The economics of cell phone reuse and recycling

Open Access
SPECIAL ISSUE - ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

There is widespread consensus that landfill of waste electronic and electric equipment is not an acceptable end-of-use management option. Diversion from landfill, either through voluntary or mandatory take-back and collection programs, overwhelmingly leads to the recycling of e-waste, which typically consists of the recovery of a limited number of metals. Cell phones are currently one of the few electronic products, if not the only one, that also have a thriving reuse market. In fact, more handsets are reused than recycled. Cell phones therefore offer the rare opportunity to compare closed-loop supply chains for e-waste reuse and recycling. In this paper, we examine the economics of cell phone reuse and recycling based on detailed primary data collected from reverse logistics, reuse and recycling operations in 2003 in the UK and in 2006 in the US. We show that while cell phone reuse has a healthy profit margin, handset recycling is currently a by-product of reuse.

Keywords

WEEE Cell phones Reuse Recycling Production economics Closed-loop supply chains 

References

  1. 1.
    Nokia (2005a) Integrated product policy pilot project stage 1 report. Nokia, Espoo, Finland, January 2005Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mawston N (2008) Motorola, Sony Ericsson and Apple Lose Global Handset Marketshare in Q1 2008, Research Report, 25 April 2008, Strategy Analytics, Newton, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    WEEE (2002) EU directive 2002/96/EC (WEEE directive). J Eur Union L37:24–38Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    CPRA (2004) Cell Phone Recycling Act (CPRA) of 2004, Assembly Bill 2901, State of CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Geyer R (2004) Environmental and economic evaluation of supply loops and their constraints, PhD Dissertation, Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, UKGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Doctori Blass V, Favret L, Fuji M, Mahdavi S, Miller R, Neira J (2006) End-of-life management of cell phones in the United States, Master’s Thesis, Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, CAGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clift R (1997) The ECTEL trials. J Ind Ecol 1(2):3–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wright L (1999) Product life cycle management, EngD Thesis, Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, Guildford, UKGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McLaren J, Wright L, Parkinson S, Jackson T (1999) A dynamic life-cycle energy model of mobile phone take-back and recycling. J Ind Ecol 2(1):77–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clift R, Wright L (2000) Relationship between environmental impacts and added value along the supply chain. Technol Forecast Soc Change 65:281–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stutz M, Franz R, Tzscheutschler P (2000) Energy use in the life cycle of a cellular phone: a study of the impacts during manufacturing and use. Proceedings of EGG 2000, 11–13 Sept 2000, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oiva L, Oppermann W, Middendorf A, Zuber K-H, Stobbe I (2000) Case study on the environmental impacts of a mobile phone. Proceedings of EGG 2000, 11–13 Sept 2000, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lindholm ME (2003) Toward environmentally conscious product design—a comprehensive DfE implementation in new generation cellular phones. Proceeding of the ISEE 2003, 19–22 May 2003, Boston, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Takala R, Tanskanen P (2002) Outlining opportunities of engineering process and technology on environmental impacts of the end of life treatment of mobile terminals. Proceedings of IMAPS Nordic Annual Conference, September 2002, Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guide VDR (2000) Production planning and control for remanufacturing: industry practice and research needs. J Oper Manag 18:467–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guide VDR, Van Wassenhove LN (2002) Closed-loop supply chains. In: Ayres RU, Ayres LW (eds) A handbook of industrial ecology. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guide VDR, Van Wassenhove LN (eds) (2003) Business aspects of closed-loop supply chains. Carnegie Mellon University Press, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Basdere B, Seliger G (2003) Disassembly factories for electrical and electronic products to recover resources in product and material cycles. Environ Sci Technol 37(23):5354–5362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Seliger G, Skerlos SJ, Basdere B, Zettle M (2003) Design of a modular housing platform to accommodate remanufacturing of multiple cellular phone models. Proceedings of EcoDesign 2003, Tokyo, Japan, 8–11 Dec 2003Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guide VDR, Teunter RH, Van Wassenhove LN (2003) Matching demand and supply to maximize profits from remanufacturing. Manuf Serv Oper Manag 5(4):303–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Skerlos SJ, Seliger G, Morrow WR, Chan K-Y, Basdere B, Zhao F, Hula A, Prasitnarit A (2003) Economic and environmental characteristics of global cellular telephone remanufacturing. Proceeding of the ISEE 2003, 19–22 May 2003, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bhuie AK, Ogunseitan OA, Saphores J-DM Shapiro AA (2004) Environmental and economic trade-offs in consumer electronic products recycling: a case study of cell phones and computers. Proceeding of the ISEE 2004, 19–23 May 2004, Phoenix, AZGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McLaren J, Piukkula N (2004) Life cycle assessment of a 3 rd generation Nokia handset. Proceedings of EGG 2004, 6–9 Sept 2004, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Malmodin J (2004) Summary of the study “life cycle assessment of a third generation (3G) system at Ericcson”. Ericcson Radio Systems, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pesonen I (2002) Development of eco-efficiency of base stations by means of