Content uploaded by Andrius Plepys
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andrius Plepys on Jan 23, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Oksana Mont and Andrius Plepys
130
System Perspective on Service Provision:
A case of community-based washing centres for households
*Oksana Mont, Andrius Plepys
Abstract
Life cycle management has often paid more attention to environmental impacts of products than
services. In this paper, we devote more attention to evaluating environmental impacts of
product-services by investigating community-based services (CBS). Since they are provided close to
the end-consumer, CBS have a strong role in shaping consumption patterns and a certain potential in
reducing associated environmental impacts. The study aims at investigating the institutional
framework and the potential for reducing life cycle impacts through development and provision of
community-based services that substitute function delivery by a single product. In order to fulfil this
goal, a case of community-based washing centres in Sweden is studied from historical, institutional
and business perspectives and environmental outcomes of CBS are qualitatively and quantitatively
evaluated. The design of the services is discussed following the product service systems framework.
The results show that assuming the same behaviour in both cases, community-based washing
centres have lower resource consumption, which stems from high performance characteristics of the
installed equipment. The study also estimates the total saving on national level from using shared
washing facilities. However, it is demonstrated that behavioural aspects are very important in
determining the environmental soundness of service solutions. The paper proposes that energy
savings could be even larger if the laundry services would be provided by businesses and/or the users
would be better informed about optimisation possibilities of their washing operations. A number of
recommendations are also provided on how energy consumption of washing activity can be reduced.
Finally, the paper discussed the importance of specific policy interventions in developing more
sustainable services.
Key words: Product service system, life cycle management, energy consumption, institutions
Introduction
Studies demonstrate that many eco-efficiency improvements in production processes and
product design are undermined by increasing consumption levels associated with household
consumption. The contribution of households to overall environmental impact is on a rise and
will intensify in the coming 20 years. For example, in OECD countries, energy use grew by
36% from 1973-1998 and is expected to grow by another 35% by 2020. Likewise, by 2020 the
total motor vehicle stock will grow by 32% (personal cars represent 75% of it) and municipal
waste is projected to grow by 43% (OECD 2001; OECD 2002). Therefore, it is important to
find ways for reducing consumption-related environmental impacts.
One of suggested ways for reducing these impacts is to substitute functions and services
provided by individually-owned products with systems of shared use or services delivered
directly to households by various actors (Behrendt, Jasch et al. 2003). Community-based service
solutions can contribute by more efficient utilisation of product functions, faster replacement of
obsolete and inefficient products and technologies and improved management of negative
environmental impacts induced by consumption. Furthermore, community services generated
and consumed locally may be able to better satisfy consumer needs and at the same time reduce
transport-related environmental impacts. The environmental impact of household functions can
also be optimised by environmental design of CBS. In order to evaluate environmental impacts
and suggest design improvements of CBS a Life Cycle Management (LCM) concept can be
International Journal of Public Affairs Vol. 3, 2007
131
used, which traditionally has been applied to evaluating and reducing environmental impacts of
products rather than services. In this paper we use the LCM concept for comparing
environmental impacts of two systems, one of which is washing in a privately owned washing
machine and another one is washing in a community-based washing centre.
To take into account rebound effects stemming from increased use of products
(consumption levels), it is important to investigate how products and services are being used by
households (consumption patterns). Since consumption patterns of households are to large
extent affected by existing institutional frameworks, both normative and regulatory settings of
community-based services should be studied.
Thus this paper aims to investigate the potential for reducing lifecycle environmental
impacts through the development and provision of community-based services that substitute
product ownership based delivery of function. In the paper the institutional framework and
environmental impacts of community-based services are studied, taking a specific case from
Sweden. Community-based washing centres (CBS) are services of particular relevance for this
inquiry, since they are well embedded in the Swedish society, have a long history of institutional
support and infrastructural development, and a certain possibility to reduce environmental
impacts associated with washing function performed in households.
The disposition of the article is as follows. Section 2 presents a conceptual framework of
product service system used in presenting and discussing the case of community-based washing
centres from Sweden. Section 3 discusses the institutional context and Section 4 describes the
organisation of product service system around communal washing services following a
four-component model. Section 5 is devoted to an evaluation of environmental profiles of
washing centres versus private washing machines. Section 6 discusses possibilities for
environmental improvements and Section 7 discusses the success factors of such service
systems.
1. Framework for Evaluation and Methodology
The design, environmental and institutional features of the case are discussed in accordance
with the Product Service Systems framework (Figure 1), focusing on four key components of
product-service systems – products, services, infrastructure and actors networks.
The environmental outcomes of CBS are evaluated both qualitatively and quantitatively and
particular features of the service are discussed in terms of life cycle management. The intention
is also to learn more about the aspects of organisational structure, actor involvement and context
factors that led to a broader deployment and use of community-based washing centres in
Sweden.
Oksana Mont and Andrius Plepys
132
PSS feasibility
Institutional framework
PSS elements
Cultural context
Internal organisational
structures and changes
Product
Servi ce
Infra-
structure
Actor
networks
Environmental
soundness
Cust omer
satisfaction
(Social)
Business
viability
Normative
Regulatory
Cognitive
Organisa-
tional
layout
Figure 1 PSS framework (Mont 2004)
The main research methods used in the study were literature review, visits to
community-based washing centres, interviews with community planning authorities, equipment
providers (Electrolux), the first housing organisation that introduced washing centres in 1920’s
(HSB), historic statistical data on consumption and demographics, as well as consultations with
the Swedish Energy Agency on efficiency standards of washing and drying equipment.
2. Institutional Context of Community-based Washing Services:
Historical Context
The development of washing services is an example of a social development that was greatly
affected by ideological and political influences. In the first half of the 19th century, a clear trend
in household work was towards buying external services. From the middle of the century, the
opposite trend could be seen – towards so-called self-service economy (Cronberg and
Sangregorio 1978). According to Gershuny, in the self-service economy instead of buying
external services for household work, people can perform household tasks as efficiently due to
availability of technological solutions (Gershuny and Miles 1983). Also partly it became an
issue of cost. With the decreasing costs of products and increasing costs of labour it became
more economically feasible to shift self-services.
At the beginning of 20th century, washing was done manually at designated places. In cities,
water was available in apartment buildings, so that people could wash in their flats. However, for
big washing tasks there was still not enough space. Therefore, there was a need for some
communal premises, such as laundries, washing rooms and wash-houses (Cronberg 1987). Very
few apartment buildings actually had washing rooms for their tenants. Some studies show that in
1943 only 10% of houses in central Stockholm had access to washing rooms that were used by
250 households (Rosén 1993). In that case they were equipped with rinsing bowl and boiling
wall, in which water could be boiled on the open fire in an immured bowl.
First in 1950s, real estate companies started to regularly equip their newly built houses with
washing rooms and washing machines (Mitchell 1993). HSB, a real estate company, was the
International Journal of Public Affairs Vol. 3, 2007
133
first one in Sweden to equip washing rooms with machines (Rosén 1993). The alternative was
communal wash-houses, as by 1948 only 1% of all households could afford own washing
machine (Kjellman 1989). It was calculated that by 1958, around 30% of flats had access to this
type of washing facilities (Hagberg 1986).
Still, according to an official report, in 1955 70% of washes were done manually
(Henriksson 1999). By the end of 1960s, already 80% of population had access to small washing
centres, well equipped with automated washing machines. Out of these, less than half owned
washing machine at home (Hagberg 1986). The development went not towards big
wash-houses, but towards having washing facilities in apartment buildings. However, capacity
of these places was not sufficient, so households could wash only once a month or even every
other month (Henriksson 1999).
