A Smarter Hotel Stay

For those of us that are conscious of the environmental (and wallet) impacts of wasting resources at home, we're probably doing a great job of following the simple steps which can make a real difference - turning off lights, not running taps longer than necessary, turning the heating thermostat down a degree, etc.  But do we act in the same way when we're on holiday or a business trip, staying in a hotel?  Or do we find our behaviours are slightly more relaxed towards saving the environment?

Hotels today

Hotels today are likely to have various obvious measures in order to help reduce the environmental impact of your hotel stay:

• Use of room keycards, which cuts the power to the guestroom when unoccupied
• Encouraging reuse of towels for multi-day stays, saving energy and water
• Increasing use of energy efficient technologies as part of room refurbishment programmes - LED lighting, flatscreen TVs, water-efficient showerheads, etc.
• Use of shower gel / shampoo dispensers, rather than individual bottles
• EV charging points for electric vehicles

Behind the scenes too, hotels are starting to realise that their energy usage is a controllable cost, so are investing in retrofitting building-level efficiencies - energy efficient boilers, better kitchen equipment, integration of renewables, etc.  And of course for a new-build hotel, there's a chance to make even more dramatic changes, adopting new standards.

Hotels are also engaging with their suppliers, and insisting that products and services provided are sustainable - this could be everything from FSC-certified wood for beds, to printer cartridges, through to sustainably sourced seafood in the restaurant.
The three largest hotel brands are already making investments in their sustainability story.  They realise that not only might it be a regulatory requirement, or a way to reduce costs, but also it's great for reputation, and even to drive revenue (e.g. offering carbon calculators for meeting rooms attracts business bookings).

For example, IHG have launched an initiative called GreenEngage, which helps hotel managers identify key interventions, and compares to other hotels in the chain:

Over at the Hilton Group, they have a programme called Lightstay™ which does something similar:

Hilton also have some reduction goals:

• Reduce energy consumption by 20%
• Reduce carbon consumption by 20%
• Reduce waste output by 20%
• Reduce water consumption by 10% 

[Hilton, please could you also articulate the baseline year in your targets, the scope (e.g. by carbon, is it scope 1 and 2 only), and the expected timeframe?]

I'm most impressed by the innovation Hilton are showing with their waste reduction though.  In some cases, they've neatly integrated their approach into the importance of their role in society, with some local initiatives including:

• A partnership with the Global Soap Project (GSP), to recover and recycle soap for delivery to vulnerable populations
• Diverting excess food from conferences to local food banks
• Working with Good360™ to offer excess items from the property portfolio to community organisations

Beyond this, they are working with DH Hospitality and Serta to downcycle mattresses into tools, car parts, flooring and carpet padding.  They've even realised that with guests throwing-out 30% of newspapers, there's an innovative way to offer access to digital content, with USA Today, instead, reducing waste.


Finally, the Marriot Group are realising the multiple benefits a strong sustainability programme can deliver.

Could hotels do more?

So, we've established that hotels have started making your stay more sustainable, but also that for some guests, whilst on holiday, they might not be doing as much as they could to help out.  Can hotels help their guests even more? Maybe...

Here's the scenario I'd like to explore for a fictitious guest called Larry:

• The standard room rate is £70 per night.  As a member of the hotel's loyalty scheme, Larry is offered a chance to stay in one of the new 'environmental' rooms, at no additional cost
• Larry is made aware that his room's energy and water usage will be measured, and as an incentive to minimise usage, he will receive cashback (or hotel loyalty points), if he uses less than the average of all guests for that hotel, pro-rated for the time he stays
• Larry can view his usage from his smartphone during his stay, over the free Wi-fi
• At time of checkout, the meters are checked (remotely), and a suitable reward is credited to Larry's account
• Over time and multiple stays across other hotels in the chain, Larry can view his energy and water savings historically, on the hotel's website

Over time, if the incentives are set correctly, the average usage for energy and water should reduce for all participating guests, causing a virtuous circle of higher targets.

Technically, this would need some form of sub-metering, so each room's usage could be tracked - something which of course has a capital cost, but one which may well be compensated with increased loyalty and enhanced reputation.  It may also be more appropriate in cheaper hotels where guests may be more respondent to incentives, or even a way to tie into corporate rates, such that business guests get recognition from their employee too.