the MIPS indicator. Ministry of the Environment, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Frey SD, Harrison DJ, Billet EH (2006) Ecological footprint analysis applied to mobile phones. J Ind Ecol 10(1–2):199–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Huisman J (2004) QWERTY and eco-efficiency analysis on cellular phone treatment in Sweden, TU Delft, The Netherlands, commissioned by El-Kretsen, Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Scharnhorst W, Althaus H-J, Classen M, Jolliete O, Hilty LM (2005) The end of life treatment of second generation mobile phone networks: strategies to reduce the environmental impacts. Environ Impact Asses Rev 25:540–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    HML (2004) E-waste report: determination of regulated elements in seven types of discarded consumer electronic products, Hazardous Material Laboratory (HML), Cal EPAGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Townsend TG, Vann K, Mutha S, Pearson B, Jang Y-C, Musson S, Jordan A (2004) RCRA toxicity characterization of computer CPUs and other discarded electronic devices, Report to US EPA, University of Florida, FLGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lincoln JD, Ogunseitan OA, Shapiro AA, Saphores J-DM (2007) Leaching assessments of hazardous materials in cellular phones. Environ Sci Technol 41(7):2572–2578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Uryu T, Yoshinaga J, Yanagisawa Y (2003) Environmental fate of gallium arsenide semiconductor disposal. J Ind Ecol 7(2):103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nokia (2005b) Integrated product policy pilot project stage 2 final report: options for improving life-cycle environmental performance of mobile phones, Nokia, Espoo, Finland, September 2005Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nokia (2006) Integrated product policy pilot project: stage 3 report: evaluation of options for improving life-cycle environmental performance of mobile phones, Nokia, Finland, April 2006Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    MPPI (2005) Environmentally sound management of end-of-life mobile phones. Mobile Phone Partnership Initiative. Basel Convention, UNEP, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    ITU (2007) World telecommunication/ICT indicators database, 11th edn. International Telecommunication Union, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yuan L (2007) Upgrading a call on emerging markets. Wall Street J, 6 September 2007Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    DEFRA (2003) A study on mobile phones and the potential for recycling other small electrical and electronic products. Request for tender. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Saphores J-DM, Nixon H, Ogunseitan OA, Shapiro AA (2006) Household willingness to recycle electronic waste: an application to California. Environ Behav 38(2):183–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mayers K, France C, Cleverly A, Kabouris E, Planas S (2002) The use and disposal of IT products within commercial markets. J Bus Ind Mark 17(5):357–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Coopers T, Mayers K (2000) Prospects for household appliances. E-SCOPE, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    SSMR (2001) Mobile phone user survey. Surrey Social and Market Research Ltd. (SSMR), GuildfordGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mayers K (2001) An investigation of the implications and effectiveness of producer responsibility for the disposal of WEEE. EngD Thesis, Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, Guildford, UKGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sullivan DE (2006) Recycled cell phones—a treasure trove of valuable metals. United States Geological Survey (USGS), DenverGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    EPA (2008) Fact sheet: recycle your cell phone—it’s an easy call, EPA530-F-07-046, January 2008, US EPAGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    MPPI (2006) Guideline on material recovery and recycling of end-of-life mobile phones. Mobile Phone Partnership Initiative. Basel Convention, UNEP, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Scharnhorst (2006) Life cycle assessment of mobile phone networks, with focus on the end-of-life phase, PhD Thesis, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Teh C-H (2006) Personal communication with Chuan-Hai Teh. Noranda Recycling, San JoseGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    ECS (2006) Personal communication with Thomas Hogye, Ken Taggert and Steve Ryan. ECS Refining, Santa ClaraGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Shields (2002) Fonebak information package. Shields Environmental plc, South OckendonGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Stutz M, Burkhard C, Ertel J (2002) Cost elements of recycling and the design of mobile phones in the context of WEEE. Proceedings of Going Green CARE Innovation, 25–28 Nov 2002, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hainault T, Smith DS, Cauchi DJ, Thompson TA, Fisher MM, Hetzel C (2000) Minnesota’s multi-stakeholder approach to managing electronic products at end-of-life. Proceedings of ISEE 2000, 8–10 May 2000, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Else (2003) Internal documents. Else Refining & Recycling Ltd., SheffordGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    USGS (2007) Minerals yearbook, 2007. United States Geological Survey (USGS), DenverGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kirkman GA (2003) Personal communication with Grant A Kirkman. Greener Solutions, LondonGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Blackburn JD, Guide VDR, Souza GC, Van Wassenhove LN (2004) Reverse supply chain for commercial returns. Calif Manage Rev 46(2):6–22Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Guide VDR, Muyldermans L, Van Wassenhove LN (2005) Hewlett-Packard Company unlocks the value potential for time-sensitive returns. Interfaces 35(4):281–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and ManagementUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations