeneration
frequency which refers to the rate at which successive
innovations penetrate the market or the inverse parameter, the
intergeneration interval, which corresponds to the time that
separates two innovations. Penetration time refers to the elapsed
time between the introduction of a given innovation into the
market and saturation.
Studying electronics products owned by U.S. households
showed that the penetration time is decreasing with time (as
schematized in Figure 3). This shrinking seems to be steady and
predictable (Althaf et al., 2019). Chen and Graedel (2015) indeed
observed that the saturation level was reached more rapidly for
more recent products such as mobile phones, flat-screen TVs, or
computers than for older ones such as monochrome TVs, CRT
TVs, electric ranges, or refrigerators.
Originating from technological progress and inventions by
manufacturers, the innovation rate is mainly driven by the
supply side of the market, although the demand represents
a motivation that prompts innovation and consumption
(although the ultimate decision to purchase new products is the
consumer’s responsibility).
The question arises as to whether the innovation rate
increases with time. Empiricism and simple observation of
an increase in product diversification (Section Diversification
(diversity)) suggest that the frequency of technological
innovations is increasing. Indeed, the time interval that elapses
between the introductions of two successive generations, seems
to become shorter (Michalakelis et al., 2010; see Figure 3).
Although empirically obvious, quantitative validations of this
hypothesis are lacking.
It is also important to distinguish innovations that
prompt substitution (replacement) from those that prompt
diversification (new products). While the former refers to
product generations that bring an improvement in performance
or additional functions, the latter underlies more radical
technological transformations. For example, whereas the
smartphone represents a new substitution generation
of phones, the first electric telephone represents a news
apparatus that accelerates communication between citizens.
Breakthrough innovations are generally at the origin of new
appliances (phonograph, combustion engine, CRT TV, and
computer) and the result of fundamental technological changes
[thermal machines, electricity, electronics, information, and
communication technology (ICT)] that have far-reaching
consequences on consumers’ habits and way of life and on the
structure of the society itself.
The revolution of so-called general technologies is however
not crucial to induce product diversification, as shown by the
introduction of electric devices such as yogurt makers, ice cream
makers, or pressure cookers. Some substitutive innovations may
also have significant effects on the general picture of home
appliances. For example, the transition from analog to digital
television, the transition from turntables to CD players, or
the transition from landline to cell phones induced several
modifications of appliances in households since, not only the
product itself changed but also the peripheral products that are
replaced or appear. They can also drastically change our way
of life.
Complexification
Complexification is a process by which products are
formed of more components and materials and have a more
complex structure, to integrate additional functions and/or to be
more performant, miniaturized, lighter, smarter, transportable,
wearable, more connected, and/or more autonomous. The
complexity is both structural and functional. The two influence
each other since, on the one hand, structural complexity
allows the implementation of functional complexity, while, on
the other hand, functional complexity can motivate structural
complexification. Functional complexity can itself be split
down into several characteristics including multifunctionality,
secondary functions (standby operation), autonomy (energy and
responsiveness), and miniaturization and weight reduction.
Referred to by other names such as sophistication
(Greenfield and Graedel, 2013) or quality increase (Chen and
Graedel, 2015), challenges related to complexification had
regularly been underlined (Ropke, 2001;Longmuss and Poppe,
2017;Kasulaitis et al., 2019;King, 2019;Althaf et al., 2021). As a
seminal example, Chen and Graedel noted from their historical
perspective an increase in the variety, quantity, and quality of
manufactured goods, which leads to an increase in the number
of types, numbers, and amount of materials used (Chen and
Graedel, 2015). Complexification can then take many forms. As
the phenomenon has not yet been rationalized, a typology of
the various characteristics of manufactured goods that represent
numerous manifestations of complexification is then tentatively
presented below.
Functional complexity
Multifunctionality
As seen in Sections Endogenous relations between
technological innovation and economy and Other trends
related to technological innovations, manufactured goods
tend to integrate more functions over time and several
appliances provide the same or similar functions (redundancy).
Multiplication of functions, and then of functional elements
(devices), can further be illustrated by automobiles: besides
their basic functions (drive, turn, brake, see backward, and
lighting), private vehicles now incorporate numerous other
devices including remote starter, on-board computer, power-
steering, cruise-control, air-bagsTM, air conditioning, heated
seats, automatic back door opening, rear camera, touch-screen
display, rear-cross traffic alert, parking assistance, etc. Several
Frontiers in Sustainability 13 frontiersin.org

Lefèvre et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.901383
of these functions, like in many appliances, are fulfilled by
electronic devices which require many different materials
including scarce, critical, or precious metals (Buchert et al.,
2012;Cucchiella et al., 2015).
Other examples of products that have seen their
functionality increase include watches that integrated calculators
and refrigerators that may have water and ice dispensers. Such
additional functions, like safety, lightweight, and the increase
in performance or comfort, are fulfilled by more complex
materials, which are more difficult to recycle than mono-
constituent ones. Complexification and the multiplication of
components, including accessories, make the product more
likely to fail.
Secondary functions (digitalization and connection)
Many appliances contain electronic components that
fulfill secondary functions. These functions include: keeping
the information, measuring time, displaying information, or
responding to a remote-control signal. These components
remain functional even if the appliance is switched off
and/or is in a low-power mode (Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, 2008). Many electric appliances also contain
indicator lights (for example to indicate that they are in
operation or that a function is activated) or LCDs that
are continuously activated (for example on cooking stoves,
microwave ovens, coffee makers, remote controllers, etc.).