Should we even use hotels?

Finally, there's a very active debate going on at the moment as to whether the traditional hotel business model is being terminally threatened by the peer-to-peer room-sharing websites, most notably AirBnB.  Nobody expects them to takeover the whole hospitality market, but there may well be a tipping-point where it reduces occupancy rates in some hotels to such a level that the hotel chains will see margins eroded more heavily, with rate discounts required.

With threats looming to the hospitality incumbents, they have even greater incentive to reduce their costs, and provide innovative propositions which will lead to brand loyalty.

Sustainability's unintended consequences

In the insurance industry, there is a concept called 'moral hazard', and this articulates one of the unintended consequences of being insured - an insured person tends to take more risk than if they were uninsured (as the initial [financial] consequence has been externalised to the insurer).

In sustainability, corporations and regulators hope that their initiatives will have an exclusively positive impact, and of course, in most cases, they do. But, lurking beyond every corner, might there be an unintended consequence? Proactively thinking about these isn't easy, but might just help create a better long-term service, experience, or regulation...

Below I've outlined some examples where there might be unintended consequences - some are well-documented, some less so, and hopefully all stimulate some thinking.  Here we go...

Jevons Paradox

Jevons Paradox, or the related 'Rebound Effect' is an elephant in the room for energy efficiency.  Put simply, as things become more efficient, there is generally an increase in consumption. So, from an environmental aspect, unless regulation intervenes, technological advances in energy efficiency may cause a net increase in emissions.  For example, imagine in your home, you upgrade your boiler - it's now burning fuel more efficiently to heat your home. However, as you are aware of this, you might find yourself having the heating on for a little longer, or the thermostat up a degree, as it's "much more efficient than it used to be".

The EU tailpipe emissions legislation has transformed the automotive industry, and coupled with more local regulation like congestion charging in cities, has meant manufacturers are creating ever more efficient cars, and/or new powertrains which have a significantly reduced environmental impact. However, now a tank of petrol/diesel lasts so many more miles, might you find yourself using the car more, or perhaps driving a little less carefully?

Renewables

In most countries, the electricity grid is powered by a variety of sources of energy, often including a mixture of fossil fuels, some nuclear, and renewables like solar, wind and hydro-electric.  New kids on the block like fracking are also entering the ring as a potentially viable fuel source (its significant water use continuing to be an under-reported consequence).  As the proportion of renewables increases, could we reach a tipping-point where people think they can use energy 'guilt-free', ironically increasing consumption of the remaining fossil-fuel sources?

The lifecycle environmental impact of a product starts from the extraction of raw materials, through its usage phase, to disposal.  Renewables like solar panels and wind turbines of course have a positive usage phase - they generate 'carbon-free' energy.  But, it's more complex than that.  They rely on rare earth metals, and there is energy used in their manufacture.  And as energy storage (via batteries) becomes mainstream, it's important that their lifecycle is also considered.


Collaborative Consumption

Collaborative consumption promotes access of ownership, meaning that for physical goods, they are shared between multiple users, and either owned by a third-party, or perhaps by one of the participants (peer-to-peer).  The environmental benefit superficially is clear - if I share a power tool with my neighbour, that's one less power tool being manufactured, saving on its embodied carbon, transportation and disposal.  The more participants sharing the product, the greater the savings.

However, although trust is a key tenant of collaborative consumption, and works well when setup by/within the community, will everyone treat someone else's belongings as if it were their own?  For example, if you rent a car, might you drive it a little more recklessly than if it was your own?  Might you be a little less careful with someone else's power drill, especially if it was insured?

WEEE and the Circular Economy

The EU WEEE Directive enforces that suppliers have responsibilities for handling electronic waste ('eWaste').  This is, superficially, terrific news, as it supports the circular economy, with its desire to ensure that the materials used in the production of materials are reclaimed and reused at the end of their life.  However, there is another scenario, that without needing to feel guilty that waste electronics are going to landfill, people feel more relaxed about spending money on gadgets and disposing of them.  This will erode some of the sustainability benefits, as people may buy more gadgets, rather than less.  The same challenge may exist for any crude 'take-back' schemes...

3D Printing

3D printing has been latched onto by the world of sustainability, and I'll be honest, I've never really understood why!  Sure, in prototyping and R&D, I can see it being a more efficient way to produce early versions of products, and in a world where people can genuinely produce spare parts for a broken product (without invalidating a warranty), there may be advantages.  However:

• 3D printing can allow for personalisation of products, something which will no doubt be very popular once 3D printing becomes mainstream.  But having something personalised means there's less likely to be a secondary market for it, so once it's finished with, it might end-up in landfill, rather than a charity shop. [UPDATE June 2014: here's an example of a proposition from Asda]
• 3D printing is hard to get right - it's not like sticking a piece of paper into a traditional printer. I'd imagine a lot of waste products, from printers which aren't calibrated correctly
• I expect most things which are made with 3D printers at home are novelty items, with dubious value, and a limited timeframe of interest from the recipient. 

Green marketing

As we scan the shelves and racks of our favourite retailers, you will see more and more items which claim to be 'green' in some way, hoping to attract the conscientious consumer.  Of course, for the 'converted', this is great - it can mean they're able to buy more sustainable products, from washing powder, to waterless jeans.  The reality though, is that there are still those that have a pathological hate for green, and any 'big brother' institution that tries to ram such messages down their throats.  It's important to remember this, and make sure they aren't alienated - the real success of course is making their purchases more sustainable, perhaps without them knowing it!

Be careful what you measure...

Sustainability and CSR concern themselves with a wide range of issues, with a barrage of measures to help navigate this complexity.  Environmental impact might be measured in terms of carbon, waste, water, energy, or biodiversity, whereas the social side may include poverty, unemployment, literacy rates, disease levels, etc.  There's a real risk therefore of unintended consequences, where focusing on just one or two of these measures may have a negative impact on another.  For example, flying roses overseas from Kenya might seem to have a negative environmental impact (flying = bad), but it's more complex, as Fairtrade roses mean a fair wage for local workers who spend this income in their local economy.  Yet, on the other hand, in the Rift Valley, there's a huge concern with irrigation taking away from the fishing economy, and the valuable biodiversity the lakes provide.


So, in summary, sustainability initiatives are critical, and they're already having a huge success in reducing society's impact on the earth.  But it's always worth taking a step back, and just wondering if lurking beyond a corner is an unintended consequence...

The failure of planning to fail

Benjamin Franklin is attributed with saying "If you fail to plan, you are planning to fail".  And although planning to fail seems counter-intuitive, it is exactly what a large number of today's business models are based on.  It's known as 'Planned Obsolescence', and it's all about designing products to have a limited lifespan.  Think of a tablet/mobile phone with a battery you can't replace, or the latest fashion, which the owner will only want to be seen wearing for a very short period of time.  Eradicating planned obsolescence would be a significant step towards a more environmentally sustainable economy, but is it achievable?

There is a terrific documentary which I watched a year or so ago, whilst staying in Finland to photograph the Northern Lights. It's well worth a watch, but I've also included some of the key historical points below, with my additional thoughts:



A brief history of Planned Obsolescence

As early as the 1920s, manufacturers realised they should be able to sell more products if they design them to fail prematurely.  The most prolific example was a cartel called Phoebus, involving the major lightbulb manufacturers (perhaps slightly embarrassing for Philips and GE who are now sustainability pioneers!).  They collectively agreed to design lightbulbs with a lifetime limited to only 1000 hours, ensuring repeat purchasers from consumers.  A publication called "Printer's Ink" in 1928 articulated the phenomenon as "...any manufacturer of a quality product will tell you that the article which refuses to wear out is a tragedy of business.”

Roll time forward a little and in the US, in the 1930s, the depression had hit, and there was a desperate need to stimulate the economy, and reduce unemployment. Bernard London proposed making planned obsolescence a legal requirement in the US.  This proposal wasn't taken forward.

In the 1950s, as the economy in the US boomed, there were additional pressures to introduce planned obsolescence, and consumerism was born.  Brooks Stevens popularised the term 'planned obsolescence', as "instilling in the buyer the desire to own something a little newer, a little better, a little sooner than is necessary". Coupled with cheap credit and clever marketing, it became highly desirable to have the latest products, even if they weren't needed.  The transition from a 'Make do and mend' to a 'throwaway society' had been born.

Today of course, whole segments of the economy rely on selling cheap products to consumers, or marketing the latest disposable fashions.  If they are not explicitly designing products to fail, they are psychologically nudging consumers to want a newer version.  In a world with finite resources, this simply isn't sustainable anymore.

Clothing: from Style Obsolescence to secondary durable markets

Sustainability professionals aren't about to stop fashion seasons ('fast fashion'), but if the products are designed to be durable, there are plenty of options in secondary markets, or extending their lifetime:

• Charity shops
• M&S's Schwopping initiative
• peer-to-peer wardrobe sharing like Rentez-vous
• Patagonia's proactive support for repairing clothing
• Leasing clothes, like at Mud Jeans

Either clothing manufacturers directly, or perhaps retailers if they can survive, will need to develop business models which derive additional revenues from durable clothing.  This might include:

• Providing a wardrobe service, renting-out clothing for key events (an extension to the wedding suit hire services)
• Charge a small fee for a repair and cleaning service, perhaps partnering with local dry-cleaners to provide this
• Take-back 'previously loved' clothing, to resell (perhaps sharing proceeds with the owner and a charity)
• Nudge marketing away from the short-term fashion of a garment, to its longevity

Electronics/electricals: from Technical Obsolescence to repairs and upgrades

New models of products can bring huge innovations to consumers, e.g. new features, and improved performance.  But that doesn't always mean that the old product needs to be thrown-away.  Why not:

• Embrace the growing movement for people to repair products themselves, with the help of the likes of iFixit?
• Continue to develop new functions via software, rather than hardware, e.g. App Stores via a smart phone
• Design products to support physical upgrades, e.g. Phonebloks
• Embrace new business models where products are not sold, but rented-out by the manufacturer, deriving revenues from regular monthly payments, but including service within the price

Where do we go from here?

As the costs of raw materials either creep upwards or have volatile movements, manufacturers will start to explore some alternative business models, using the momentum of the 'Circular Economy' movement to develop collaborations; and in competitive sectors, some will succeed by differentiating themselves with an explicitly sustainable message.  But with entrenched interests in the incumbent business models and its associated marketing messages, it may be that regulation will have to play a role in order to create the required step-change.

An (Electric/Hybrid) Streetcar Named Desire

I find the automotive sector so fascinating when it comes to sustainability. The sector has got so much right already, and should be the envy of other sectors:

• a used-car (second owner) industry, extending the life of a physical product
• repair workshops (garages) and parts provision to maintain a car and keep it running efficiently
• a focus through EU regulation on tailpipe emission regulation (plus lots of other regulation like congestion charging)
• car-sharing clubs (including peer-to-peer) maximising the use of idle assets
• parts marked for dis-assembly, helping support re-use and/or waste stream segregation

However, in recent times, electric/hybrid cars have been considered niche/quirky, and received a lot of bad motoring press - over-priced for the performance delivered, question-marks about their battery-life and its range, and government subsidies not being enough to stimulate demand.

The key to a sustainability proposition, in any sector, isn't to appeal exclusively to those that understand the importance of sustainability, but develop a proposition which is simply better than the traditional alternatives. For cars, this can be measured across varying measures - performance (top speed, 0-60, etc.), purchase cost, warranty and reliability, equipment levels, brand, etc.  

When it comes to desirability, motor manufacturers showcase their expertise with supercars.  Although out of reach for most (and often considered symbols of excess and exuberance), they are critical in helping shift perceptions with both the public and the motoring press, increasing acceptability of alternatively fueled vehicles.

Here's a selection of the cars which are creating such a buzz in the industry at the moment... (links to manufacturers as part of titles)

McLaren P1

McLaren P1

McLaren P1

Porsche 918 Spyder

Porsche 918 Spyder

Porsche 918 Spyder

 
Ferrari LaFerrari

Ferrari LaFerrari

Ferrari LaFerrari

Ferrari FXX K

Ferrari FXX K

Ferrari FXX K

Ferrari FXX K

BMW i8

BMW i8

BMW i8

 

Tesla S

Tesla S

Tesla S

 
Of course, the purchase price of these vehicles (and their ownership profile) is unlikely to mean that in themselves, they will deliver a sustainable solution. But, they have every chance of being the catalyst to create a real step-change in the industry, as technologies filter-down to affordable parts of the range (or sister brands, e.g. Ferarri is mainly owned by Fiat, Porsche has links with VW, etc.), and 'Joe Public' generates demand at lower price points.  

