4.1. Positions on defining “low-tech”

As a first element to position the cases studied, the word “low-tech” is generally used as an adjective to describe an approach (60%), a philosophy (20%), a product (13%), or a movement of thoughts and practices (7%). Only two interviewees use it to simply qualify a product, its material or technical characteristics, but they also understand it as qualifying an approach.

Behind these descriptions of “low-tech” as approaches, philosophy and practices, were some recurring criteria, summarised in Figure 1 and detailed below.

Figure 1.

Frequency of occurrence of codes in the “low-tech criteria” category

The “local” criterion mainly implies the idea of promoting know-how and skills that are in close geographical proximity. It also relates to the importance of considering vernacular culture and the specificities of the context, especially to identify needs and to design solutions. These intentions are particularly evident in the cases of micro-enterprises, very interested in developing territorial and sectorial cooperation. Nevertheless, the other cases also emphasise this criterion, but more in relation with ideas of resilience: limiting external dependencies and reducing vulnerabilities, through developing a local anchoring and collective networks.

All discourses highlight the theme of “questioning needs” and “debating on what is useful”. The motivations for this are fairly consistent, involving the reduction of resource consumption (material and energy) and therefore the reduction of mass production. However, it is never clearly defined how to assess whether a need is essential or not, or whether something is useful or not. Precisely, actors only state that needs must be defined as closely as possible to users, or within territories (or more generally, at the most appropriate scale according to the principle of subsidiarity).

Certain criteria are focused on products resulting from low-tech approaches. These criteria are mostly about simplicity (often related with ideas from do-it-yourself, manual practices, and non-automated processes), repairability and care (understanding of technics and ability to maintain), and modularity (which is also found at larger scales than products, for example concerning a factory, through adaptability or reconfigurability).

The cases studied seldom mention directly criteria about accessibility, appropriation or autonomy. When they do, it is through criteria previously cited for products characteristics, or through ideas about openness (open access, open source) and replicability, or sometime about financial affordability. However, these criteria are at the core of the project of society in low-tech philosophy, notably with ideas about empowerment and democracy (Reference Gaultier, Masclet and BoujutGaultier et al., 2024; Reference MateusMateus, 2024; Reference Tanguy, Carrière and LaforestTanguy et al., 2023). The cases studied do not seem to have been initially interested in this subject, or this subject might be less personally important to them, less claimed.

Finally, it is noticeable that the actors rely particularly on key words from definitions such as that of Reference Keller and BournigalKeller & Bournigal (2021) (with the main key words: strong sustainability, collective resilience, cultural transformation), or that of Reference LabLow-tech Lab (n.d.) (with the key words: useful, accessible, sustainable).

4.2. Motivations

To begin with, it should be noted that all cases studied are projects that were initiated by people in R&D teams or (and) in strategic roles.

The integrations studied can be split into three categories:

1. 1. Adding a new “low-tech” product;

2. 2. Creating an activity, more in line with low-tech approaches;

3. 3. Transforming the existing activity and its value chain (and potentially its industrial sector).

Motivations differ from one category of integration to another, as shown in Figure 2 and detailed below. This categorisation is more relevant here than categorisation by type of organisation, although the latter is also mentioned in the explanations below.

Figure 2.

Frequency of occurrence of codes relating to motivations for each category of integration

First, adding a product to the offer and labelling it as “low-tech” is mostly motivated by the environmental benefits associated with low-tech approaches. This is both to lower the environmental impacts and to ride the trend of ecological labels. Describing the product as “low-tech” would enable it to reach a certain audience and also, potentially, encourage interest in low-tech approaches (without the product itself being derived from such approaches).

Second, cases creating a new activity are also cases from micro-enterprises or associations. These are projects focused on the local development of their sector. Their motivation is both ethic and economic: they know that their practices are more virtuous (environmentally, for job creation, for territorial autonomy and resilience) but they need to relocate their value chain and develop cooperation and mutualisation in order to be economically viable, and to enable other similar practices to flourish. In the ethical part of their motivation are concerns about their territory: the housing crisis and the poor condition of the city’s old buildings, the difficulty for the industrial sector to implement reuse or alternative construction practices, the waste deposits in the city’s port, the absence of sewing industry players in their territory, and the orientation of markets towards industries on the other side of the world with harmful practices, etc.

Third, intentions for transformation are mainly led by consideration of current and future vulnerabilities. These intentions are found both in cases from large companies, associations and micro-enterprises. The vulnerabilities in question include issues relating to material supply, product sales, conflicts over resource use, and more generally, multiple crises (geopolitical, health, economic and energy destabilisation, etc.). The majority of cases mention the COVID-19 pandemic as a trigger: either because they suddenly had time to explore these complex issues and alternatives such as low-tech approaches, or because this crisis highlighted weaknesses in their value chain. This feeling has also been accentuated by later crises, such as the war in Ukraine and the associated energy issues. Faced with these vulnerabilities, there is a desire for an industry that is adaptable to possible future situations. Work on low-tech approaches is therefore combined with prospective studies. For example, there is hope that low-tech approaches “can help us to arbitrate on needs and make informed choices to ensure that our industrial system is capable […] of operating in a context of absolute sustainability and, therefore, resilience” (case 7). Low-tech approaches, in these cases, are then a tool for the optimisation of industry, helping in reducing its vulnerabilities, but also potentially with positive indirect effects (also called “non-objectives”) such as improved working conditions. Similarly, reducing environmental damage is an expected consequence of these approaches, but remains a non-objective, rather marginal in discourses because presupposed and obvious.