In the last three decades of the 20th century, majority of people wash themselves either with
own washing machines or at the communal washing facilities situated close to households.
Henriksson suggests that we wash more often and smaller amount of cloth per time, but the total
amount of laundry is constantly increasing. Reasons to this increase will be discussed in the
section on environmental impact of washing (Henriksson 1999).
Regulatory support
In Sweden, the issue of establishing washing centres was first given attention during the
1930s and the 1940s by the Swedish Housewives’ Association and other women organisations
in the context of easing the burden of housewives. The discussion was of both political and
socio-economic nature – whether to promote women as workforce or as housewives (Rosén
1993). Following the chosen course towards integrating women into the work market, the
question of assisting women in household activities got regulatory support. Hagberg (1986)
suggests that it was also an ethical issue – to help women with the most strenuous household
activity of the first half of the 20th century. (Hagberg 1986)
During 1939-1946, a direct financial support was given to cooperative washing centres in
countryside (Kjellman 1989). By the end of that period, approximately 70 such centres were
established in Sweden (Henriksson 1999). In order to get financial support, cooperative washing
centres had to be equipped with washing machines and be driven as economic entities, with
participants being share subscribers.
Some of the cooperative washing centres developed into proper service companies because
they were often situated far away from the households and many users found it difficult to use
them as self-service places (Kjellman 1989). In 1947, an official report “Collective washing”
advocated collective way of doing laundry (SOU 1947:1 1947). It did not however provided
clear guidance regarding which forms of washing should be promoted in countryside and in
cities. A new official report from 1955 preferred self-service washing centres and external
washing services to washing in one’s home. Rosén (1993) implies that this report promoted
more technologically and economically efficient solutions. At the beginning of 1960s, the
countryside households started using private washing machines and in cities communal washing
centres were spreading, while commercial washing facilities became more and more
marginalised (Henriksson 1999).
Later, a number of authorities, such as Consumer Protection Agency, Swedish National
Board for Industrial and Technical Development, The National Board of Housing, Building and
Planning followed up the development of communal washing centres (CWC) in a range of
studies and provided a number of recommendations on how these centres should be equipped,
how they should be designed so that households would be satisfied.
Current Swedish legislation about rental and owned flats provides guidelines about baseline
equipment and location of CWC and sets the standard that needs to be fulfilled by organisations
Oksana Mont and Andrius Plepys
134
that build and own them. The Association of Tenants and the Society of Tenant-owners also
provide recommendations on accessibility and availability of CWC for newly built and existing
apartment buildings and areas of smaller housing. The Energy Authority and other organisations
also provide guidelines and advocate the instalment of energy-efficient equipment in the centres.
In 1989-1990, a special Secretariat for promotion of efficient use of energy at the Swedish
National Board for Industrial and Technical Development (NUTEK) was established. In 1991 it
organised a competition among manufacturers for developing energy efficient washing machine
specifically for communal washing centres. The Electrolux model Wascator won the
competition and was guaranteed to sell these machines to over 100 washing centres (NUTEK
1995). The Secretariat provided subsidy to the first 100 washing centres that would like to
upgrade their equipment. The competition had wider effect on the entire industry too and many
equipment manufacturers followed the trend towards more energy efficient equipment.
Clearly the political preferences towards communal washing centres played against
commercial washing services and therefore the manufacturers concentrated on improving
efficiency of production and on product, rather than on developing services (Kjellman 1989).
Normative settings
The patterns of consumption of products or services are also greatly affected by the
prevailing normative settings. For example, the degree of cleanliness and consequent washing
temperatures and frequency of washing are affected by societal standards of cleanliness
(Chappells, Klintman et al. 2000). Each of us has own understanding about how clean we want
our cloth to be. These standards however are not only set by individual preferences; they are
shared and shaped by people. When using machines, people reproduce standards of behaviour
that accompany material artefacts. These standards are learned by people in the course of life
and include personal financial and time resources to be spent on activity, labour efforts,
conventions about proper dressing and social rules about personal hygiene.
Patterns of washing greatly affect environmental impact of washing and depend on the
socio-economic status and employment situation in the household. For example, people with
higher education tend to wash less. One adult present at home all day (not working) tend to wash
more. There are also differences between old and younger generations. Older people tend to
wear cloth longer and then wash them with higher temperature and with full machine.
Younger generation separates cloth in many fractions and does not usually fill the washing
machine, but usually washes with lower temperatures (NUTEK 1994). So the total energy use is
approximately the same.
Media and role models affect these standards and can either sustain or undermine them. For
example, a visit of the Swedish Queen Sylvia to a communal washing centre in Rinkeby,
Stockholm clearly increases prestige of this particular and all other communal washing centres
(Carlsson 1999).
While in the early years, launderettes and washing services were the economic necessity,
their role changed in the modern days. Owning a washing machine has long ago seized to be a
luxury for many families and today it corresponds to less than 5% of the average net annual
household income in Sweden. Nevertheless, a sizable share of households, especially those
living in apartment buildings, opts to use shared launderettes. Even those families owning
washing machines often use public launderettes to save time and the nuisance, as well as for
practical reasons, e.g. for washing larger items such as carpets, pillows, etc.
There several main reasons for the increasing popularity of public washing facilities. The
lack of space and excessive noise are perhaps the most straightforward, however, other factors
are important too. There are several economic and demographic changes taking place in Sweden.
One of the most relevant is that the number of households (especially young singles and elderly)
International Journal of Public Affairs Vol. 3, 2007
135
has been steadily growing over the last decades. This is stimulated by the trends, such as
children leaving their parents’ home at a younger age, young people creating long-term
partnerships and having children later in life, as well as ageing population moving to elder care
institutions.
Other factors could be economic. In many tenant associations the users of shared
launderettes are often charged a flat rate independent from the frequency of use. In this way all
members of community share the costs of energy, water and facilities. In Sweden it is not
uncommon that electricity costs are included in the total running expenses, which essentially
does not provide strong incentives for energy saving. On the other hand, users of private
washing machines are usually charged an extra fee (often at fixed rate) for having a possibility to
install private washing equipment.
All the aforementioned factors contribute to the “normalisation” process of
community-based washing centres. They have been embedded into the every day fabric of
Swedish life and are considered a legitimate part of household.
3. Product-Service Organisation
According to the product service system framework (Figure 1), the main elements of a
product service system are products, services, infrastructure and actor networks. These main
elements are outlined in this section in relation to the community-based washing centres.
Product
A clear trend in communal washing centres is towards using semi-professional: they have
the same or only slightly higher capacity than washing machines for private use, but often have
state of the art choice of functions and options. They are usually more energy and water efficient
than the washing machines for private use. These machines are built for easy management,
shorter washing cycles, and provide a broader variety of different washing modes at different
temperatures. The driers are also semi-professional with requirement for short dry cycles and
easy use.
According to Swedish norms, each washing centre should serve 15 flats. Due to the fact that
many flats install their own washing equipment, each commune decides how many machines
should be installed to fulfil the need of households. It is usually calculated so that 25-30 flats
could use one washing room (Rosén 1993). Each room usually contains 2-3 washing machines
and drying equipment. The drying equipment consists usually of a drying tumble drier and a
drying cupboard. In many washing systems that are situated outside the house, special drying
rum is common. Users can dry their cloth on the clothesline and leave them over night.
Depending on the economic situation in the commune, washing centres can be also equipped
with centrifuge, ironing place for small items and a special equipment for ironing of bed linen.