Appliances are also equipped with infrared sensors allowing
remote control and the capacity to respond when they are
not activated, such as for TVs, air conditioners, stereo Hi-Fi
systems, etc.
In 2006, 13% of the total electricity consumption in
California was due to apparatuses in “sleep” mode (Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, 2008). The energy required to
power low-power modes is expected to increase due to the
rise in the total number of appliances (Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, 2008). In particular, one may infer that
this trend will expand further as information is, and will be,
more exchanged between appliances in the future, which will
be prominent with the growth of the Internet of Things (IoT).
This development will indeed be concomitant with that of
smart appliances which can perform new secondary functions
such as sensing, monitoring, and providing information via
the internet to mobile devices such as smartphones. This
trend is in its infancy but already exists for refrigerators,
thermostats, and remote control of the opening/closure of
window blinds or front doors. Besides smart homes, IoT
is expected to be essential for the establishment of smart
cities and a connected health system as well as for industries
(Nizetic et al., 2020). Not only do smart appliances offer
additional functions to traditional appliances, but they are
also more autonomous since they can be programed and
act accordingly.
Autonomy (energetic and responsive)
Autonomy refers here to the energetic autonomy of
appliances and the capacity to respond physically to specific
triggers. It is essentially illustrated by the increasing number of
appliances that are energetically independent (i.e., not connected
to the general electric circuit or computers) thanks to batteries,
a trend accentuated by the development of mobile devices and
Wi-Fi and Bluetooth R
technologies. Examples of autonomous
appliances include laptops, mobile phones, computer mouses
and keyboards, speakers, earphones, watches, etc. From a survey
carried out in Northern California, it has been evaluated that
8.4 devices on average are rechargeable in a typical household
(McAllister and Farrell, 2007).
Autonomous products also include robotic vacuum cleaners
and, maybe in the future, cars. This type of machine can operate
independently and adjust itself according to the information
collected by its sensors. Robotics are expected to expand in the
future, not only to perform household tasks but also in industry.
The rise of self-powered devices joins the transition to electric
cars in putting pressure on the minerals needed to make batteries
such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel.
Miniaturization and lightweighting
Miniaturization, or compactness, is an intrinsic trend of
technological innovation that is well-illustrated by the evolution
of computers from the 1960’s to nowadays. This observation is
a manifestation of the progressive increase in the number of
transistors on a microprocessor chip, leading to a continuous
increase in digital performance, which is known as Moore’s law
(Mack, 2011;Waldrop, 2016). We have seen above that due
to miniaturization, the amount of materials used in appliances
has shrunk. Nevertheless, compactness represents an obstacle to
recovering materials for recycling purposes. This problem has
been underlined for tablets (Cucchiella et al., 2015) and for hard
disk drives which compact design complexifies the separation
of critical raw metals from other materials (stainless steel and
aluminum; Buchert et al., 2012).
As mentioned in Section Diversification (diversity)
lightweighting has been considered for electronic devices,
showing a continuous decrease in their weight, from 19 kg
per product on average in 1990 to 2 kg per product in 2010
(Kasulaitis et al., 2019). It should be however noted that this
result is influenced by the replacement of the heavy CRT TVs
with more modern and lighter LCD and LED TVs (Kasulaitis
et al., 2019). It is also noteworthy that if the replacement of CRT
TVs with LCD and LED TVs induced an overall decrease in
the weight of electronics consumed by households, this shift
occurs with the diversification of materials used and new waste
burdens (Althaf et al., 2021).
Additionally, the lightweighting of electronic appliances
is driven by the use of light metals such as aluminum and
magnesium, while plastics increasingly replace heavier steel
product casings and other structural elements (Althaf et al.,
Frontiers in Sustainability 14 frontiersin.org

Lefèvre et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.901383
2021). As mentioned in Diversification (diversity) diversity
and dilution (Kasulaitis et al., 2019), which were attributed to
product lightweighting, complexify recycling (Kasulaitis et al.,
2019). Some metals are even found in very low concentrations
in electronic devices, thus complicating the recovery of these
materials and causing problems of economic viability (Friege,
2012;Gotze and Rotter, 2012).
Structural complexity (material heterogeneity)
One powerful strategy employed to enhance materials
properties (mechanical, optical, and electrical), functionality,
miniaturization, and lightweighting is to make use of
multicomponent (heterogeneous) materials including
composites, intertwined, embedded, or multilayer organizations.
For example, printed circuit boards (PCBs), ubiquitous in
modern appliances, contain ceramics, plastics, and more than
20 materials, including precious metals and toxic compounds
(Cucchiella et al., 2015). A smartphone incorporates 65–70
elements of the periodic table in a volume of about 100
cm3(King, 2019). In turn, complexification, in addition to
diversification, increases the variety of materials used so that
almost all elements of the periodic table are now used to
capitalize on their specific properties (Greenfield and Graedel,
2013).
Besides basic materials, the design of electronic devices
and their elements (displays, motherboards, batteries, casings,
etc.) often induces structural complexity such as laminated
components, coatings, sealants or additives which may inhibit
material recovery and pose hazard risks (Gotze and Rotter, 2012;
Tansel, 2017).
Alloys are also widely used, due to the innumerable
properties that can be obtained by adequately mixing the
appropriate elements. They are particularly important for jet
engines (Greenfield and Graedel, 2013). This strategy makes
however the production and recycling more complex. Thus,
the existence of alternative approaches has been underlined
to enhance the properties of traditional alloys by tuning the
micro- or nanostructure, especially by the proper processing (Li
and Lu, 2019). The authors even called for a “compositional
planification” when designing materials to contribute to
sustainability alternatives (Li and Lu, 2019).