4.3. Integration processes

The cases studied are far from being mature integrations: implementation is, at best, in its infancy. As low-tech approaches are fairly recent, this low maturity is both common and logical. Most of what emerges from these case studies concerns the barriers and enablers at the beginning of the integrations, which are presented in this section after a brief summary of the elements related to implementations.

Firstly, there are no specific steps identified for integrating low-tech approaches. All cases mention that initially, one must feel the need for change, and then discover the existing alternatives, such as low-tech approaches, and share these reflections, but then it all depends on the context. Thus, the strategies and focuses of these integrations are diverse: add a special product to the offer or organise an event to showcase the “low-tech” concept, relocate its value chain and launch a collective debate within the local industry to develop cooperation and promote “more low-tech” alternative practices, analyse internal processes and identify constraints and potential improvements inspired by low-tech practices, communicate with actors from other industries to share insights on the unsustainable aspects of their models and imagine transitions for sectors and their norms, etc. The few tools mentioned to support these projects are either for analysing the industrial system (e.g., stress tests, triple capital accounting) or for facilitating collective debate and cooperation (also involving facilitation actors). None of the cases uses indicators to assess the integration of low-tech approaches or to position themselves on a “low-tech spectrum”. Potential indicators of successful integration, which have been mentioned but not yet used, relate to environmental impacts (e.g. life cycle analysis, carbon footprint), the robustness of the industry and society in which it operates (particularly through stress tests), or customer satisfaction and involvement in the project. Indicators focused on the low-tech aspect of the industrial system, or on the level of maturity of integration, would be of interest to interviewees, although they can be difficult to imagine.

Secondly, the barriers and enablers to these integrations, presented in Figure 3 and detailed below, are very common in sustainability initiatives in general (Reference Mallalieu, Isaksson Hallstedt, Isaksson, Watz and AlmefeltMallalieu et al., 2024).

Figure 3.

Frequency of occurrence of codes relating to barriers (red) and enablers (green)

Among the barriers identified, the incompatibility of the low-tech paradigm with today’s industry is a fundamental obstacle, and can be seen in several ways. France’s industrial heritage imposes highly deindustrialised regions, hindering efforts to relocate industries. This deindustrialisation, together with centralisation, has made technical professions invisible (mentioned in contrast to China, where industrial workshops are visible from the streets), complicating recruitment in particular. As more virtuous or low-tech practices are generally non-conventional, they fall outside the norm and require much more effort to gain acceptance and certification, in addition to R&D efforts. Also, the actors initiating these integrations of low-tech approaches have no examples to draw on, they feel having to invent everything from scratch. Furthermore, when low-tech approaches encourage greater cooperation, this blocks many players who are locked into individual competitiveness logic. Similarly, the dominant discourse is short-termist, consisting of demands for productivity and performance, whereas low-tech approaches invite reflection on the long term and questioning of production needs. In the need to share this low-tech vision at all levels of the hierarchy and throughout the value chain, low-tech approaches are subject to numerous negative preconceptions. Individuals fear that they represent yet another constraint on their work, forcing them to comply with new criteria. In particular, these approaches can be seen as a threat to the company, under pretexts such as that “what we’ve always done is the only way, there’s no alternative” (case 4). Finally, these projects remain very marginal, both within a large company and within an industrial sector. They are not valued economically and are confronted with practices that are already established, better valued and often less virtuous.

The cases highlight different levers that can be used to address this economic challenge. In larger organisations, innovation or R&D teams have more latitude to address disruptive topics. Smaller ones rely on subsidies, mobilise schools through student projects, or involve social integration organisations in certain activities (which is also part of their ethical approach). Their cooperation and mutualisation initiatives (of equipment, space, skills) are also part of a logic of economic viability. To successfully implement them, it is essential to take into account each voice, each person’s needs and challenges. Furthermore, communication is a lever that includes many aspects. For example, it involves raising awareness of the existence of alternatives, in particular by sharing them with regulatory and certification organisms, to more generally bring about a change in standards. It also involves using alternatives to the term “low-tech”, reserving its use for those who are already familiar with it, so as not to antagonise the listener. This adaptation of discourse, which seeks to reach people’s sensibilities, to adapt to the individual, is also found in arguments based on current or future vulnerabilities (particularly possible regulatory pressures). In this regard, a consensual lever is to take advantage of conjunctures, crises or other triggering events that can break down barriers (just as the COVID pandemic was mentioned among the motivations).