Many new models of washing equipment today are gradually integrated with information
technologies, which allow automatically determine required dosage of detergents based on water
parameters, amount of wash and chosen washing cycle. This is important since some
environmental improvements can be reached by saving of washing detergents. About 50,000
tons of washing detergents are used in Sweden annually and according to some estimates, this
consumption could be lower by as much as 12 000 tons/year with optimal dosage of detergents.
The main contributing factors for overdose are variety of detergents, lack of knowledge about
proper dosage and incorrect estimates of water hardness (Konsumentverket 2003).
The recent trend in marketing washing machines is to address use-related environmental
impacts and inform customers about energy and water consumption and consequently about
potential savings. Electrolux AB was the first company in Sweden to present life cycle cost
information to the final customers at retail places.
Oksana Mont and Andrius Plepys
136
Service
Two general types of communal washing centres exist: a centre situated in a staircase of a
building or a centre situated in a separate building in close vicinity to tenants. The first type is
usually planned in multi-store houses, while the second type is used for one- or two-store houses.
These two types define working regime of these washing centres. As machines are situated in
house in the first case, there are usually certain restrictions of time of use (typically from 7.00
a.m. to 22.00 p.m.), so that no tenants are disturbed. Often community installs automatic system
that switches on and off electricity in the CWC to keep the time regime. The CWC situated
outside can work 24 hour.
Various types of booking systems exist. The simplest one is when households write down
their names and time for which they will require washing room. In other places a special key
system is being developed so that only one washing cycle can be booked at once. Other systems
use telephone booking that is connected to each washing machine and a lamp is lighted after
booking and lights for 20 minutes after the booking. In some CWCs, the time slots for washing
are predetermined and regulated, e.g. from 7.00 a.m. to 10.00 p.m. with no more than 4-5 hours
washing per household (HSB 2003).
The tenants generally can use a washing centre without additional costs, but sometimes a
system is developed where people pay per every wash. Special rules are developed that
prescribe that after having washed each user should clean the filters in a drier, mop the floor and
in general leave the room in the same clean condition as it was. In order to keep track about how
the rules are being followed, big washing rooms with up to 10 machines are usually broken up
into smaller rooms. The tendency to build new houses with washing room in the staircase makes
it easier for households to carry the laundry and also to keep the common places clean.
Future scenarios for communal laundry room are based on the ICT application as intranet
system that allows obtaining real time information concerning free wash times and booking
online. A special code could be used to enter the washing room. The machines are also upgraded
and include the system for automatic dosage of detergent. The cost for the use of the laundry
room, including the price of detergent, directly included into one’s housing account. The
different washing programmes of the machines will have different price and through that
households will be encouraged to avoid unnecessarily high washing temperatures and use of
washing programmes with pre-wash and main wash for not very dirty laundry. In this way
potential savings in energy consumption, detergent use and effluent can be envisaged
(Miljöteknikdelegationen 1999).
Infrastructure
The popularity of the communal washing centres is greatly facilitated by well-designed
infrastructure and convenient access. The development of infrastructure has been facilitated by
both governmental regulations, the initiatives from the housing companies and tenants’
associations. For example, housing organisations started providing assistance with washing at
home already since 1920s, when first uniformly designated washing rooms equipped with
rinsing bowl and boiling wall were installed in multi-storied buildings. By the 1950s it became a
practice for the real estate companies to regularly equip their newly built houses with washing
rooms and washing machines (Mitchell 1993). In the last three decades of the 20th century,
majority of people wash either with own washing machines or at the communal washing
facilities situated close to them.
Even the distance to the washing centre was taken into account in different guidelines. For
example, it is suggested that the centres must to be situated in the close vicinity from households.
The community based washing centres are required to be within 50-100 meters distance to all
International Journal of Public Affairs Vol. 3, 2007
137
flats. Communal washing centres therefore became an integral part of the building plans,
including construction of the facility, installation of electricity lines, water pipes and ventilation.
Since the majority of communal washing centres were available to tenants without extra
payment (the costs are usually already included in the rent), energy saving is an important issue.
For this reason many washing centres have centrifuges for efficient de-watering of laundry to
save energy in tumble driers. Some washing centres even expand the infrastructure to include
drying rooms where the laundry could be hung for a longer time. Sharing the costs of owning
the facility made a more expensive semi-professional equipment affordable.
Networks and stakeholders
Very often household-oriented service solutions are developed without involving one or
another relevant actor. Co-operation between the housing sector, community residents, external
service providers, manufacturers and local authorities/governments is necessary in order to
develop convenient and cost-efficient services. The principal actors in each of these actor groups
include:
・ Housing sector: housing organisations, housing service providers, construction companies
and utility providers;
・ External service providers: traditional profit-oriented service companies and/or renting,
leasing and pooling commercial service companies that are not directly involved in the
housing sector and are competing on the market;
・ Local government: city planning authorities, authorities controlling housing standards and
authorities responsible for social services;
・ Manufacturers of equipment and products
・ Residents: private property owners and tenants.
In the case of community-based washing centres, it is difficult for a product manufacturer to
establish a local system of service provision. Therefore many equipment manufacturers look for
potential local partners who can provide the service. For example, the Professional Appliances
division at Electrolux AB assists initiators in starting a new launderette equipped with Electrolux
equipment. In addition, the company offers installation and training, suggests layout of
equipment location, supports with environmental permits, market surveys, contracts for
maintenance and repair, guarantees, and financial schemes. In order to install the communal
washing centre, producers are closely working with housing companies and tenant associations.
Actually, collaboration starts even earlier, at the product design stage. According to Wascator, a
branch of Electrolux AB that develops equipment specifically for washing centres, it is the
customers who drive and shape the development of their products. Furthermore, it is often the
service personnel of the local service provider who also contributes to the product development
process.
Community-based washing services are open and flexible systems: several actors may
participate in the service delivery, various levels of formality can link these actors and various
life cycles of products become a part of the service delivery system. The main stakeholders are
businesses, including equipment manufacturers and service companies, and customers,
comprising real estate companies and tenants.
From the equipment manufacturer point of view, communal washing centres have two main
customers: the housing company that builds the facility and the final users – households.
Housing companies are usually satisfied with the service provided by producers or service
companies, which install the machines, provide maintenance and replace the machines once
they are old or could be upgraded. Caretakers of the housing communities usually check the
Oksana Mont and Andrius Plepys
138
cleanliness of washing centres, but the entire service is bought as a part of the washing solution
from the producer or a service company. Households show varying degrees of satisfaction with
communal washing: 70% are satisfied with the distance to the washing centre, 50% with the
availability of washing time, 76% with the quality of equipment and only 40% are satisfied with
cleanliness of the washing facilities (SIFO 2000).
Installation of the washing centre should of course be profitable for the housing community.
Sometimes communities face tough choices when it comes to short-term economic savings and
the possibility to reduce environmental impacts of washing centres in the long run. A choice
between different types of washing machines may affect quality of washing, environmental
parameters and economic efficiency. For example, a 4.6-kg machine has a special construction
that allows using less energy and water than 3.4-kg machine. However, the price of the smaller
machine is almost half the price of the 4.6-kg machine and it is up to each community to balance
economic and environmental parameters (Rosén 1993). For households, the cost of washing
facilities is not transparent, as it is usually included into the monthly rent. Households that install
their own washing machines pay triple: for the communal washing centre, for own washing
machine, and for electricity and water consumed by their own machine.
Economic benefits of centralised large-scale industrial service solutions vs. private
household services are widely discussed in the literature. Heiskanen & Jalas mention a number
of studies, which argue that private consumers doing home laundry have different kinds of costs,
many of which are hidden or too small to be visible and thus are not always optimised. On the
contrary, in industrial laundry installations economic optimisation is more likely, at least due to
the scale of the costs (Heiskanen and Jalas 2003). Commercial operators are interested in
reducing these costs (e.g. energy, water, detergents, etc.) and, therefore, tend to invest into
large-scale equipment and state-of-the art technologies.
4. Environmental Implications of Washing Alternatives
To have a better insight into the environmental performance of the two consumption models
of washing in the Swedish context, product ownership alternative was compared to the
alternative of shared washing services. The comparison is based on the most recent typical data
on washing machines, user behaviour and historic trends in Sweden reflected in statistical
databases and information from housing companies and equipment manufacturers.
The lifecycle perspective on resources consumption
Community-based laundry facilities may reach lower environmental impacts than those
originating from privately owned washing machine. For example, a study by the Swedish Local
Investment Programme, showed that the typical electricity consumption for washing centres is
0.4 kWh/kg, while in the households this value is 0.8 kWh/kg (LIP-kansliet 2002). This likely to
occur due to a possibility to use more technically advanced equipment, since the burden of
higher investment can be shared in the community. One part of improvements stem from
reduced hardware stocks, higher intensity of use results in shorter lifetime and faster upgrading
of the equipment.
Other benefits can be reached from the potential of increasing washing efficiency in the
washing centres, which is due to the access to larger-scale machines and equipment that is rarely
used in home applications (e.g. IT-enabled washers, high-speed stand-alone centrifuges, heat
exchangers, etc.). Furthermore, centralised facilities for community-based services could be
operated by trained people, which saves time and provides additional employment. Figure 2
illustrates the results from an LCA study in terms of energy and water consumption and land, air
and water pollution. It is obvious that most of the environmental impact from the life cycle of a
washing machine takes place in the user stage, which stresses the point that both the choice of
International Journal of Public Affairs Vol. 3, 2007
139
the resource efficient equipment and the optimal use of machines and detergents during
operation are the critical factors determining the overall environmental profile of laundry
services.
0
20
40
60
80
100
Production Distribution Use Disposal
Energy use
Air pollution
Water pollution
Solid waste
Water pollution
Figure 2. Lifecycle environmental impact of a washing machine (Lewis, Gertsakis et al. 2001).
Environmental impact of washing cloth depends to a large extent on both societal rules of
cleanliness and on individual patterns of machine use. As other studies show, the environmental
benefits of launderettes are not clear-cut. A lifecycle assessment study performed at the
university of Amsterdam, for example, compared domestic washing and a washing in a public
commercial launderette (Vrhunc 2000). The results of this study show that launderettes impose a
larger overall environment burden than washing at home – around 35-45% in almost all impact
categories. Overall energy consumption in the use phase was the largest influential factor, while
the materials and energy used in the production of washing machine, and the transport of
washing machine was negligible. In terms of energy consumption in the use phase, the study
showed, that washing in a launderette is 30% more energy intensive than washing at home
(Vrhunc 2000). Factors that contributed to a more favourable environmental profile of domestic
washing were exclusion of thermal-drying at home and inclusion of car-travel to the launderettes.
At the same time the study acknowledged that domestic washing looks less favourable from the
environmental point of view when on-foot laundry delivery, more efficient laundry equipment
and drying at home are included in the analysis (Vrhunc 2000).
In community-based laundry facilities all laundry deliveries are on-foot, and most of the
basic maintenance (e.g. cleaning and tuning) is performed by the users or local personnel (e.g. a
caretaker). In addition, the author did not consider the fact that many launderettes have
high-speed stand-alone centrifuges, which allowed reducing energy demand for drying. Finally,
most of private owners of washing machines also have drying equipment. Therefore, while the
results of Vrhunc’s study are valid for commercial launderettes, they are less likely to be
applicable to community-based washing facilities (Vrhunc 2000).
Indeed, energy characteristics of laundry equipment (Table 1) indicated that energy
efficiency increases along with the size of machines. The positive impact of large-scale
operations can be illustrated by the results of a survey on performance characteristics in 34
Oksana Mont and Andrius Plepys
140
industrial washing facilities performed by the European Partners for Environment (Table 1).
The results of these studies and surveys indicate that washing using larger-scale equipment could
potentially be more environmentally beneficial (given that it is used optimally) than smaller
scale household machines.
Table 1. Comparison of average resource consumption in industrial and household-sized washing
facilities and by large and small-scale washing machines.
Whole facility Washing machines
Type of washing: Industrial Domestic Industrial (*) Domestic(**)
Water, l/kg 16 - 18 12-16 11.80 10.90
Electricity,
kWh/kg 0.2 - 0.3 0.9 0.13 0.21
Source: (EPE 2001) See
Table 4
6.5-24 kg
machines
(Electrolux, 2004)
3-6.5 kg machines
(Konsumentverket
2004)
* - based on characteristics of 6 models of “Wascator” available in 2004.
** - based on a survey of 266 models available in 2004.
In order to contribute to the discussion, we conducted a series of estimates on energy
consumption by privately owned and community-shared laundry facilities.
Energy consumption in domestic laundries
In general, the annual amount of laundry per household has drastically increased since
middle of 20th century along with the increased demands for washing standards. In Sweden for
example, it changed from 290 kg in the 1930s to 500 kg in 1980s. Weight in this case does
adequately describe the amount of washing, since textiles are becoming lighter thus total cleaned
area of cloths has increased too (Henriksson 1999).
The increased amount of laundry gives some indication about potential consumption of
energy, water and detergent and associated increasing environmental impact. According to some
Swedish municipal surveys, about 60% of energy in a household goes to heating, ventilation and
electricity. About 60% of electricity is used for white goods, such as refrigerator, freezer, oven
and laundry equipment (Olsson 2003:9). Activities related to food preparation in a private house
consume about 45% of all electricity. Energy consumption in laundry varies significantly. In
private houses it is about 20% and in apartment buildings – up to 13-42 % of total electricity
consumption (Hedberg, Dreborg et al. 2003:28).
An average person in Sweden washes about 200 kg annually. Calculating energy
consumption using a bottom-up approach requires taking into consideration energy efficiency of
laundering, which in turn depends on performance characteristics of equipment as well as user
behaviour factors, such as loading rate and the choice of washing programme. For example,
household washing machine with a maximum loading capacity of 3.5 kg is typically loaded by
about 2-2.5 kg (Energimyndigheten 2003). This implies that an average person runs about
80-100 washing cycles per year, which, assuming two washes per laundry, results in 50 laundry
days, i.e. about one per week. An average Swedish household consisting of 2.1 persons (SCB
2003a) then washes 400-500 kg laundry per year, which in our estimate implies a weekly
laundry with around 4 machine-loads.
International Journal of Public Affairs Vol. 3, 2007
141
This estimate corresponds to a survey conducted by a Swedish association of municipalities
KSL, according to which, a typical family uses a washing machine and a drying cupboard for
about 4 hours/week. Some households instead of a drying cupboard use a tumble dryer,
estimated use of which is 2 hours/week (KSL 2004). Similar conclusions have been made in
other countries too. For instance, in 1993 in Germany, an average household washed 500 kg
laundry/year (221 kg per capita) with on average 182 washing loads per year per household or
80 loads per capita (Table 2)
Table 2. Washing patterns in Germany (1993) and Sweden (2003)
Germany Sweden
Per household Per capita Per household Per capita
Laundry weight, kg 500 221 420 200
Machine filling rate, kg 2.75 2.75 2-2.5 2-2.5
No. of washes per year 182 80 160 - 200 80 - 100
Source: cf. (Bode, Pfeiffer et al. 2000) (KSL 2004)
Electricity consumption in a washing machine depends on maximum loading capacity,
loading rate and the choice of washing programme, which determines temperature and the
number of washing cycles. Specific characteristics of individual machines thus differ widely, but
a market survey of laundry equipment in Sweden provided a picture about prevailing models.