Rather than relying on composite materials that are complex
to recycle, material design approaches may focus on hierarchical
organization such as those found in nature (Sanchez et al., 2005).
Biological materials are indeed characterized by mild-conditions
production (room temperature and atmospheric pressure) and
by single or a moderate number of (renewable) components
that are arranged in a complex structure organized hierarchically
a different length scales (Egan et al., 2015;Wegst et al., 2015;
Lefèvre and Auger, 2016). Biomimetic approaches have then
the potential to reduce the impact of industrial products at the
production, use, and EoL stages and reduce complexity while
enhancing functionality (Benyus, 2011;King, 2019).
Conclusion
Outcomes
This theoretical essay categorizes and underlines diverse
aspects of technological change that influence, and more often
than not, increase the MF of developed countries, especially
of households. The review shows that these trends contribute
to the pressure exerted by material consumption on resource
use, output flows, and energy demand. It provides a general
view of some trends related to technological innovations that
contribute to the increase and diversification of consumption,
waste streams, and to the difficulty in repairing and recycling.
One of the main contributions of this work concerns the
advancement of the theorization regarding the influence of
technological innovation on the consumption of industrial
products based on the establishment of a trend framework
related to technological change. In particular, the review process
allowed documenting trends related to technological innovation
and reveal several important points that may contribute to
formalizing the relationship between technological innovations,
consumption of manufactured goods, and sustainability. These
points regard:
•The specification of the terminology regarding each trend
•The identification of related concepts that should
be considered with regard to the theorization of the
relationship between technological innovation and
(un)sustainable consumption
•The identification of the main drivers that sustain these
trends (innovation social, economic, and other factors)
•The identification of interactions between these trends that
contribute to consumption
•The identification of societal consequences on material and
energy consumption and waste management
The main findings are summarized in Table 3. In particular,
this study shows that the trend framework considered is part
of a larger context that closely links economy, technology, and
consumption. The trends seem to be intrinsically attached to
the socioeconomic system and culture (values and lifestyle).
Consequently, profound societal transformations are required
and, given the ecological situation and the crossing of planetary
boundaries, it requires urgent action. To be efficient, this action
should target simultaneously the different societal domains
concerned, i.e., economy, social aspects, and public policies.
The four trends are interdependent and influence each
other. For instance, diversification can contribute to product
ownership and renewal. In this respect, it is important
Frontiers in Sustainability 15 frontiersin.org

Lefèvre et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.901383
TABLE 3 Outcomes drawn from the integrative review.
Trend Accumulation Diversification Substitution Complexification
Other terminology Abundance Turnover, renewal Sophistication, quality
increase
Related concepts Product ownership Function convergence,
Diderot effect
Product lifespan,
obsolescence, lifecycle,
penetration time,
intergeneration interval
Multiple materials and
components, heterogeneity;
Secondary functions,
autonomy, mobility,
connectivity; Dispersion,
dilution
Origin/motivation •INNOVATION DRIVERS (NOVELTY): New function or user’s experience, more performant, miniaturized, lighter, smaller,
smarter, transportable, wearable, connected, digitalized, autonomous, and/or responsive
•SOCIAL DRIVERS: Lassitude, comfort needs, values, social comparison, fashion (new aesthetics), identity formation, family
structure and interactions, equity associated with a brand, attraction by products that exhibit better performance, convenience
or simplification of everyday life
•ECONOMIC DRIVERS: Income/purchasing power, consumer price index, and economic conditions (recession, inflation, and
crisis)
•PLACE OF RESIDENCE: Country, urban/suburban/rural location
•ENVIRONMENTAL DRIVERS: Climate (air conditioners, ventilators)
Interactions •OWNERSHIP and SUBSTITUTION (novelty/improvement) drives DIVERSIFICATION (new peripherical products)
•COMPLEXIFICATION drives innovation, in turn drives ACCUMULATION, DIVERSIFICATION, and SUBSTITUTION
Consequences •Increase in the consumption of products and materials
•Increase in the consumption of energy (production and use phases)
•Variation in the flow and type of material outputs
•Complexity of the recycling processes (dispersion, dilution)
•Pressure on non-renewable resources, especially critical and strategic metals
to mention that this overview reveals that the trends are
often treated separately. Finally, the data collected show
that the available literature focuses mainly on electric and
electronic appliances, although other industrial sectors are
sometimes considered.
Knowledge gaps
The numerous, highly informative, and innovative research
reviewed appear very interesting at the empirical and theoretical
levels to understand lifespan, substitution, and obsolescence
patterns, and their role in material inputs and waste streams.
Several knowledge gaps exist, including the fact that data
are scattered geographically, in both space and time (Cabeza
et al., 2018). Also, some particular points need clarification.
For example, many authors mention or assume the acceleration
of the product lifecycle but proofs of this assertion are
rather rare.
Above all, studies found in the literature mainly focused
on electronics and electric appliances, while data regarding
other industrial sectors (kitchenware, furniture, renovation,
DIY tools, etc.) are far less documented. It may indeed be
expected that similar trends are ubiquitous in all sectors.
For example, the apparel area also exhibits accumulation
phenomena and acceleration of acquisition rate due to
discarding before the entire clothes lifecycle (Schor, 2005)
whereas (more complex) smart clothes begin or are about to
penetrate the market (Bin Qaim et al., 2020;Xiong et al.,
2021).
Additionally, the reviewed papers mainly focused on
household consumption. Although it has been the subject of
less interest, one is also compelled to admit that the same
technological trends are likely taking place in businesses,
organizations, and institutions at even bigger scales. Gaining
a more quantitative view of the impact of technological
innovations across all industrial sectors and actors (consumers,
industries, institutions, and organizations) in order to fill the
current knowledge gaps would indeed refine our evaluation
of the different contributions on the impact related to
technological innovations.
Yet as this additional research would not change the
main conclusion outlined above, it may very likely confine
itself to tinkering at the margins or even indirectly justify
Frontiers in Sustainability 16 frontiersin.org

Lefèvre et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.901383
political stagnation. As evidenced here, we already know
that the possession, substitution, diversification, and
complexification of technological innovations critically
contribute to increasing consumption of goods and materials
in households, and as such, result in unsustainable resource
demand and unmanageable EoL challenges. Moreover, we
know that unless strong action is taken at the political
level, it can be expected that future waves of technological
innovations will perpetuate the actual rate of product
turnover, thereby maintaining the renewal of products
with new functions, increasing customer experience, and
exacerbating consumption.
Author contributions
TL: conceptualization, methodology, analysis, writing
of original draft, writing of the corrected versions and
editing, visualization, and project administration. CD:
conceptualization, reading, review, editing, and analysis. M-LA:
conceptualization, reading, review, and editing. PG-L and
HE: reading, review, and editing. J-FM and MC: reading and
review. All authors contributed to the article and approved the
submitted version.
Funding
This work was supported by CERMA (Université Laval,
the Quebec Center for Advanced Materials (QCAM),
and the Ministère de l’Économie et de l’Innovation
(MÉI) du Québec), and CIRODD (Fonds de Recherche
du Québec).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the
authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated
organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or
claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed
or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Althaf, S., Babbitt, C. W., and Chen, R. (2019). Forecasting electronic waste
flows for effective circular economy planning. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 151, 38.
doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.05.038
Althaf, S., Babbitt, C. W., and Chen, R. (2021). The evolution of
consumer electronic waste in the United States. J. Ind. Ecol. 25, 693–706.
doi: 10.1111/jiec.13074
Babbitt, C. W., Althaf, S., and Chen, R. (2017). Sustainable Materials
Management for the Evolving Consumer Technology Ecosystem. Summary Report
of Phase 1 Research. Rochester, NY: Rochester Institute of Technology, Staples
Sustainable Innovation Lab, Consumer Technology Association.
Babbitt, C. W., Kahhat, R., Williams, E., and Babbitt, G. A. (2009). Evolution of
product lifespan and implications for environmental assessment and management:
a case study of personal computers in higher education. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43,
5106–5112. doi: 10.1021/es803568p
Bakhiyi, B., Gravel, S., Ceballos, D., Flynn, M. A., and Zayed, J. (2018). Has the
question of e-waste opened a Pandora’s box? An overview of unpredictable issues
and challenges. Environ. Int. 110, 173–192. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2017.10.021
Bakker, C., Wang, F., Huisman, J., and den Hollander, M. (2014). Products that
go round: exploring product life extension through design. J. Cleaner Prod. 69,
10–16. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.028
Baldé, C. P., Forti, V., Gray, V., Kuehr, R., and Stegmann, P. (2017). The Global
E-waste Monitor 2017. Bonn; Geneva; Vienna: United Nations University (UNU),
International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and International Solid Waste
Association (ISWA).
Bedir, M., Hasselaar, E., and Itard, L. (2013). Determinants of
electricity consumption in Dutch dwellings. Energy Build. 58, 194–207.
doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.10.016
Benyus, J. M. (2011). Biomimétisme : quand la nature inspire des innovations
durables. Paris: Rue de l’échiquier.
Bin Qaim, W., Ometov, A., Molinaro, A., Lener, I., Campolo, C.,
Lohan, E. S., et al. (2020). Towards energy efficiency in the internet
of wearable things: a systematic review. IEEE Access 8, 175412–175435.
doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3025270
Binswanger, M. (2001). Technological progress and sustainable
development: what about the rebound effect? Ecol. Econ. 36, 119–132.
doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00214-7
Blanco, G., Gerlagh, R., Suh, S., Barrett, J., Coninck, H. C. d., Morejon, C. F. D.,
et al. (2014). “Drivers, trends and mitigation,” in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation
of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-
Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, et al. (Cambridge; New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press), 351–411.
Bleischwitz, R., Nechifor, V., Winning, M., Huang, B. J., and Geng, Y. (2018).
Extrapolation or saturation - revisiting growth patterns, development stages
and decoupling. Glob. Environ. Chang. 48, 86–96. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.
11.008
Borri, D., and Grassini, L. (2014). Dilemnas in the analysis of technological
change - a cognitive approach to understand innovation and change
in the water sector. TeMA_J. Land Use Mobility Environ. 109–127.
doi: 10.6092/1970-9870/2561
Brunner, P. H. (2011). Urban mining a contribution to reindustrializing
the city. J. Ind. Ecol. 15, 339–341. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.0
0345.x
Buchert, M., Manhart, A., Bleher, D., and Pingel, D. (2012). Recycling
Critical Raw Materials From Waste Electronic Equipment. Freiburg:
Öko-Institut eV.
