Content deleted Content added
m Open access bot: doi updated in citation with #oabot. |
I have added findings from recent academic research on the context in which innovation is taking place. I have done that as the former version was a bit biased in the way innovation was framed in a very positive way. I have added some criticisms and a non-hegemonic account in the end. I have also restructured the history part and moved the non-history related content elsewhere. |
||
Line 51:
===Economics and innovation===
In 1957 the economist [[Robert Solow]] was able to demonstrate that [[economic growth]] had two components. The first component could be attributed to growth in [[Production (economics)|production]] including [[wage labour]] and [[Capital (economics)|capital]]. The second component was found to be [[productivity]]. Ever since, economic historians have tried to explain the process of innovation itself, rather than assuming that technological inventions and technological progress result in productivity growth.<ref>{{cite book | author1=Leonard Dudley |title=Mothers of Innovation: How Expanding Social Networks Gave Birth to the Industrial Revolution |publisher= Cambridge Scholars Publishing |year=2012 |page=4 |isbn=9781443843126 }}</ref>
The concept of innovation emerged after the Second World War, mostly thanks to the works of [[Joseph Schumpeter]] (1883–1950) who described the economic effects of innovation processes as ''[[Creative destruction|Constructive destruction]]''. Today, consistent neo-Schumpeterian scholars see innovation not as neutral or apolitical processes.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Jasanoff |first=Sheila |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226276663.001.0001 |title=Dreamscapes of Modernity |last2=Kim |first2=Sang-Hyun |date=2015 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-27652-6}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Papaioannou |first=Theo |date=2020-05-03 |title=Innovation, value-neutrality and the question of politics: unmasking the rhetorical and ideological abuse of evolutionary theory |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23299460.2019.1605484 |journal=Journal of Responsible Innovation |language=en |volume=7 |issue=2 |pages=238–255 |doi=10.1080/23299460.2019.1605484 |issn=2329-9460}}</ref> Rather, innovation can be seen as socially constructed processes. Therefore, its conception depends on the political and societal context in which innovation is taking place.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Robra |first=Ben |last2=Pazaitis |first2=Alex |last3=Giotitsas |first3=Chris |last4=Pansera |first4=Mario |date=2023-07-01 |title=From creative destruction to convivial innovation - A post-growth perspective |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497223000718 |journal=Technovation |volume=125 |pages=102760 |doi=10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102760 |issn=0166-4972}}</ref> According to Shannon Walsh, “innovation today is best understood as innovation under capital” (p. 346).<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal |last=Walsh |first=Shannon |date=2021-05-21 |title=Marx, subsumption and the critique of innovation |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13505084211015377 |journal=Organization |volume=30 |issue=2 |pages=345–360 |doi=10.1177/13505084211015377 |issn=1350-5084}}</ref> This means that the current hegemonic purpose for innovation is capital valorisation and profit maximization, exemplified by the appropriation of knowledge (e.g., through [[Patent|patenting]]), the widespread practice of [[Planned obsolescence]] (incl. lack of [[Repairability|repairability by design]]), and the [[Jevons paradox]], that describes negative consequences of eco-efficiency as energy-reducing effects tend to trigger mechanisms leading to energy-increasing effects.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Lange |first=Steffen |last2=Pohl |first2=Johanna |last3=Santarius |first3=Tilman |date=2020-10-01 |title=Digitalization and energy consumption. Does ICT reduce energy demand? |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800919320622 |journal=Ecological Economics |volume=176 |pages=106760 |doi=10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106760 |issn=0921-8009}}</ref>
== Types ==
Line 83 ⟶ 85:
==History==
{{See also|Innovation economics}}