We analysed the data from Swedish Consumer Agency on 266 models and brands of washing
equipment sold to Swedish households or for domestic use. The survey of equipment labelling
by the European Energy Label showed that most of the washers are A-labelled and most of the
dryers – C-labelled (Table 3).
Table 3. Numbers of different models of washing and drying appliance sold in Sweden
according to awarded EU energy label (Konsumentverket 2005)
Number of models
Energy label Washing equipment Drying equipment
A 224 1
B 29 0
C 8 76
D 5 11
Total 266 88
The distribution by maximum equipment loading capacity is shown in Figure 3. For
simplicity we assumed that a 5 kg machine is the most typical in an average Swedish household,
while the typical machines used in communal laundry facilities have the loading capacity of 7-8
kg. Since out of 266 models only 14 had combined drying and washing function, we assumed
that a typical Swedish household buys drying equipment separately.
Oksana Mont and Andrius Plepys
142
No. of m odels of w ashing m achines
531
38
125
20
60
11 21
33,544,555,56 7 810
Loading capacity (kg)
Figure 3. Distribution of different models of washers by loading capacity (Konsumentverket 2005)
The performance characteristics collected in Table 4 refer to the average electricity and
water consumption grouped by loading capacity. It was assumed that all types of washing
machines have more or less identical functionality and wash cotton fabric at a 60oC temperature
at full load. The average wash time is 2 hours 10 min, which includes two washing cycles and
centrifuging. The table indicates that energy efficiency of washing machines increases along
with their maximum loading capacity. Thus the typical 5 kg washing machine uses 0.21 kWh of
electricity and 10.9 litres of water for each kilogram of laundry.
Table 4. Average performance characteristics for household washing machines and tumble dryers1
Washing machines Tumble dryers
Average load capacity
(kg) Water use
litres/kg Energy
kWh/kg Average max. load capacity: Energy
kWh/kg
3.0 15.2 0.25 5.2 kg (cotton) 0.81
3.5 11.8 0.22 2.7 kg (synthetics) 0.62
4.0 12.1 0.21 4 kg (average) 0.71
4.5 9.6 0.19
5.0 8.4 0.19
5.5 8.1 0.18
Energy consumption of tumble dryers depends on the type of fabric. For example, synthetics
require less energy to dry. For simplification, an average value of 0.71 kWh/kg for mixed
fabric was derived based on the average data for typical equipment.
Given the aforementioned characteristics, the annual energy consumption of domestic
laundry was calculated for different types of average households. While the average number of
people in a Swedish household is 2.1, a distinction must be made between the number of people
and the number of consumption units. The latter takes into consideration that the consumption
volume of a statistical child is smaller than that of an adult. According to SCB, the average
number for consumption units in a Swedish household is 1.62 (Table 5).
1 The data is based on specifications from representative models of Electrolux, Kenny, Gorenje, Whirlpool,
Bosh, Cylindia and LG. Konsumentverket (2005). Consumer purchasing guide. Stockholm,
Konsumentverket.
International Journal of Public Affairs Vol. 3, 2007
143
Table 5. Average number of people and consumption units in different types of households
(SCB 2003a)2
Household type:
Single with
children
Single without
children
Co-habiting
with children
Co-habiting
without children
Other
co-habiting with
children
Other
Average
# of people pe
r
household 2.60 1.00 3.90 2.00 4.70 2.80 2.10
# of cons. units pe
r
household 1.87 1.00 2.50 1.58 3.01 2.10 1.62
#of households
(1,000s) 218 1,477 807 1,160 72 179 --
As it was indicated above, laundry equipment is not filled to maximum loading capacity.
Since a 3.5 kg washing machine is typically loaded with 2-2.5 kg (Energimyndigheten 2003),
we assumed a 70% average load factor and calculated resource consumption per consumption
unit. Calculations of annual energy and water consumption in domestic laundry by family type
are presented in Table 6. The total annual electricity consumption for a typical statistical family
is about 0.3 MWh and water consumption – about 3.5 m3 in case of optimal equipment loading.
Assuming that laundry equipment is being only 70%-full and the energy and water consumption
increases proportionally, the annual electricity consumption per households is close to
0.39 MWh and water – 4.6 m3. The lowest resource consumption is among single households,
and the largest – among families with children. The difference between the two extreme groups
is 66%.
Table 6. Annual consumption of energy and water by family type
Household type:
Single w.
children
Single w/o
children
Co-habiting
w. children
Co-habiting
w/o children
Other with
children
Other
Average
Amount of laundry, kg/year 374 200 500 316 602 420 324
Total use o water, m3/year:
(5 kg machine, 10.9 l/kg) 4.1 2.2 5.5 3.4 6.6 4.6 3.5
Energy use for washing, kWh/year
(5 kg machine, 0.21kWh/kg) 79 42 105 66 126 88 68
Energy use for drying, kWh/year
0.71 kWh/kg mixed fabric 266 142 355 224 427 298 230
Total electricity, kWh/y 344 184 460 291 554 386 298
Taking into consideration a 70% loading factor of equipment:
Water, m3/year 5.3 2.9 7.2 4.4 8.6 6.0 4.6
Total electricity, kWh/y 447 239 598 378 720 502 387
2 Total number of households: 3,914,130
Oksana Mont and Andrius Plepys
144
Energy consumption in communal laundries
Statistics on washing equipment ownership for different categories of households clearly
indicate that the highest rates are among co-habiting households (Table 7.) It is also clear that
households with children have higher ownership rates for washing equipment than those
without.
Table 7. Ownership rates for washing machines (%) for different types of households in Sweden
(SCB 2003b)3
Census year: ‘90-91 ‘92-93 ‘94-95 ‘96-97 ‘98-99 ‘00-01 ‘02 ‘03 Average
Single without children 57.1 53.8 51.9 52.3 52.8 53.1 52.2 52.
4
53.2
Single with children 65.8 63.
6
61.9 66.1 67.2 66.9 64.3 66.
6
65.3
Cohabiting withou
t
children 76.5 74.
7
75.6 76.0 80.1 77.5 76.8 76.
2
79.7
Cohabiting with children 90.7 91.
2
88.7 88.6 88.9 88.1 89.8 89.
4
89.
4
Average: 72.5 70.8 69.5 70.8 72.3 71.
4
70.8 72.5 72
Over the last 15 years, ownership rates among the youngest population have fallen by about
10%. This could be explained by an example of students leaving their parents creating own
household in dormitories. Similarly, the rates have increased in the elder groups, while in
mid-age groups the rates remained relatively stable (Table 8). Therefore, the most likely users of
public washing facilities are young single households, families with small children and older
population groups.
Table 8. Ownership rates of washing machines (%) by different age groups in Sweden (SCB 2003b).