Cabeza, L. F., Urge-Vorsatz, D., McNeil, M. A., Barreneche, C., and Serrano,
S. (2014). Investigating greenhouse challenge from growing trends of electricity
consumption through home appliances in buildings. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 36,
188–193. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.04.053
Cabeza, L. F., Urge-Vorsatz, D., Urge, D., Palacios, A., and Barreneche, C. (2018).
Household appliances penetration and ownership trends in residential buildings.
Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 98, 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.09.006
Canas, A., Ferrao, P., and Conceicao, P. (2003). A new environmental
Kuznets curve? Relationship between direct material input and income
per capita: evidence from industrialised countries. Ecol. Econ. 46, 217–229.
doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00123-X
Frontiers in Sustainability 17 frontiersin.org

Lefèvre et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.901383
Chen, W. Q., and Graedel, T. E. (2015). In-use product stocks link manufactured
capital to natural capital. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 112, 6265–6270.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1406866112
Ciacci, L., Vassura, I., and Passarini, F. (2018). Shedding light on
the anthropogenic europium cycle in the EU-28. Marking product
turnover and energy progress in the lighting sector. Resources-Basel 7, 59.
doi: 10.3390/resources7030059
Cooper, T. (2004). Inadequate life? Evidence of consumer attidudes to product
obsolescence. J. Consum. Policy 27, 421–449. doi: 10.1007/s10603-004-2284-6
Crutzen, P. (2002). Geology of mankind. Nature 415, 23. doi: 10.1038/415023a
Crutzen, P., and Stoermer, E. F. (2000). The “Anthropocene”. IGPB Newsletter
41, 17–18.
Cucchiella, F., D’Adamo, I., Koh, S. C. L., and Rosa, P. (2015). Recycling of
WEEEs: an economic assessment of present and future e-waste streams. Renew.
Sust. Energ. Rev. 51, 263–272. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.06.010
Dahmus, J. B. (2014). Can efficiency improvements reduce resource
consumption? A historical analysis of ten activities. J. Ind. Ecol. 18, 883–897.
doi: 10.1111/jiec.12110
Davis, S. J., and Caldeira, K. (2010). Consumption-based accounting
of CO2 emissions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107, 5687–5692.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0906974107
Déméné, C., and Marchand, A. (2015). L’obsolescence des produits
électroniques : des responsabilités partagées. Les Ateliers de l’Éthique 10, 4–32.
doi: 10.7202/1032726ar
Déméné, C., and Marchand, A. (2016). Exploring users’ practices through the
use phase of a television to minimise the environmental impact. J. Res. Consum.
29, 25–48.
den Hollander, M. C., Bakker, C. A., and Hultink, E. J. (2017). Product design in
a circular economy development of a typology of key concepts and terms. J. Ind.
Ecol. 21, 517–525. doi: 10.1111/jiec.12610
Deng, L. Q., and Williams, E. D. (2011). Functionality versus “typical product”
measures of technological progress a case study of semiconductor manufacturing.
J. Ind. Ecol. 15, 108–121. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2010.00306.x
Di Donato, M., Lomas, P. L., and Carpintero, O. (2015). Metabolism and
environmental impacts of household consumption: a review on the assessment,
methodology, and drivers. J. Ind. Ecol. 19, 904–916. doi: 10.1111/jiec.12356
Dittrich, M., Giljum, S., Lutter, S., and Polzin, C. (2012). Green Economies
Around the World ? Implications of Resource Use for Development and the
Environment. Vienna: Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI).
Duarte, R., Mainar, A., and Sanchez-Choliz, J. (2013). The role of consumption
patterns, demand and technological factors on the recent evolution of
CO2emissions in a group of advanced economies. Ecol. Econ. 96, 1–13.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.09.007
Egan, P., Sinko, R., LeDuc, P. R., and Keten, S. (2015). The role of
mechanics in biological and bio-inspired systems. Nat. Commun. 6, 8418.
doi: 10.1038/ncomms8418
FischerKowalski, M., and Haberl, H. (1997). Tons, joules, and money: modes
of production and their sustainability problems. Soc. Nat. Resour. 10, 61–85.
doi: 10.1080/08941929709381009
Fischer-Kowalski, M., Swilling, M., von Weizsäcker, E. U., Ren, Y., Moriguchi,
Y., Crane, W., et al. (2011). Decoupling Natural Resource Use and Environmental
Impacts From Economic Growth. Nairobi: International Resource Panel, United
Nations Environment Program.
Fouquet, R. (2014). Long-run demand for energy services: income and price
elasticities over two hundred years. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 8, 186–207.
doi: 10.1093/reep/reu002
Freeman, R. (2018). A theory on the future of the rebound effect in a resource-
constrained world. Front. Energy Res. 6, 81. doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2018.00081
Friege, H. (2012). Review of material recovery from used electric and electronic
equipment-alternative options for resource conservation. Waste. Manage. Res. 30,
3–16. doi: 10.1177/0734242X12448521
Genois-Lefrançois, P., Lardja, L., Lefèvre, T., and Magalas, T. (2021). Innovaton
Durable - Orientations pour stimuler l’innovation durable au Québec. Montréal:
Centre interdisciplinaire de recherche en opérationnalisation du développement
durable (CIRODD).
Girard, A., Thorpe, C., Durif, F., and Robinot, É. (2018). Obsolescence
des appareils électroménagers et électriques: quel rôle pour le consommateur?
Montreal: Équiterre.