And isn't it terrific that the car posters which kids today will be sticking on their walls will help them understand, shape and expect an even greener era of motoring.


In an upcoming blog I'll talk much more about the business model for mobility, and how the physical car is only part of the experience which needs be offered.

Can WEEE do better?

WEEE is 'Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment', and the WEEE Directive is European-wide regulation aiming to help reduce the amount of waste from electrical goods ('eWaste'), recently 'recast'.  Although simple in principle (don't send electricals to landfill), it's a highly complex area.  I wanted to explore how the Directive supports (or otherwise) the need to consume less, and encourage reuse.

***N.B. I'm no expert on this area, so if anyone is able to correct my interpretation of the WEEE Directive, please do so via the comments***

The relevant parts of the Directive for this blog are:

• WEEE is measured by weight
• WEEE is categorised, and reported separately.  So, '1 - Large Household Appliances' (e.g. a washing machine) are tracked separately to '3 - IT and Telecommunications Equipment' (e.g. a laptop)
• Until Dec 2015, at least 4kg (or average of last three years if greater) of WEEE per inhabitant of each member state must be collected (UK exceeded this).  After this, the collection rate is a % of the total average annual weight of new electrical products placed onto the market during the three preceding years
• The three main collection mechanisms for WEEE are reported separately:
• via a DCF (Designated Collection Facility), e.g. Local Authority
• via a PCS (Producer Compliance Scheme)
• via a AATF (Approved Authorised Treatment Facility)
• In 'Article 4' there is a need to consider ecoDesign principles, such that producers (manufacturers) do not inhibit the re-use of their products

Measuring WEEE by weight

I recently bought a new TV, after my old one (a Sony 28" CRT TV (KV-28LS35U)) was on its last legs (purchased in 2001).  It weighed 43Kg.

My Old TV - passed onto someone else via Freecycle

My new (A+ energy rated) LED TV weighs 14.3Kg, even though it has a 42" screen.  The same thing is of course happening with lots of technology, old computer CRT monitors with separate desktops, being replaced in homes by iPads, etc.  There are two implications of this to me:

• As less CRT TVs/monitors end-up in landfill (one assumes there is only a small proportion still in-use still to be replaced), we should start to see the absolute weight of annual WEEE in some categories reduce.  This should not be seen as a success of the circular economy, but just a natural consequence as new, lighter technology is replaced.
• Tracking absolute numbers of devices provides significant additional insight, albeit an overhead to record.

Targets of WEEE as % of EEE

To combat the 'lightweighting' of technology, the WEEE Directive will now have targets which are relative to the amount of new electrical equipment (EEE) entering the market.  Sounds sensible, and much better than an absolute weight target.  But:

• Where's the incentive for a manufacturer to explore its business model and move away from selling as many products as possible, and perhaps derive revenues from services, or experiences? 

Collection methods

I couldn't see anywhere in the WEEE Directive where there was a target to increase the relative use of PCS (Producer Compliance Schemes), compared to say the local authority.  This might be a missed oportunity, as putting the logistical burden as well as financial burden for taking-back used products onto the manufacturer may encourage innovation, e.g. designing for re-use, refurbishment, or even a business model where the product is leased between many users.

Could WEEE encourage consumption?

My hypothesis is that as WEEE becomes better understood by consumers, and accepted that it's well managed (e.g. treatment of hazardous waste, and export restrictions), consumers may buy more electrical devices guilt-free, not less.  This will be further enhanced by producers interrogating their supply chains to eradicate use of conflict minerals, for example.  Without suitable controls, lack of targets to reduce absolute numbers of devices, nor business models which don't rely on selling products, it may be difficult for a step-change absolute reduction to occur.  And will consumers with an environmentally conscientious mind shy away from Freecycle and the potential extended life of products a second owner could offer, if they feel WEEE manages all their concerns?

Competition versus collaboration

I'm not a manufacturer, but I'd imagine if I was, as WEEE targets/fines increase, I'd want to 'beat' my competitor.  There's nothing like competition to drive a bit of innovation.  Unless of course it's collaboration.  Imagine if there was some sophistication within WEEE where designers were incentivsed to not only produce devices which were easy to dismantle, repair and reuse, but also where common parts were shared to support the particular sector's sustainability ambitions overall.