Innovation must be understood in the historical setting in which its processes were and are taking place. <ref>{{Cite journal |last=Robra |first=Ben |last2=Pazaitis |first2=Alex |last3=Giotitsas |first3=Chris |last4=Pansera |first4=Mario |date=2023-07-01 |title=From creative destruction to convivial innovation - A post-growth perspective |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497223000718 |journal=Technovation |volume=125 |pages=102760 |doi=10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102760 |issn=0166-4972}}</ref> The first full-length discussion about innovation was published by the Greek philosopher and historian [[Xenophon]] (430–355 BCE). He viewed the concept as multifaceted and connected it to political action. The word for innovation that he uses, ''kainotomia'', had previously occurred in two plays by [[Aristophanes]] ({{circa |446}} – {{circa | 386}} BCE). [[Plato]] (died {{circa | 348}} BCE) discussed innovation in his [[Laws (dialogue) | ''Laws'']] dialogue and was not very fond of the concept. He was skeptical to it both in culture (dancing and art) and in education (he did not believe in introducing new games and toys to the kids).<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last=Godin, Benoit |title=Innovation contested: the idea of innovation over the centuries |year= 2015 |isbn= 9781315855608 |oclc= 903958473}}</ref> [[Aristotle]] (384–322 BCE) did not like organizational innovations: he believed that all possible forms of organization had been discovered.<ref>Politics II as cited by Benoît Godin (2015)</ref>
Before the 4th century in Rome, the words ''novitas'' and ''res nova / nova res'' were used with either negative or positive judgment on the innovator. This concept meant "renewing" and was incorporated into the new Latin verb word ''innovo'' ("I renew" or "I restore") in the centuries that followed. The ''[[Vulgate]]'' version of the Bible (late 4th century CE) used the word in spiritual as well as political contexts. It also appeared in poetry, mainly with spiritual connotations, but was also connected to political, material and cultural aspects.<ref name=":0" />
Line 93 ⟶ 95:
</ref> In the 1800s{{Timeframe|date=February 2022}} people promoting [[capitalism]] saw [[socialism]] as an innovation and spent a lot of energy working against it. For instance, [[Goldwin Smith]] (1823-1910) saw the spread of social innovations as an attack on money and banks. These social innovations were socialism, communism, nationalization, cooperative associations.<ref name=":0" />
In the 20th century, the concept of innovation did not become popular until after the Second World War of 1939-1945. This is the point in time when people started to talk about ''technological'' product innovation and tie it to the idea of economic growth and competitive advantage.<ref>{{Cite book| author1=Benoit Godin| title= The invention of technological innovation: languages, discourses and ideology in historical perspective| publisher=Edward Elgar Publishing| year=2019| isbn=9781789903348| oclc=1125747489}}</ref> [[Joseph Schumpeter]] (1883–1950), who contributed greatly to the study of [[innovation economics]], is
A prime example of innovation involved the boom of [[Silicon Valley]] start-ups out of the [[Stanford Industrial Park]]. In 1957, dissatisfied employees of [[Shockley Semiconductor]], the company of [[Nobel laureate]] [[William Shockley]], co-inventor of the [[transistor]], left to form an independent firm, [[Fairchild Semiconductor]]. After several years, Fairchild developed into a formidable presence in the sector.{{which?|date=February 2022}} Eventually, these founders left to start their own companies based on their own unique ideas, and then leading employees started their own firms. Over the next 20 years this process resulted in the momentous [[startup company| startup-company]] explosion of [[information technology|information-technology]] firms.{{cn|date=February 2022}} Silicon Valley began as 65 new enterprises born out of Shockley's eight former employees.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.netvalley.com/svhistory.html |title= Silicon Valley History & Future |publisher= Netvalley.com |access-date= 14 March 2016 }}</ref>▼
{{Cite journal |last1= Rubin |first1= Tzameret H. |last2= Aas |first2= Tor Helge |last3= Stead |first3= Andrew |date= 1 July 2015 |title= Knowledge flow in Technological Business Incubators: Evidence from Australia and Israel |journal= Technovation |volume= 41-42 |pages= 11-24 |doi= 10.1016/j.technovation.2015.03.002}}</ref>▼