Golev, A., Werner, T. T., Zhu, X., and Matsubae, K. (2016). Product flow analysis
using trade statistics and consumer survey data: a case study of mobile phones in
Australia. J. Cleaner Prod. 133, 262–271. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.117
Gotze, R., and Rotter, V. S. (2012). “Challenges for the recovery of critical metals
from waste electronic equipment - a case study of indium in LCD panels,” in
Joint International Conference and Exhibition on Electronics Goes Green (Stuttgart:
Fraunhofer Verlag).
Greenfield, A., and Graedel, T. E. (2013). The omnivorous diet of modern
technology. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 74, 1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.02.010
Guenveur, L. (2017). An Incredible Decade for the Smartphone: What’s Next?
Kantar: Kantar Worldpanel ComTech Global Consumer.
Gusukuma, M., and Kahhat, R. (2018). Electronic waste after a digital TV
transition: material flows and stocks. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 138, 142–150.
doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.07.014
Haberl, H., Wiedenhofer, D., Virag, D., Kalt, G., Plank, B., Brockway, P., et al.
(2020). A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and
GHG emissions, part II: synthesizing the insights. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, ab842a.
doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a
Hache, E., Sokhna Seck, G., Barnet, C., Carcanague, S., and Guedes, F.
(2021). ≪Vers une nouvelle géopolitique des matériaux de la transition, ≫in
L’économie des ressources minérales et le défi de la soutenabilité2 - Enjeux et
leviers d’action, eds F. Fizaine and X. Galiègue (London: ISTE editions), 13–47.
doi: 10.51926/ISTE.9025.ch1
Hasan, I., and Tucci, C. L. (2010). The innovation-economic growth nexus
Global evidence. Res. Policy 39, 1264–1276. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.07.005
Havas, L., Ballweg, J., Penna, C., and Race, D. (2015). Power to change: analysis
of household participation in a renewable energy and energy efficiency programme
in Central Australia. Energy Policy 87, 325–333. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2015.09.017
Herring, H., and Roy, R. (2007). Technological innovation, energy
efficient design and the rebound effect. Technovation 27, 194–203.
doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2006.11.004
Hertwich, E. G. (2005). Consumption and the rebound effect - an industrial
ecology perspective. J. Ind. Ecol. 9, 85–98. doi: 10.1162/1088198054084635
IEA (2018). The Future of Cooling Opportunities for Energy-Efficient Air
Conditioning. Paris: International Energy Agency.
Islam, M. T., Dias, P., and Huda, N. (2020). Waste mobile phones: a survey
and analysis of the awareness, consumption and disposal behavior of consumers
in Australia. J. Environ. Manage. 275, 11111. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111111
Ivanova, D., Stadler, K., Steen-Olsen, K., Wood, R., Vita, G., Tukker, A., et al.
(2016). Environmental impact assessment of household consumption. J. Ind. Ecol.
20, 526–536. doi: 10.1111/jiec.12371
Ivaschenko, O., and Ersado, L. (2008). The dynamics of ownership of durable
goods in Bulgaria: from economic crisis to EU membership. World Bank Policy
Res. Work. Pap. 2008, 4567. doi: 10.1596/1813-9450-4567
Jaffe, A. B., Newell, R. G., and Stavins, R. N. (2003). “Technological
change and the environment,” in Handbook of Environmental Economics,
eds K.-G. Miller and J. R. Vincent (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V.), 7
doi: 10.1016/S1574-0099(03)01016-7
Jang, Y. C., and Kim, M. (2010). Management of used and end-of-
life mobile phones in Korea: a review. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 55, 11–19.
doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.07.003
Jevons, W. S. (1906). The Coal Questions: An Inquiry Concerning Progress of the
Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of Our Coal-Mines. New York, NY: Macmillan
and Co.
Kalmykova, Y., Patricio, J., Rosado, L., and Berg, P. E. (2015). Out with the
old, out with the new - the effect of transitions in TVs and monitors technology
on consumption and WEEE generation in Sweden 1996-2014. Waste Manage 46,
511–522. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.08.034
Karagiannidis, A., Perkoulidis, G., Papadopoulos, A., Moussiopoulos, N., and
Tsatsarelis, T. (2005). Characteristics of wastes from electric and electronic
equipment in Greece: results of a field survey. Waste. Manage. Res. 23, 381–388.
doi: 10.1177/0734242X05054289
Kasulaitis, B., Babbitt, C. W., and Tyler, A. C. (2021). The role of consumer
preferences in reducing material intensity of electronic products. J. Ind. Ecol. 25,
448–464. doi: 10.1111/jiec.13052
Kasulaitis, B. V., Babbitt, C. W., and Krock, A. K. (2019). Dematerialization
and the circular economy: comparing strategies to reduce material impacts
of the consumer electronic product ecosystem. J. Ind. Ecol. 23, 119–132.
doi: 10.1111/jiec.12756
King, A. H. (2019). Our elemental footprint. Nat. Mater. 18, 408–409.
doi: 10.1038/s41563-019-0334-3
Kohler, A., and Erdmann, L. (2004). Expected environmental
impacts of pervasive computing. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 10, 831–852.