What I'd like to see

• Regulation for manufacturers (and retailers) to be more accountable for the practicalities of dealing with their WEEE, not just the cost; that should drive innovation in reverse logistics (perhaps with industry collaboration), as well as the design of the product itself
• Targets which address the absolute quantity of EEE entering the market, not just the relative amount which gets managed as WEEE
• All devices designed for repair, upgrade, reuse and dismantling
• No glue
• Marked parts
• Modular design (e.g. Phonebloks)
• Common parts across sector, e.g. common external power supply for mobiles
• Regulation for longer warranties, driving durability in design

Every cloud has a silver lining...?

The floods in the UK in the last couple of months have truly been newsworthy, in fact some of my own (uninspiring!) footage of Guildford was used on a BBC London News bulletin:

In some parts of the country, water levels were (are!) reaching unprecedented heights, property, livelihoods and transport infrastructure has been damaged, and people are questioning how warnings have been ignored, with funding allocated to more vote-winning (until now) political areas.

I hope everyone comes through this safely, and Great Britain will bounce back and become stronger, perhaps considering some longer-term sustainability wins...

Respecting Nature

Although it's easy to assume that human activity hasn't exacerbated the impact of prolonged, heavy rain, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that changes in land-use in upland areas mean there's a greater likelihood of flooding in lowland areas.  Towards the end of 2013, before this recent flooding started, I started reading a book by Tony Juniper, "What Has Nature Ever Done For Us?".



It's an incredibly well-researched book with page after page of examples about the importance of the biodiversity and ecosystems we live around - and the monetary impact of taking them for granted.  Specifically, it cites examples where countries have seen the impact of changes of land use impacting flooding.  It certainly adds complexity to the potential move to allow destruction of ancient woodland (see Independent Article) - a habitat which is crucial to the UK.

Climate Change

Climate change is happening, and of course whether humans have contributed/caused it, is debated by some.  There is though, significant evidence to suggest that as the planet warms, the atmosphere has a greater capacity to store water and this will lead to a greater frequency of extreme weather events.  

Sometimes extreme weather in distant lands can be hard to relate to (albeit with global supply chains, the UK can feel the impact in indirect ways). Having such extreme weather events in the UK though, brings it (literally) home, and might help revitalise the debate about climate change.  What's going to be really interesting though is how to apportion efforts (and budgets) between adaptation (e.g. flood defences), versus mitigation (reducing carbon emissions to prevent as much as possible any negative changes in climate).

Sense of Community

Parts of the UK have lost their sense of community, but the importance of community is critical to a sustainable future.  There is nothing like a crisis to bring people together, so for flood-impacted areas, maybe a huge positive can be born.  Could we see collaboration between the local authority, large employers, community groups and charities coming together to create a resilient 'civil defence' group?  Could the same group explore community energy schemes, collaboration consumption, cycle (or canoe!) hiring schemes, etc?

The sweet smell of sustainability

Unilever has incredible scale, offering a bewildering array of products to consumers around the globe.  With that comes huge responsibility of course, something which luckily their CEO, Paul Polman, takes very seriously.  He is one of the few CEOs who are providing sustainability leadership both within his company, but also across industries.  Please take the time to read more about Unilever's 'Sustainable Living Plan'.

Compressed Deodorants

One of Unilever's recent innovations caught my eye - they've dramatically reduced the size of their aerosol deodorants.  For the same amount of product, they use half the amount of propellant, 25% less aluminium, and fewer lorries required to transport them.  There's more information on their microsite.  It's a great step and sets a new benchmark for the sector.  Even for those that won't make a purchase based on the environmental impact should find a smaller size attractive (as long as they understand it will last as long).

However successful this is, could there be even more innovation for this simple product?  Here are some ideas - what do you think?

