Electronics Recycling: Cure or Band-Aid?

July 6th, 2009 - No Comments

The New York Times recently reported on the growing trend of electronics recycling. “Since 2004, 18 states and New York City have approved laws that make manufacturers responsible for recycling electronics, and similar statutes were introduced in 13 other states this year,” The Times reports. However, electronics recycling is likely little more than a Band-Aid that “simply covers up the problem of e-waste for a short period,” according to Smeal’s Daniel Guide, whose research focuses on the creation of industrial systems that are both environmentally and economically sustainable.

More from Guide:

As a result of the recent interest in the recycling of consumer electronics, many states are passing producer responsibility legislation aimed at keeping e-waste out of landfills.  Keeping e-waste out of landfills is an excellent idea—especially older waste that contains lead-based solders and dangerous heavy metal such as cadmium.  However, the United States would be well-advised to learn from the European Union’s recent experiences with the Waste Electronics and Electrical Equipment (WEEE) directive.  The WEEE is widely regarded as a disaster and adds a layer of bureaucracy and associated costs to mandated recycling.  In addition to the high costs of compliance, there is still the nagging issue of demand for recycled materials. Virgin raw materials are often much less expensive than recycled versions and it’s a simple economic fact that no business manager can justify spending more money on raw materials.  The intent of the WEEE was to encourage companies to change the design of products to make it easier to recover materials, but given the collective nature of the system, this simply hasn’t happened. 

In the United States, it seems likely that the simplest, and therefore the most likely, way to handle e-waste is to export it.  There is very little that can be done in the way of product reuse with computers that are three to four years old. The rate of technology change is simply too rapid to support component reuse, so we are left with piles of mixed materials that cannot be easily separated.  This situation leads to very expensive recycled materials with no demand.  Recycling feels good, but it simply covers up the problem of e-waste for a short period. In essence, we are putting a Band-Aid on a ruptured artery and expecting a good outcome.  

I advocate finding ways to make product recovery and reuse profitable for the firm.  The remanufacturing industry in the United States is enormous (larger in direct employment than the steel industry) and very profitable.  Remanufacturing is value-added recovery that restores products back to the original quality and performance specifications (and in many instances better performance). Through our experiences with a variety of companies, my fellow researchers and I have found that remanufacturing is value-creating and saves energy and materials. Consumers routinely put remanufactured parts and components into their autos because of the price savings. However, many consumer products are simply not designed for remanufacturing.  Consumer electronics are often manufactured as cheaply as possible and these design choices often prevent product or component reuse.  When this is combined with rapid product obsolescence (80 percent of consumers upgrade their cell phone within one year), the end result is predictable—overflowing landfills and a public outcry.  Until consumers demand that producers make upgradable, or at least standardized designs, there will continue to be growing piles of e-waste.  Recycling programs make us feel better, in no small part because we’ve done the “responsible” thing.  However, all this does is treat the symptoms, not the root cause.

Tags: Guide, Supply Chain, Sustainability

This entry was posted on Monday, July 6th, 2009 at 2:25 pm and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.