doi: 10.1080/10807030490513856
Frontiers in Sustainability 18 frontiersin.org

Lefèvre et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.901383
Krausmann, F., Gingrich, S., Eisenmenger, N., Erb, K. H., Haberl, H.,
and Fischer-Kowalski, M. (2009). Growth in global materials use, GDP
and population during the 20th century. Ecol. Econ. 68, 2696–2705.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.007
Krausmann, F., Lauk, C., Haas, W., and Wiedenhofer, D. (2018). From
resource extraction to outflows of wastes and emissions: the socioeconomic
metabolism of the global economy, 1900-2015. Global Environ. Chang. 52,
131–140. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.07.003
Krausmann, F., Wiedenhofer, D., Lauk, C., Haas, W., Tanikawa, H., Fishman,
T., et al. (2017). Global socioeconomic material stocks rise 23-fold over the 20th
century and require half of annual resource use. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 114,
1880–1885. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1613773114
Kuhnimhof, T., Zumkeller, D., and Chlond, B. (2013). Who are the drivers of
peak car use? A decomposition of recent car travel trends for six industrialized
countries. Transp. Res. Rec. 7, 53–61. doi: 10.3141/2383-07
Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. Am. Econ. Rev.
45, 1–28.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (2008). Low-Power Mode Energy
Consumption in California Homes: PIER Final Project Report. Alameda, CA:
California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program.
Lefèvre, T. (2016). Sortir de l’impasse - Qu’est-ce qui freine la transition écologique
?Montréal: Multimondes.
Lefèvre, T., and Auger, M. (2016). Spider silk as a blueprint for greener materials:
a review. Int. Mater. Rev. 61, 127–153. doi: 10.1080/09506608.2016.1148894
Li, X., and Lu, K. (2019). Improving sustainability with simpler alloys. Science
364, 733–734. doi: 10.1126/science.aaw9905
Liu, H. X., and Lin, B. Q. (2016). Incorporating energy rebound effect in
technological advancement and green building construction: a case study of China.
Energy Build. 129, 150–161. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.07.058
Liu, J. R., Wang, M. X., Zhang, C., Yang, M., and Li, Y. M. (2020). Material flows
and in-use stocks of durable goods in Chinese urban household sector. Resour.
Conserv. Recy. 158, 104758. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104758
Longmuss, J., and Poppe, E. (2017). “Planned obsolescence: who are those
planners?,” in Product Lifetimes And The Environment (PLATE), eds C. Bakker and
R. Mugge (Amsterdam: IOS Press), 217–221.
Lorentzen, J. A. (2008). “Diderot effect,” in The Blackwell Encyclopedia
of Sociology, eds G. Ritzer (Malden, MA: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.), 46.
doi: 10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosd046
Lundgren, M. K. (2012). The Global Impact of E-waste: Addressing the Challenge.
Geneva: International Labour Office, Programme on Safety and Health at Work
and the Environment (SafeWork), Sectoral Activities Department (SECTOR).
Mack, C. A. (2011). Fifty years of Moore’s law. IEEE Trans. Semicond. Manuf. 24,
202–207. doi: 10.1109/TSM.2010.2096437
Mardani, A., Streimikiene, D., Cavallaro, F., Loganathan, N., and Khoshnoudi,
M. (2019). Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and economic growth: a systematic
review of two decades of research from 1995 to 2017. Sci. Total Environ. 649, 31–49.
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.229
McAllister, J. A., and Farrell, A. E. (2007). Electricity consumption by battery-
powered consumer electronics: a household-level survey. Energy 32, 1177–1184.
doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2006.07.008
Mercure, J. F. (2015). An age structured demographic theory of technological
change. J. Evol. Econ. 25, 787–820. doi: 10.1007/s00191-015-0413-9
Metz, D. (2013). Peak car and beyond: the fourth era of travel. Transp. Rev. 33,
255–270. doi: 10.1080/01441647.2013.800615
Michalakelis, C., Varoutas, D., and Sphicopoulos, T. (2010). Innovation diffusion
with generation substitution effects. Technol. Forecast. Soc.Change 77, 541–557.
doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2009.11.001
Nizetic, S., Solic, P., Lopez-de-Ipina, D., and Patrono, L. (2020). Internet of
Things (IoT): opportunities, issues and challenges towards a smart and sustainable
future. J. Cleaner Prod. 274, 122877. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122877
Oberle, B., Bringezu, S., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Hellweg, S., Schandl, H., Clement,
J., et al. (2019). Global Resources Outlook 2019: Natural Resources for the
Future We Want. Nairobi: International Resource Panel, United Nations
Environment Programme.
OECD (2011). Towards Green Growth - A Summary for Policy Makers. Paris:
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (1992). Oslo Manual
- The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities - Proposed Guidelines
of Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data. Paris: OECD
Publishing.
Persson, L., Almroth, B. M. C., Collins, C. D., Cornell, S., Wit, C. A., Miriam, L.,
et al. (2022). Outside the safe operating space of the planetary boundary for novel
entities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 1c04158. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c04158
Pesch, U. (2018). Paradigms and paradoxes: the futures of growth and
degrowth. Int. J. Sociol. Soc. Policy 38, 1133–1146. doi: 10.1108/IJSSP-03-
2018-0035
Plank, B., Eisenmenger, N., Schaffartzik, A., and Wiedenhofer, D. (2018).
International trade drives global resource use: a structural decomposition
analysis of raw material consumption from 1990-2010. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52,
4190–4198. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.7b06133
Pothen, F., and Welsch, H. (2019). Economic development and
material use. Evid. Int. Panel Data World Dev. 115, 107–119.
doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.06.008
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F.,
et al. (2009). Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity.