In the 21st century the [[Islamic State]] (IS) movement, while decrying [[Bidʻah | religious innovation]]s, has innovated in military tactics, recruitment, [[ideology]] and geopolitical activity.<ref>{{cite book |last1 = Hashim |first1 = Ahmed S. |title = The Caliphate at War: The Ideological, Organisational and Military Innovations of Islamic State |year = 2018 |publisher = Oxford University Press |page = 7 |isbn = 9781849046435}}</ref><ref>▼
{{cite book |last1 = Scott Ligon |first1 = Gina |last2 = Derrick |first2 = Douglas C. |last3 = Harms |first3 = Mackenzie |editor-last1 = Reiter-Palmon |editor-first1 = Roni |chapter = Destruction Through Collaboration: How Terrorists Work Together Toward Malevolent Innovation |title = Team Creativity and Innovation |date = 15 November 2017 |publisher = Oxford University Press |isbn = 9780190695323}}</ref>▼
== Process of innovation ==
An early model included only three phases of innovation. According to Utterback (1971), these phases were: 1) idea generation, 2) problem solving, and 3) implementation.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Utterback|first=James|year=1971|title=The Process of Technological Innovation Within the Firm|journal=Academy of Management Journal|volume=14|issue=1|page=78|doi=10.2307/254712 |jstor=254712 }}</ref> By the time one completed phase 2, one had an invention, but until one got it to the point of having an economic impact, one did not have an innovation. Diffusion was not considered a phase of innovation. Focus at this point in time was on manufacturing.
▲A prime example of innovation involved the boom of [[Silicon Valley]] start-ups out of the [[Stanford Industrial Park]]. In 1957, dissatisfied employees of [[Shockley Semiconductor]], the company of [[Nobel laureate]] [[William Shockley]], co-inventor of the [[transistor]], left to form an independent firm, [[Fairchild Semiconductor]]. After several years, Fairchild developed into a formidable presence in the sector.{{which?|date=February 2022}} Eventually, these founders left to start their own companies based on their own unique ideas, and then leading employees started their own firms. Over the next 20 years this process resulted in the momentous [[startup company|
All organizations can innovate, including for example hospitals, universities, and local governments.<ref>{{cite journal|pmid=19104264|year=2009|last1=Salge|first1=T. O.|title=Hospital innovativeness and organizational performance: Evidence from English public acute care|journal=Health Care Management Review|volume=34|issue=1|pages=54–67|last2=Vera|first2=A.|doi=10.1097/01.HMR.0000342978.84307.80}}</ref> The organization requires a proper structure in order to retain competitive advantage. Organizations can also improve profits and performance by providing work groups opportunities and resources to innovate, in addition to employee's core job tasks.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=West|first1=Michael A.|year=2002|title=Sparkling Fountains or Stagnant Ponds: An Integrative Model of Creativity and Innovation Implementation in Work Groups|journal=Applied Psychology|volume=51|issue=3|pages=355–387|doi=10.1111/1464-0597.00951}}</ref> Executives and managers have been advised to break away from traditional ways of thinking and use change to their advantage.<ref>''MIT Sloan Management Review'' Spring 2002. "How to identify and build New Businesses"</ref> The world of work is changing with the increased use of technology and companies are becoming increasingly competitive. Companies will have to downsize or reengineer their operations to remain competitive. This will affect employment as businesses will be forced to reduce the number of people employed while accomplishing the same amount of work if not more.<ref>Anthony, Scott D.; Johnson, Mark W.; Sinfield, Joseph V.; Altman, Elizabeth J. (2008). ''Innovator's Guide to Growth''. "Putting Disruptive Innovation to Work". Harvard Business School Press. {{ISBN|978-1-59139-846-2}}.</ref>
Line 129 ⟶ 123:
The Kline [[chain-linked model]] of innovation<ref>Kline (1985). ''Research, Invention, Innovation and Production: Models and Reality, Report INN-1'', March 1985, Mechanical Engineering Department, Stanford University.</ref> places emphasis on potential market needs as drivers of the innovation process, and describes the complex and often iterative feedback loops between marketing, design, manufacturing, and R&D.
