The design of a new product should always seek to achieve high quality. However, quality is a matter of perception and thus depends on the expectations created by said product. If a company decides to introduce to the market a mobile phone with a lifespan that is not expected to surpass 18 months, the ethical interrogations of this approach are related to how candid the company is towards its target customers. Does the marketing campaign for this mobile phone mention it is not designed to be long lasting? If so, then customers who purchase this phone will have done so knowing its inherent flaws but having decided that it is still a product they consider worth purchasing, most likely because it is affordable.
The company’s full disclosure of the product exempts it from being considered unethical, under the strict condition that the mobile phone’s production has not been performed under knowledge of design flaws that may compromise the customer’s safety. There is a level of trust between consumer and manufacturer for which the former may give product safety as a certain attribute, there for not relating safety to price or any other factor. This is supported by Curlo who stated that “even consumers who care about their safety may assume that because manufacturers satisfy a minimal level of ethical responsibility, there is no need to focus on a product’s safety attributes when making a purchase choice” (40).
Customer’s expectations as well as quality standards vary greatly among countries, naturally being the developed countries, those who uphold the strictest regulations. For example, according to the Standards Council of Canada, said institution is “considered one of the most comprehensive and well-coordinated national infrastructures in the world”. Therefore, designing a mobile phone that only lasts up to a year and half (which is most likely a cost-cutting strategy that compromises quality), while abiding to state regulations and turning a profit, is definitely a more challenging task in countries that guard its markets, than in those that allow any product to reach store shelves. An additional aspect to consider when introducing a cellphone of these characteristics to any market is the general customer investment potential. For instance, the most popular cellular phone in Canada in 2015 was the Apple iPhone 5S, which has an average cost of approximately $900, compared to India’s most popular phone that same year, the Xiaomi Redmi Note 3 priced at the equivalent to a maximum of $200 dollars (Battery Box Blog, 2016). Design for a mobile phone must evaluate if the design will meet the customer’s expectations in each country, considering that in developing countries users are more likely to sacrifice features and level of quality for the price of sale.
Regarding the Life Cycle of the mobile phone, which is shown in Figure 1, several factors must be considered. For the stages of procurement of raw materials and manufacturing, which according to Chin Ning Tan is the most defining moment in the life and destiny of a mobile phone, the company should seek to utilize recycled materials to lessen the impact to natural resources. For the operation stage, the most important aspect to consider is the energy efficiency of the phone. Figure 2 compares the environmental impacts of each process in the life cycle of a cellphone. The most harmful element according to the chart are the ICs (integrated circuits). Considering this, for the disposal phase of the cycle, especial thought should be given to electronic waste management and recycling methods.
Figure 1 – Life Cycle of Mobile Phone
Source: Life Cycle Assessment of a Mobile Phone – Kevin Chin Ning Tan (2005)
Figure 2 - 2 Comparison of the environmental impacts for each process or material
Source: Life Cycle Assessment of a Mobile Phone – Kevin Chin Ning Tan (2005)
Work Cited
Chin Ning Tan, Kevin. «Life Cycle Assessment of a Mobile Phone.» Dissertation. 2005.
Curlo, Eleonora. «Marketing Strategy, Product Safety and Ethical Factors in Consumer Choice.» Journal of Business Ethics (1999): 37- 48.
Standards Council of Canada. Consumer Product Safety in Canada: A guide to standards and conformity assessment options for manufacturers, importers and sellers. Canada, 2012.