Ecol. Soc. 14, 32. doi: 10.5751/ES-03180-140232
Ropke, I. (2001). New technology in everyday life - social
processes and environmental impact. Ecol. Econ. 38, 403–422.
doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00183-5
Ryen, E. G., Babbitt, C. W., Tyler, A. C., and Babbitt, G. A. (2014). Community
ecology perspectives on the structural and functional evolution of consumer
electronics. J. Ind. Ecol. 18, 708–721. doi: 10.1111/jiec.12130
Ryen, E. G., Babbitt, C. W., and Williams, E. (2015). Consumption-weighted
life cycle assessment of a consumer electronic product community. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 49, 2549–2559. doi: 10.1021/es505121p
Sanchez, C., Arribart, H., and Giraud Guille, M.-M. (2005). Biomimetism and
bioinspiration as tools for the design of innovative materials and systems. Nat.
Mater. 4, 277–288. doi: 10.1038/nmat1339
Schandl, H., Fischer-Kowalski, M., West, J., Giljum, S., Dittrich, M.,
Eisenmenger, N., et al. (2016). Global Material Flows and Resource Productivity.
An Assessment Study. Paris: International Resource Panel, United Nations
Environment Programme. doi: 10.1111/jiec.12626
Schor, J. B. (2005). Prices and quantities: unsustainable consumption and the
global economy. Ecol. Econ. 55, 309–320. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.07.030
Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business Cycles.A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical
Analysis of the Capitalist Process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York, NY:
Taylor and Francis.
Selden, T. M., and Song, D. Q. (1994). Environmental-quality and development
- is there a Kuznets curve for air-pollution emissions. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 27,
147–162. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1994.1031
Seppala, T., Haukioja, T., and Kaivo-oja, J. (2001). The EKC hypothesis does
not hold for direct material flows: environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis tests
for direct material flows in five industrial countries. Popul. Environ. 23, 217–238.
doi: 10.1023/A:1012831804794
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and
guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 104, 333–339. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstrom, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.
M., et al. (2015). Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing
planet. Science 347, 1259855. doi: 10.1126/science.1259855
Sthiannopkao, S., and Wong, M. H. (2013). Handling e-waste in developed and
developing countries: initiatives, practices, and consequences. Sci. Total Environ.
463, 1147–1153. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.06.088
Suri, H. (2011). Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis. Qualitat.
Res. J. 11, 63. doi: 10.3316/QRJ1102063
Tansel, B. (2017). From electronic consumer products to e-wastes: global
outlook, waste quantities, recycling challenges. Environ. Int. 98, 35–45.
doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2016.10.002
Thiebaud, E., Hilty, L. M., Schluep, M., Widmer, R., and Faulstich, M. (2018).
Service lifetime, storage time, and disposal pathways of electronic equipment a
Swiss case study. J. Ind. Ecol. 22, 196–208. doi: 10.1111/jiec.12551
Verma, M. (2015). Growing car ownership and dependence in India
and its policy implications. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 3, 304–310.
doi: 10.1016/j.cstp.2014.04.004
Wäger, P. A. (2011). Scarce metals - applications, supply risks and need for action.
Not. Polit. 27, 57–66.
Waldrop, M. M. (2016). The semiconductor industry will soon abandon its
pursuit of Moore’s law. Now things could get a lot more interesting. Nature 530,
144–147. doi: 10.1038/530144a
Frontiers in Sustainability 19 frontiersin.org

Lefèvre et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.901383
Wegst, U. G. K., Bai, H., Saiz, E., Tomsia, A. P., and Ritchie, R. O.
(2015). Bioinspired structural materials. Nat. Mater. 14, 23–36. doi: 10.1038/nma
t4089
Wiedmann, T. O., Schandl, H., Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Suh, S., West, J., et al.
(2015). The material footprint of nations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 112,
6271–6276. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1220362110
Wieser, H. (2017). “Even faster, even shorter? Replacement cycles of durable
goods in historical perspective,” in Product Lifetimes And The Environment
(PLATE), eds C. Bakker and R. Mugge (Amsterdam: IOS Press), 426–431.
Wu, T., Zhao, H. M., and Ou, X. M. (2014). Vehicle ownership analysis
based on GDP per capita in China: 1963-2050. Sustainability 6, 4877–4899.
doi: 10.3390/su6084877
Xiong, J. Q., Chen, J., and Lee, P. S. (2021). Functional fibers and fabrics
for soft robotics, wearables, and human-robot interface. Adv. Mater. 33, 2640.
doi: 10.1002/adma.202002640
Yang, Z. S., Jia, P., Liu, W. D., and Yin, H. C. (2017). Car ownership and urban
development in Chinese cities: a panel data analysis. J. Transp. Geogr. 58, 127–134.
doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.11.015
Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Haywood, A., and Ellis, M. (2011). The
anthropocene: a new epoch of geological time? Phil. Trans. R Soc. A 369, 835–841.
doi: 10.1098/rsta.2010.0339
Zeng, X. L., Mathews, J. A., and Li, J. H. (2018). Urban mining of E-waste
is becoming more cost-effective than virgin mining. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52,
4835–4841. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.7b04909
Zhilyaev, D., Cimpan, C., Cao, Z., Liu, G., Askegaard, S., and Wenzel, H.
(2021). The living, the dead, and the obsolete: a characterization of lifetime
and stock of ICT products in Denmark. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 164, 105117.
doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105117
Zink, T., and Geyer, R. (2017). Circular economy rebound. J. Ind. Ecol. 21,
593–602. doi: 10.1111/jiec.12545
Frontiers in Sustainability 20 frontiersin.org