• Aerosol vs. stick vs. roll-on.  There are three major form factors for deodorants - the aerosol, the roll-on, and the stick.  Do consumers know which will minimise their impact on the environment, taking account of their 'lifecycle' (impacts from raw materials extraction, to production, to transportation, to disposal/recycling)?
• Another form factor? When MUM (as in "Mum's the word") launched the first commercial deodorant in 1888, it was sold as a cream in a jar. Could a renaissance of that form factor work?
• Reusable components.  For a long time, Body Shop have sold a roll-on deodorant which is refillable, allowing part of the applicator (the ball and outer case) to be re-used.  Why is this not mainstream?

  

• Dosage Control.  My hunch is that most people use more deodorant that in actually required - a cheeky extra bonus spray, or extra smudge of roll-on?  Could the casing provide a default dosage of deodorant suitable for most people, perhaps with the ability to tweak up/down the default as the user (or their family, friends and colleagues!) got used to what's required?
• Sweat less.  Is there room for fabric technology innovation and clothing design to help minimise sweating?  Sports clothing already does this, so can any lessons be incorporated into other clothing?
• Sweat even less.  People sweat for lots of reasons, but there might be some common triggers, e.g. lack of fitness, coping with stress, lack of confidence in speaking, etc.  Could a manufacturer address the lifestyle and well-being of its consumers in a positive way, such that less product is required?  Could even a simple nudge to drink more cold (tap) water help?

A Smarter Kettle?

The humble kettle is found in almost every kitchen, and although there are a variety of shapes and sizes available, they basically perform the very simple function: boiling water safely.

Simple(ish) physics dictates how much energy is required to boil the water, so one might assume there is no room for design improvements in the way we use kettles.  However, maybe there are not just incremental improvements to design, but also some more radical approaches...

These are the incremental design considerations features all kettles could have:

• Durable design.  Kettles go through a lot in their lives and although a cheap kettle might save a few pounds up-front, it can be a false economy for both the purchaser and the environment, if it has to be discarded after a few months and a new one purchased.   Could a manufacturer design a kettle with a five year, or even lifetime, warranty?
• Low minimum fill.  Plenty of people only want to boil enough water for one cup/mug.  Let's make that possible, and make it very, very clear what that level is.  Of course, people have different sized cups and mugs, so why not make the markers user-adjustable, one for that favourite mug, another for the family tea-pot, etc.
• Variable temperature setting. You don't always need boiling water, so why waste energy boiling it unnecessarily? A lot of herbal teas and cold/flu remedies work with water at 90°C, so let's make that an option

My Bosch TWK86103GB - variable temperature setting

• Switch off when it's boiled.  A lot of kettles continue to boil the water for several seconds after the water has reached boiling point, unnecessarily

So far, so good.  But is buying a kettle, using it for 3-4 years, then throwing it out the right answer? Possibly not...

Rather than buying a kettle from a retailer, could the manufacturer offer a service direct to its consumers?  Beyond that, could they help build brand affinity even further?

Let's look at what a 50p a month (£6 per year) kettle service look like...

• You order a kettle direct from the manufacturer's website (with all the features outlined above).  It arrives in some reusable and foldable packaging, you're asked to keep
• You use your new kettle as normal
• If there's a problem, you send the kettle back to the manufacturer (freepost), and once validated, then send back a replacement/refurbished one; this offer is available for life, even if you move home
• The manufactuer is heavily incentivised to make their kettle last as long as possible, easy to upgrade/repair and minimise the use of raw materials in its production

And how about a £1 per month (£12 per year) kettle service?  Everything above, plus:

How about the kettle has an in-built USB stick*, and the ability to record how much water is put in the kettle when filling it, then compares to how much is actually used (poured)?  Uploading the data to the manufacturer's website allows a graphical display of how much water was boiled unnecessarily (and its approximate cost) - perhaps contrasting against others in a league table.  And perhaps this could also provide additional diagnostic information such as a recommendation for when to descale the kettle for optimum performance.  This data gives the manufacturer valuable insight into how their products are used for future innovation...

*Assumption is that a realtime Zigbee/wi-fi enabled kettle might be considered an invasion of privacy

What have we achieved with the ideas above?

• You and I still get to have a cup of tea whenever we want
• We find intuitive aspects of the product design which mean we only use the amount of water we need... and to the maximum temperature required
• Manufacturers are incentivised to make the kettles last as long as possible
• We, and the manufacturer, learn a little more about how we use our kettles

I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts, so please add your comments below.  If you've got any links for innovative approaches to kettles, please share these too.