▲In the 21st century the [[Islamic State]] (IS) movement, while decrying [[Bidʻah | religious innovation]]s, has innovated in military tactics, recruitment, [[ideology]] and geopolitical activity.<ref>{{cite book |last1
▲{{cite book |last1
=== Facilitating innovation ===
Line 143 ⟶ 140:
The related technique of [[A/B testing]] is often used to help optimize the design of [[web site]]s and [[mobile app]]s. This is used by major sites such as [[amazon.com]], [[Facebook]], [[Google]], and [[Netflix]].<ref name="fastcompany">[https://www.fastcompany.com/3063846/why-these-tech-companies-keep-running-thousands-of-failed Why These Tech Companies Keep Running Thousands Of Failed Experiments]. Fast Company.com (21 September 2016). Retrieved 16 October 2018.</ref> [[Procter & Gamble]] uses computer-simulated products and online user panels to conduct larger numbers of experiments to guide the design, packaging, and shelf placement of consumer products.<ref>[https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/strategy_consumer_products_simulation_advantage/ Simulation Advantage]. Bcgperspectives.com (4 August 2010). Retrieved 16 October 2018.</ref> [[Capital One]] uses this technique to drive credit card marketing offers.<ref name="fastcompany" />
==
Different goals are appropriate for different products, processes, and services. According to Andrea Vaona and Mario Pianta, some example goals of innovation could stem from two different types of technological strategies: ''technological competitiveness'' and ''active price competitiveness''. ''Technological competitiveness'' may have a tendency to be pursued by smaller firms and can be characterized as "efforts for market-oriented innovation, such as a strategy of market expansion and patenting activity."<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal|last1=Vaona|first1=Andrea|last2=Pianta|first2=Mario|date=March 2008|title=Firm Size and Innovation in European Manufacturing|url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11187-006-9043-9|journal=Small Business Economics|language=en|volume=30|issue=3|pages=283–299|doi=10.1007/s11187-006-9043-9|issn=0921-898X|hdl=10419/3843|s2cid=153525567|hdl-access=free}}</ref> On the other hand, ''active price competitiveness'' is geared toward process innovations that lead to efficiency and flexibility, which tend to be pursued by large, established firms as they seek to expand their market foothold.<ref name=":3" /> Whether innovation goals are successfully achieved or otherwise depends greatly on the environment prevailing in the organization.<ref>{{cite journal|doi=10.1287/mnsc.35.5.597|title=Innovative and Noninnovative Small Firms: Types and Characteristics|journal=Management Science|volume=35|issue=5|pages=597–606|year=1989|last1=Khan|first1=Arshad M.|last2=Manopichetwattana|first2=V.}}</ref>
=== Organization-internal innovation failures ===
Failure of organizational innovation programs has been widely researched and the causes vary considerably. Some causes are external to the organization and outside its influence of control. Others are internal and ultimately within the control of the organization. Internal causes of failure can be divided into causes associated with the cultural infrastructure and causes associated with the innovation process itself. David O'Sullivan wrote that causes of failure within the innovation process in most organizations can be distilled into five types: poor goal definition, poor alignment of actions to goals, poor participation in teams, poor monitoring of results, and poor communication and [[access to information]].<ref>{{cite journal|author=O'Sullivan, David |year=2002|title=Framework for Managing Development in the Networked Organisations|journal=Journal of Computers in Industry|volume= 47|issue=1|pages=77–88|doi=10.1016/S0166-3615(01)00135-X}}</ref>
=== Environmental and social innovation failures ===
Innovation is generally framed as an inherently positive force, delivering growth and prosperity for all, and is often deemed as both inevitable and unstoppable.