Census year: ‘90-91 ‘92-93 ‘94-95 ‘96-97 ‘98-99 ‘00-01 ‘02 ‘03 Aver.:
Age 16–24 69.8 64.2 62.7 62.7 59.4 61.4 59.1 58.8 62.3
Age 25–34 67.3 63.5 59.0 58.3 60.1 54.9 56.9 55.6 59.5
Age 35–44 82.7 81.6 79.8 78.7 81.5 79.1 80.8 78.8 80.4
Age 45–54 83.0 83.8 82.0 81.8 82.1 82.1 80.6 78.1 81.7
Age 55–64 78.5 75.9 77.7 77.9 81.7 80.8 78.1 81.0 79.0
Age 65–74 69.2 67.7 69.7 73.5 75.7 72.7 76.3 77.0 72.7
Age 75–84 53.6 55.2 55.8 58.4 67.0 65.8 64.3 64.1 60.5
All groups average: 72.0 70.3 69.5 70.2 72.5 71.0 70.9 70.5 71
3SCB (2003b). Tidsanvändningsundersökningen (in Swedish). Survey of time use. Stockholm, Sveriges
centralstatistiskabyrån (Swedish Central Statistical Bureau)..
See Table MT7: Access to own washing machine for 16-84 year olds. Available on-line.
URL: http://www.scb.se/statistik/LE/LE0101/1980I01/MT703.xls. Retrieved 2004-12-06.
International Journal of Public Affairs Vol. 3, 2007
145
To calculate energy and water consumption in community-shared launderettes we used data
of washing patterns in the Swedish household along with performance characteristics of typical
equipment, assuming cotton wash at temperature 60oC with two washing stages. Differences in
power consumption per one-kilogram laundry in domestic and public washing facilities are
illustrated in Table 9.
Table 9. Washing characteristics for household- and launderette-based laundries
(based on data from Electrolux AB).
In the latter, washing machines and tumble dryers are more energy efficient by about 35%.
This is an indicative figure suggesting that using community washing centres results in
significant energy savings. This conclusion is valid given that public washing facilities are not
abused and an optimal laundry is performed (i.e. full loads and moderate washing temperatures).
5. Possibilities for Environmental Improvements
From our estimations it follows that washing in communal launderettes provides an energy
saving potential in the order of 30% only due to the use of more resource efficient professional
equipment. Even more can be saved if professionals, who can optimise loading rates and the use
of detergents, handle the equipment. Loading machines fully and washing with lower
temperature are very effective measures, which according to some studies, can save up to 25%
of energy (Shanahan and Jonsson 1995). For example, Eco-Express reports 56% reduction of
energy use, as well as a considerable reduction of detergent use (Hertwich and Katzmayr 2003).
The positive environmental potential of washing in a washing centre in comparison with
washing at home is more likely, if low energy options are used for drying. The negative side of
using launderettes is the use of tumble-driers instead of clotheslines, which might negate the
positive environmental effect of common launderettes. High-speed tumble-drying as well as
ironing are the most energy intensive steps in a laundry and so is car driving to a commercial
launderette. Installing local facilities equipment with heat exchangers and naturally ventilated
drying rooms are examples of measures to curb high energy consumption in launderettes.
Studies indicate that the largest environmental potential can be achieved when product life
extension strategies are combined with product modification (Slob, Perdijk et al. 1997) cited in
(White, Stoughton et al. 1999; Zaring, Bartolomeo et al. 2001). For example, in 1997 a project
on sustainable washing of clothes showed that factor 3 improvements could be reached in
domestic washing technology in terms of water, energy and detergent consumption by the year
2025 (van den Hoed 1997). The same factor 3 was possible to obtain in terms of energy
consumption from a community-based washing centre or a large laundry. However, higher
factor improvements, up to factor 10-16, could be reached due to efficiencies of scale and
through reusing/recycling of water and detergent (van den Hoed 1997). This data confirms the
need for systems approaches that allow high levels of improvement.
Type of laundry: Household-based Launderette-based
Typical max. load capacity: 5 kg 7-8 kg
Typical loading capacity: 3.5 kg 4.6-5.3 kg Difference
Electricity (kWh/kg)
washing machine:
tumble dryer:
drying cupboard:
0.21
0.73
0.82
0.13
0.48
0.76
38%
34%
7%
Oksana Mont and Andrius Plepys
146
One clear benefit from using communal laundries is reduction of equipment stock and faster
upgrading of hardware. The typical lifetime of privately owned washing equipment is often 15
or more years. It is however recommended to change the equipment at least every 10-12 years,
since new, more energy efficient, models become available on the market (Energimyndigheten
2004). An example for these could be washing machines with dual water connection – one for
cold and one for hot water. This allows reducing energy consumption for heating the water with
electricity, which is a prevailing technology in many current machines.
The equipment used in shared washing facilities is used much more intensively and has a
much shorter lifetime (typically 5-6 years). Furthermore, public launderettes typically have
specialised equipment, such as stand-alone high-speed centrifuges, which are rare in domestic
facilities. Drying equipment uses more energy than washing, and therefore the use of centrifuges
before thermal drying allows a significant reduction of energy consumption.
Historic records on energy consumption in Swedish households show a significant reduction
of energy consumption after the 1970s, when after the energy crisis a more energy efficient
equipment appeared on the marker. A study (cf. Carlsson-Kanyama and Lindén 2002:30) of an
average private Swedish house showed a two-fold improvement of energy efficiency from the
baseline of the 1970s (Table 10).
Table 10. Comparison of energy efficiency of household appliances in Sweden before and after 1970
Household appliances pre-1970s equipment post-1970s equipment
Heating 20,000 11,600
Warm water 6,500 3,000
Refrigerator and freezer 1,700 400
Washing and drying equipment 1,500 600
Dishwasher 500 100
Electrical stove 1,000 700
Lighting 1,300 500
Other 1,000 500
Total 33,500 17,400
Energy improvements are taking place also today. For example, one of the R&D centres of
the Hitachi Corporation compared design factors (washing capacity, power, etc.) and operational
performance indicators (resource consumption) of two types of washing machines for domestic
laundry (Table 11). The lifecycle impact related to generation of greenhouse gases was
calculated using resource efficiency calculation methodology developed by the Wuppertal
Institute in Germany (Schmidt-Bleek 1998).
The case study on washing centres provided a number of interesting lessons. Estimates on
energy consumption in the two service scenarios – washing at home vs. washing in communal
facility – indicated that 30% energy savings are attainable just in the user phase. Furthermore,
hardware stock is reduced and the equipment is upgraded faster. This leads to environmental
savings in the upstream lifecycle stages and facilitates increasing service quality by providing
International Journal of Public Affairs Vol. 3, 2007
147
access to the latest state of the art technologies. The latter is an important factor for raising total
consumer utility and promotes a wider acceptance of service solutions.
At the same time, servicising solutions do not always lead to environmental benefits. As it
was discussed in the case study, consumer behaviour and structural aspects of service system
can often create rebound effects reducing or negating the positive outcomes. The examples of
these are the potential misuse of service solutions when cost incentives are not present or when
costs are hidden (e.g. the use of communal washing centres “free of charge”). The example of
structural aspects could be the necessity to add additional services in order to have access to the
primary service (e.g. driving a car to a public launderette when the distance is too long).
Table 11. Comparison of performance characteristic of two products (Hitachi 2003)
Product Washing machine KW-B483
(without a built-in dryer) Washing machine NW-8CX
(with a built-in dryer)
Year of manufacture 1990 (lifespan 6 years) 2003 (lifespan 6 years)
Washing capacity (kg) 4.5 8.0
Product weight (kg) 34 41
Recyclable m. weight (kg) 18.3 32.2
Resource use in operation
Power consumption (Wh) 125 54
Water use per 1 year (m3) 430 70
Detergent for 1 year (kg) 72 118
Greenhouse gas discharges (kg-CO2 equiv./machine)
Production stages 56 79
Transportation 4 6
Use stage 175 68
Return / recovery 11 16
Total 246 kg CO2-equiv. 169 kg CO2-equiv.