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Robra |first=Ben |last2=Pazaitis |first2=Alex |last3=Giotitsas |first3=Chris |last4=Pansera |first4=Mario |date=2023-07-01 |title=From creative destruction to convivial innovation - A post-growth perspective |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497223000718 |journal=Technovation |volume=125 |pages=102760 |doi=10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102760 |issn=0166-4972}}</ref> In this sense, future innovations are often hailed as solutions to current problems, such as [[climate change]]. This business-as-usual approach would mean continued and increased [[globalization]] as well as quick innovation cycles which supposedly will maximize the competitiveness of processes, in the end leading to [[Eco-economic decoupling]] or [[Green growth]]. Yet, it is unclear whether innovative solutions will be capable of solving the climate crisis: According to Mario Giampietro and [[Silvio Funtowicz]] (2020), this positive framing of innovation "demonstrates [a] lack of understanding of the biophysical roots of the economic process and the seriousness of the sustainability crisis".<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Giampietro |first=Mario |last2=Funtowicz |first2=Silvio O. |date=2020-07-01 |title=From elite folk science to the policy legend of the circular economy |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901120302033 |journal=Environmental Science & Policy |volume=109 |pages=64–72 |doi=10.1016/j.envsci.2020.04.012 |issn=1462-9011}}</ref> This is due to the fact that innovation can be understood in its specific historic and cultural context: The prevailing hegemonic view on innovation, as emphasized by Ben Robra et al. (2023), aligns closely with capitalist mode of production, shown by the mantra of 'innovate or die.'<ref name=":6">{{Cite journal |last=Robra |first=Ben |last2=Pazaitis |first2=Alex |last3=Giotitsas |first3=Chris |last4=Pansera |first4=Mario |date=2023-07-01 |title=From creative destruction to convivial innovation - A post-growth perspective |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497223000718 |journal=Technovation |volume=125 |pages=102760 |doi=10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102760 |issn=0166-4972}}</ref> From this viewpoint, innovation is primarily driven by the imperative of capital accumulation, serving the sole purpose of increasing returns, neglecting societal needs such as a clean environment or [[social equality]] and in general the biophysical limits of our planet.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hoekstra |first=Arjen Y. |last2=Wiedmann |first2=Thomas O. |date=2014-06-06 |title=Humanity’s unsustainable environmental footprint |url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1248365 |journal=Science |language=en |volume=344 |issue=6188 |pages=1114–1117 |doi=10.1126/science.1248365 |issn=0036-8075}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Rockström |first=Johan |last2=Steffen |first2=Will |last3=Noone |first3=Kevin |last4=Persson |first4=Åsa |last5=Chapin |first5=F. Stuart |last6=Lambin |first6=Eric F. |last7=Lenton |first7=Timothy M. |last8=Scheffer |first8=Marten |last9=Folke |first9=Carl |last10=Schellnhuber |first10=Hans Joachim |last11=Nykvist |first11=Björn |last12=de Wit |first12=Cynthia A. |last13=Hughes |first13=Terry |last14=van der Leeuw |first14=Sander |last15=Rodhe |first15=Henning |date=2009-09 |title=A safe operating space for humanity |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/461472a |journal=Nature |language=en |volume=461 |issue=7263 |pages=472–475 |doi=10.1038/461472a |issn=0028-0836}}</ref>
==Diffusion==
Line 169 ⟶ 168:
Innovative companies will typically be working on new innovations that will eventually replace older ones. Successive s-curves will come along to replace older ones and continue to drive growth upwards. In the figure above the first curve shows a current technology. The second shows an [[emerging technologies|emerging technology]] that currently yields lower growth but will eventually overtake current technology and lead to even greater levels of growth. The length of life will depend on many factors.<ref>Rogers, E. M. (1962). ''Diffusion of Innovation''. New York, NY: Free Press.</ref>
==Measuring innovation==
Measuring innovation is inherently difficult as it implies commensurability so that comparisons can be made in quantitative terms. Innovation, however, is by definition novelty. Comparisons are thus often meaningless across products or service.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Oxford handbook of innovation|date=2005|publisher=Oxford University Press|others=Fagerberg, Jan., Mowery, David C., Nelson, Richard R.|isbn=978-0-19-926455-1|location=Oxford|oclc=56655392}}</ref> Nevertheless, Edison et al.<ref name="Henry2013">{{cite journal|last1=Edison|first1=H.|last2=Ali|first2=N.B.|last3=Torkar|first3=R.|year=2013|title=Towards innovation measurement in the software industry|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256991991|journal=Journal of Systems and Software|volume=86|issue=5|pages=1390–1407|doi=10.1016/j.jss.2013.01.013|via=ResearchGate}}</ref> in their review of literature on [[innovation management]] found 232 innovation metrics. They categorized these measures along five dimensions; i.e. inputs to the innovation process, output from the innovation process, effect of the innovation output, measures to access the activities in an innovation process and availability of factors that facilitate such a process.<ref name="Henry2013" />