In addition, environmental gains may be short-lived, as they may be difficult to sustain over
a longer time period if economic prerequisites are not right. Today many housing communities
do not charge an extra fee for the laundry services provided in the communal washing centres
(the costs are included in the monthly fee). Therefore, tenants have no clear financial incentives
to optimise their laundry patterns. Even a small fee would facilitate a more efficient use of
machines and laundry time. Furthermore, an effective energy saving measure in public or
community-owned washing centres is a separate payment system for washing and drying.
Preferably the users should have an access to other drying facilities, such as a drying-room or
non-thermal dryers.
Furthermore, an economically viable and environmentally beneficial service solution may
not be accepted by the final consumer, if it does not provide more total utility in comparison to
the traditional household consumption systems based on product ownership. It may be cost
effective to use a communal service solution, but inconvenient in terms of on-demand
availability, accessibility and comfort of use. For example, a communal laundry facility could
have efficient equipment, but be overbooked and/or be too complicated to use by ordinary
Oksana Mont and Andrius Plepys
148
people. Or household behaviour may lead to inefficient use of washing equipment. For example,
data provided by Rosén (1993) show that households that used their own washing machines
were washing less number of washing cycles per week, than households that used communal
washing centre (Rosén 1993). It seems that people use their own private machines more
economically than common washing machines. This is an example of potential rebound effect
that may lead toward people choosing higher temperatures and longer than necessary washing
cycles just because the service is available and not linked to direct costs of using the equipment.
Addressing these issues requires systemic approach integrating entrepreneurial,
environmental, social and political considerations when designing sustainable service solutions.
6. Success Factors for Consumer Acceptance and Service Use
There appears to be three main conditions that need to be fulfilled if consumers are to use
sustainable services. These are total utility, costs, and information.
The notion of total utility is closely linked to a set of tangible and intangible results. The
former refers to physical service outputs, such as e.g. clothes washed, carpets cleaned, miles
driven, etc. The latter refers to emotional perceptions that increase the user’s satisfaction and
well-being described e.g. by the level of comfort, positive impressions or time saved. It is
important not only to maintain consumer satisfaction, but also to do it in a way that ensures
economic soundness of service activities, especially in comparison to the traditional
product-based solutions. For example, laundry in community-based washing centres should be
pleasant, satisfactory and cheaper (at least on the long run) than domestic laundries. For this
reason communities install a greater variation of different equipment of different sizes.
Maintaining high level of order in the washing centres is a challenging, but crucial issue to
reach consumer acceptance. Communal washing centres are known to be one of the major
places for arguments between the neighbours over the booking times and quality of maintenance
after use. An online question “What irritates you most in your washing centre” asked by
newspaper Aftonbladet got around 10,000 answers, which showed that 74% of users are irritated
when time bookings are not respected.
Distance to the washing facilities in fact is one of the main factors determining the rate of use.
Owning a washing machine is economically feasible for many households in Sweden and many
families may chose to install private laundry equipment rather than using shared facilities, if the
distances are too great or time availability is too low. According to the Swedish Local
Investment Programme, the following percentage of households in apartment building use
communal washing facilities: 50% - if they do not have to leave the building; 40% - if the
facilities are located in an adjacent building, and 25% - if the facilities are located farther than an
adjacent building (LIP-kansliet 2002). Therefore, strategic placement of laundry centres is
extremely important.
The total cost of a service must be transparent and must not exceed the cost of traditional
product ownership-based alternatives. In other words, the service should not cost more than
products that fulfil the same need. If the service solution costs more, then the monetary value of
the total utility received must outweigh the costs of product alternatives.4 Commercial (and for
that matter community-owned) laundries must have at least comparative or lower costs and
4 For example, modern household machines take on average 5 kg at maximum load and cost ca. 1,000
USD (without installation costs). The average lifetime is 10-15 years or around 2,500 washes. Under the
lifetime an average machine requires 2 repairs. Together with the initial investment and costs for electricity,
water, detergents and repairs, one wash cost on average $US 1. The largest cots item is depreciation and
repairs (around $US 0.5). Electricity and water costs about $US 0.25 and detergent – $US 0.27
Konsumentverket (2004). Marknadsöversikt. Tvättmaskiner 2004 [Market review. Washing machines
2004]. Stockholm, Konsumentverket: 29.
International Journal of Public Affairs Vol. 3, 2007
149
provide added utility to consumer for the lower accessibility to the machines. This could be in
form of coffee rooms and/or appealing design of facilities.
Information about a service solution is crucial in order to compete with product alternatives.
Product marketing schemes have been developing for decades and the pressure of marketing is
enormous, which makes it difficult for the service alternatives to compete. It is very often that
different service alternatives are advertised far less aggressively than products. At least until now,
potential service users are not actively searching for services (Halme et al. 2003).
However, not only marketing pressure put a threat to service solutions. More and more
proprietary services, which used to be delivered by skilled professionals, are gradually
penetrating into the households and are being carried out by ordinary people as a self-service.
Improvements in technology that make products cheaper and easier to operate, as well as
increasing labour costs of hired service providers are the main reasons facilitating this process.
This makes it more cost-effective for households to acquire a product and then spend their own
time in generating household services. In these cases consumer time is often perceived as a free
commodity, which leads to less free time and results in many social and psychological problems.
Conclusions
Households are mini-centres of consumption where lifestyles, cultures, habits and
consumption patterns are formed and played out. They also have an important role in reducing
consumption-related environmental impacts. Product servicising was suggested as one of the
ways to reduce household-related environmental impacts and household-related services play an
important role in product servicing.
Comparing the environmental soundness of community-based washing services and
household-based washing in terms of energy and water consumption showed that assuming the
same behaviour in both cases, public washing facilities have lower resource consumption, which
stems from high performance characteristics of the installed equipment. The savings are
substantial on a national scale, since according to our estimates the share of Swedish households
that are using public washing services, which is about 35-40% of all families. Therefore, the total
annual saving on the national level from using shared washing facilities is in the area of 200
GWh of electricity.
However, behavioural aspects are very important in determining the environmental
soundness of service solutions. The main behavioural factors determining the outcomes are the
load rate of laundry equipment and the choice of washing programmes. In cases where the
service is provided for free (which is very common in community-owned launderettes), the
environmental effects could be adverse. Knowledge and skills in operating the equipment is
another important factor regardless the scenario of washing services. Many users operate
washing equipment sub-optimally and for example in the case of washing centres, energy
savings could be even larger if the laundry services would be provided by professionals and/or
the users would be better informed about optimisation possibilities of their washing operations.
Factors that are most important for the success of the shift from product- to service-based
model of consumption are rooted in cooperation between all relevant actors, who can optimise
the system only with a combined effort. Although designing an environmentally superior
infrastructure (including selection of environmentally advantageous products) is important, even
more important is optimisation of consumer behaviour aspects. Consumer acceptance is another
crucial factor for success as well as long-term viability of servicised solutions. This is only
possible when economic and social demands are fulfilled at least to the degree, which
product-based solutions can deliver. Successful services will be those, which will be able to offer
more consumer utility at lower cost and with lower environmental impacts.
Oksana Mont and Andrius Plepys
150
References
Behrendt, S., Jasch, C. et al. (2003). Eco-service development: reinventing supply and demand in
the European Union. Sheffield, Greenleaf Publishing Ltd.
Bode, M., Pfeiffer, C. et al. (2000). Strategies towards the Sustainable Household in Germany.
Findings of an EU-Research Project on Clothing Care and Shelter. Hannover, Institut für
Betriebsforschung, Universität Hannover: 119.
Carlsson, W. (1999). "Uppskattat besök på mångkulturell mötesplats." Familjär: 4-5.
Carlsson-Kanyama, A. and Lindén A.-L. (2002). Hushållens energianvändning. Värderingar,
beteenden, livsstilar och teknik – en litteraturöversikt (in Swedish). Energy use in households.
Values, behaviour, lifestyles and technology - a literature review. Stockholm, Forskningsgruppen
för miljöstrategiska studier: 40.
Chappells, H., Klintman, M. et al. (2000) .Domestic Consumption, Utility Services and the
Environment. Wageningen, Wageningen University: 181.
Cronberg, T. (1987) Det teknologiske spillerum i hverdagen. Köpenhamn, Forlaget Nyt fra
samfundsvidenskaberne: 160.
Cronberg, T. and Sangregorio I.-L. (1978) .Innanför den egna tröskeln. Ny teknik och dess
konsekvenser för livsstilen. Boendet som exempel. Stockholm, Sekretariatet för framtidsstudier
STUs Konsumenttekniska forskningsgrupp: 64.
Energimyndigheten (2003).Rekommendationer för inköp av tvätt- och torkutrustning i flerbostadshus
(in Swedish). Recommendations for purchasing washing and drying equipment in multi-flat
houses., Energimyndigheten/LIP kansliet. 2004.
Energimyndigheten (2004). Spara energi i bostadsrättsförening (in Swedish).Save energy in houseing
organisation., Energimyndigheten. 2004.
EPE (2001). Growth VisionLabs 21 workshop. (Presentation), European Partners for the
Environment. 2004.
Gershuny, I. J. and Miles I. D. (1983). The New Service Economy. The Transformation of
Employment in Industrial Societies. London, Frances Pinter.
Hagberg, J.-E. (1986). Tekniken i kvinnornas händer. Hushållsarbete och hushållsteknik under tjugo-
och trettiotalen [Technology in women's hands. Household work and household technology
during 1920's and 1930's]. Malmö, Liber Förlag AB: 293.
Hedberg, L., Dreborg, K.-H.et al. (2003). Rum för framtiden. Stockholm, FOI: 149.
Heiskanen, E. and M. Jalas (2003). Can services lead to radical eco-efficiency improvements? - a
review of the debate and evidence. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management 10(4): 186 - 198.
Henriksson, G. (1999). Organisationsformer för hushållens tvätt i Stockholm under 1900-talet.
Stockholm, The Environmental Strategies Research Group at Stockholm University: 30.
Hertwich, E. and Katzmayr M. (2003). Examples of Sustainable Consumption: Review,
Classification and Analysis. Laxenburg, IIASA: 50.
Hitachi (2003) .Environmental Efficiency of Hitachi Products, Hitachi Corp. 2005.
HSB (2003). Interview with representatives of HSB. O. Mont. Malmö.
Kjellman, G. (1989) Från bykbalja till tvättmaskin. Folklig arbetstradition och teknisk nyorientering.
Linköping, TEMA Teknik och social förändring, Linköpings Universitet: 96.
Konsumentverket (2003) .49 konsumentprojekt i förningslivet. Stockholm, Konsumentverket: 34.
Konsumentverket (2004).Marknadsöversikt. Tvättmaskiner 2004 [Market review. Washing
machines 2004]. Stockholm, Konsumentverket: 29.
Konsumentverket (2005).Consumer purchasing guide. Stockholm, Konsumentverket.
KSL (2004). Elslukarna i ditt hem – så kan du minska energikostnaden (in Swedish). Energy eaters -
the way to reduce energy costs., Kommunförbundet Stockholms län. 2004.
International Journal of Public Affairs Vol. 3, 2007
151
Lewis, H., Gertsakis, J. et al. (2001). Design + Environment. A Global Guide to Designing Greener
Goods. Melbourne, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.
LIP-kansliet (2002). Teknikupphandling av energiberäkningsmodell för energieffektiva sunda
flerbostadshus. [Energy calculation model for technology procurement in energy efficient and
sound apartment buildings], Lokala investerings program (LIP), Stockholm Stad.
Miljöteknikdelegationen (1999). Intelligent buildings – good for the environment. Stockholm: 93.
Mitchell, B. R. (1993). Den eviga byken. Planering för tvätt i flerbostadshus. Lund,
Byggnadsfunktionslära, Arkitektursektionen vid Lunds Universitet: 105.
Mont, O. (2004). Product-Service Systems: Panacea or Myth? IIIEE. Lund, Lund University.
NUTEK (1994). Hushållsel i småhus. Mätning av elanvändning i 66 småhus och konsekvenserna av
att byta hushållsapparater. Stockholm.
NUTEK (1995).Tillverkarnas tävling trimmade tvättstugorna: om effekterna av kansliets insatser
inom området energieffektiv tvätt och tork i fastighetstvättstugor [Producers' competition tuned
washing centres: on the effects of administration efforts in the area of energy efficient washing
and drying in community-based washing centres]. Stockholm.
OECD (2001) .OECD. Environmental Outlook. Paris.
OECD (2002).Towards sustainable household consumption? Trends and policies in OECD countries.
Paris: 158.
Olsson, J. (2003). Mijöredovisning 2003. (in Swedish). Environmental audit. Motala, Motala
municipality: 22.
Rosén, U. (1993). Tvätterskan och tvättmaskinen: om tvätt som kvinnoarbete och tvättningens
mekanisering [Launderette and washing machine: on washing as women's works and
mechanisation of the washing process]. Arbetets historia: Arbetshistoriska seminariet 6: 157-167.
SCB (2003a). Table 1a. Type of household - expenditures per household during 2003 in SEK,
Swedish Central Statistical Bureau, Stockhom.
SCB (2003b). Tidsanvändningsundersökningen (in Swedish). Survey of time use. Stockholm,
Sveriges centralstatistiskabyrån (Swedish Central Statistical Bureau).
Schmidt-Bleek, F. (1998). Das MIPS-Konzept. Weniger Naturverbrauch - mehr Lebensqualität
durch Faktor 10: Das Mass fuer ökologisches Wirtschaften (The MIPS concept. Less use of
environment - more quality of life through Factor 10: a measurement for an ecological economy).
Muenchen, Droemer Verlagsanstalt.
Shanahan, H. and Jonsson L. (1995). Hushållet som energisystem - fokus på matlagning. Energi och
vardagsvanor - seminarium, Göteborg, Göteborgs universitet.
SIFO (2000). Om tvättstuga i flerfamiljshus [On washing centre in apartment block]. Stockholm, Sifo
Research & Consulting: 24.
Slob, A. F. L., E. W. Perdijk, et al. (1997). LOEP, (Levensduur Optimalisatie en de Energie,
economie en ecologie)- aspecten van produkten, [LOEP, Product Life Optimisation and the
E(nergy, economy and ecology) aspects of products]. Den Haag, Ministerie van VROM.
SOU(1947) Kollektiv tvätt: betänkande med förslag att underlätta hushållens tvättarbete. Stockholm,
1941 års befolkningsutredning: 284.
van den Hoed, R. (1997). A shift from products to services: an example of washing services. 2nd
International Conference "Towards Sustainable Product Design", London, The Centre for
Sustainable Design.
White, A. L., Stoughton, M. et al. (1999). Servicizing: The Quiet Transition to Extended Product
Responsibility. Boston, Tellus Institute: 97.
Vrhunc, N. (2000). Environmental Benefits from the dematerialization of services. Case Study:
Washing of Personal Clothes. Amsterdam, IVAM: 36.
Zaring, O., Bartolomeo, M. et al. (2001). Creating Eco-efficient Producer Services. Gothenburg,
Gothenburg Research Institute: 503.