Line 344 ⟶ 343:
Many countries recognize the importance of innovation including Japan's [[Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology]] (MEXT);<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.mext.go.jp/english/a06.htm |title=Science and Technology |publisher=MEXT |access-date=7 September 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110905171421/http://www.mext.go.jp/english/a06.htm |archive-date=5 September 2011}}</ref> Germany's [[Federal Ministry of Education and Research]];<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bmbf.de/en/Ministry.php |title=BMBF " Ministry |publisher=Bmbf.de |access-date=7 September 2011}}</ref> and the [[Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China|Ministry of Science and Technology]] in the People's Republic of China. Russia's innovation programme is the [[Medvedev modernisation programme]] which aims to create a diversified economy based on high technology and innovation. The [[Government of Western Australia]] has established a number of innovation incentives for government departments. [[Landgate]] was the first Western Australian government agency to establish its Innovation Program.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.landgate.wa.gov.au/innovation |title=Home |website=Landgate.wa.gov.au |publisher=Landgate Innovation Program |access-date=14 March 2016}}</ref>
Some [[regions]] have taken a proactive role in supporting innovation. Many regional governments are setting up innovation agencies to strengthen regional capabilities.<ref>Morisson, A. & Doussineau, M. (2019). Regional innovation governance and place-based policies: design, implementation and implications. Regional Studies, Regional Science,6(1),101–116. https://rsa.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21681376.2019.1578257.</ref>
▲{{Cite journal |last1=
In 2009, the municipality of [[Medellin]], [[Colombia]] created [[Ruta N]] to transform the city into a knowledge city.<ref>{{Cite journal | doi=10.1080/23792949.2018.1538702|title = Knowledge Gatekeepers and Path Development on the Knowledge Periphery: The Case of Ruta N in Medellin, Colombia| journal=Area Development and Policy|volume = 4| pages=98–115|year = 2018|last1 = Morisson|first1 = Arnault|s2cid = 169689111}}</ref>
== Counter-hegemonic views on innovation ==
Innovation in the prevailing hegemonic view today mostly refers to 'innovation under capital'<ref name=":5" />, due to the prevailing capitalist nature of the global economy. In contrast, Robra et al. (2023) propose a counter-hegemonic view on innovation.<ref name=":6" /> This alternative lens revises the centrality of capital accumulation as the primary goal of innovation. Instead of being solely driven by profit motives, a counter-hegemonic understanding sees innovation as a means to create [[Use value|user-value]], with a focus on satisfying societal needs. This view on innovation is underpinned by [[open access]] to knowledge, adaptability, repairability, and maintenance of products as well as [[Eco-sufficiency]], defining progress not by efficiency but by staying within planetary boundaries, thereby challenging the hegemonic belief in [[The Limits to Growth|limitless growth]]. This perspective is exemplified by [[Commons-based peer production|commons-based peer production (CBPP)]], offering an alternative vision of innovation that prioritizes conviviality over relentless competition. In essence, this counter-hegemonic view describes a more socially and ecologically conscious approach to innovation, striving for a balance between technological progress and human wellbeing.
{| class="wikitable"
|+Hegemonic innovation vs. counter-hegemonic innovation (taken from Robra et al., 2023)<ref name=":6" />
!
!Hegemonic view
!Counter-hegemonic view
|-
|Purpose
|Capital valorisation and profit-making/maximizing
|Use-value creation and focus on societal needs
|-
|Underpinning common senses
|Fencing off and appropriation of knowledge
|Open access to knowledge
|-
|
|[[Planned obsolescence]] (incl. lack of repairability by design)
|Adaptability, repairability, and maintenance
|-
|
|Eco-Efficiency
|Eco-Sufficiency
|}
==See also==
| |||