Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25 (2005) 525 – 539

www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

Does WEEE recycling make sense from

an environmental perspective?
The environmental impacts of the Swiss take-back
and recycling systems for waste electrical and
electronic equipment (WEEE)
R. Hischier*, P. Wäger, J. Gauglhofer
Swiss Federal Institute for Materials Testing and Research, Empa/Technology and Society Lab,
Lerchenfeldstr. 5, CH-9014 St. Gallen, Switzerland

Received 24 March 2005; received in revised form 22 April 2005; accepted 22 April 2005
Available online 2 June 2005

Abstract

The production of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) is one of the fastest growing markets
in the world. At the same time this also means that the amount of waste electrical and electronic
equipment (WEEE) will continue to increase in the coming decades. As it is crucial to obtain more
knowledge about the environmental consequences of the different WEEE treatment options, a study
examining the two Swiss take-back and recycling systems of SWICO (for computers, consumer
electronics and telecommunication equipment) and S.EN.S (household appliances) has been
conducted. The two systems, which are based on an advanced recycling fee, are well established
within Switzerland. With a combined approach of material flow analysis (MFA) and life cycle
assessment (LCA), the environmental impacts of these two systems have been estimated, including
all further treatment steps, which transform the fractions either into secondary materials or into waste
for final disposal. As a baseline, we have used a scenario assuming that no WEEE is recycled and
hence only primary production for the similar amount of raw materials. The impact assessment is
based on characterization factors according to the Dutch CML methodology.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +41 71 274 78 47.

E-mail addresses: roland.hischier@empa.ch (R. Hischier), patrick.waeger@empa.ch (P. Wäger),
johannes.gauglhofer@empa.ch (J. Gauglhofer).

0195-9255/$ - see front matter D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2005.04.003
526 R. Hischier et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25 (2005) 525–539

The results show that throughout the complete recycling chain the sorting and dismantling
activities of companies are of minor interest; instead the main impact occurs during the treatment
applied further downstream to turn the waste into secondary raw materials. Within the two systems in
Switzerland, the collection of WEEE seems much more relevant than the sorting and dismantling
activities. When comparing the environmental impact of WEEE recycling with that derived from the
baseline scenario (incineration of all WEEE and primary production of the raw materials), WEEE
recycling proves to be clearly advantageous from an environmental perspective.
D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Life cycle assessment; LCA; Material flow analysis; MFA; Environmental impacts; WEEE

1. Introduction

According to the European Commission, the total amount of waste in Europe is

expected to increase by about 45% between 1995 and 2020. As a response to that forecast,
the European waste strategy has been grounded on three pillars—waste prevention,
recycling and reuse and improved final disposal (European Union, 2002).
For the second pillar—recycling and reuse—several recent studies covering various
types of packaging waste have reported on the sustainability of such practices (Detzel
et al., 2004; Grether et al., 2003; Prognos, 2002). So far, all these studies have
examined clearly defined and most of the time single-material types of waste such as
e.g. aluminium packaging or PET bottles. The question is, however, whether similar
conclusions can also be drawn for more complex types of waste such as waste
electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). This specific waste, which has gained
importance in recent decades, is a clear manifestation of the shift from an industrial
society to an information society with increased use of information and communication
technologies (ICT) equipment. According to Cui and Forssberg, 2003, the production
of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) is one of the fastest growing areas. Hence,
the amount of WEEE will also increase very fast—in Europe, at an expected rate of at
least 3% to 5% per year.
With regard to the identification of the most sustainable treatment option, this study
determines whether the recycling of WEEE is ecologically more advantageous than simple
incineration of WEEE devices. The current industry-driven Swiss take-back and recycling
systems for WEEE are examined as a case study. The results could be used by the EEE
industry to put into practice the approach of an integrated product policy (IPP), which
involves producer responsibility over the entire life cycle (Hischier and Gilgen, 2004).
A first estimate of the environmental loads and benefits of WEEE recycling and
disposal has been made for one of the Swiss take-back and recycling systems (Hischier et
al., 2003). Another approach dealing with this subject—the QWERTY/EE concept—has
been established in the Netherlands (Huisman, 2003). This concept addresses the eco-
efficiency and recyclability of consumer electronic products. Further studies dealing with
WEEE recycling systems as a whole usually focus either on technical questions (i.e. Cui
and Forssberg, 2003 or Zhang and Forssberg, 1999) or quantity issues (e.g. Feszty et al.,
2003). Whenever environmental issues are addressed, they are in most cases limited to one
 R. Hischier et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25 (2005) 525–539 527

specific fraction of WEEE—e.g. the plastics (de Benedetti et al., 2003) or the CRT screen
fraction (Menad, 1999)—or to one specific type of device—e.g. personal computers
(Kuehr and Williams, 2003). For the present study, the complete Swiss WEEE recycling
and disposal activities including the processing of all resulting fractions have been
examined.

2. The Swiss take-back and recycling systems for WEEE

Switzerland has two separate WEEE recycling systems: the SWICO Recycling
Guarantee and the S.EN.S system. Each of these systems covers different parts of WEEE,
as it is defined in the European WEEE directive (European Union, 2002).
The SWICO Recycling Guarantee was created in 1993 by the Swiss Association for
Information, Communication and Organization Technology (SWICO)—the association of
manufacturers and importers of office electronics and IT equipment in Switzerland. When
it came into force in 1994, only office electronics and IT equipment were covered.
Subsequent years saw the inclusion of further categories such as mobile telephones,
equipment used in the graphics industry, telephones and telephone switchboard systems,
consumer electronics, as well as dental equipment.
The Swiss Foundation for Waste Management (S.EN.S) was established in 1990 as a
non-profit organization that operates recuperation solutions on behalf of manufacturers,
importers and retailers. Its initial field of activities was the recycling of refrigerators and
freezers. Today, S.EN.S is responsible for household appliances, electrical tools, building,
gardening and hobby appliances, electrical and electronic toys, as well as lighting
equipment.
Both systems established complete take-back and recycling systems financed by an
Advanced Recycling Fee (ARF) that the customer pays when buying the respective
EEE. Together with their Technical Control Bodies, they created a regulation that
outlines the prerequisites for the recycling companies to be commissioned for either of
the systems. Companies that satisfy these get a contract with the respective system
owner to process the electronic scrap taken back by the respective system. These
companies—a total of 30 companies by end of 2004, with 14 of them having contracts
with both system owners—are continually monitored by the two independent control
organizations of the respective systems of SWICO and S.EN.S. Being member of both
control organizations, the Technical Control Body of the Swiss Federal Laboratories for
Materials Testing and Research (Empa) has a bridging function between the two
systems. Among other tasks, Empa is responsible for the annual collection and
evaluation of the data related to the material flows entering and leaving all licensed
recycling companies, which are induced by the electronic scrap taken back in the two
systems of SWICO and S.EN.S.
The two systems are well established in Switzerland. In 2004 they enabled the
participating recycling companies to process about 75,000 t of WEEE—which
corresponds to about 11 kg recycled WEEE per inhabitant. This figure significantly
exceeds the goal of 4 kg recycled WEEE per inhabitant defined in the European WEEE
directive (European Union, 2002).
528 R. Hischier et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25 (2005) 525–539

3. Methodology

For this study a combined approach using material flow analysis (MFA) and Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) has been used. The basis for the MFA was the above mentioned annual
collection of the material flows entering and leaving the companies under contract of the
system owners. A simplified LCA study was added to this material flow analysis, in order
to calculate the respective environmental impacts of the activities of the companies having
a contract with either of the system owners, but also of the subsequent process step
resulting in the various secondary raw materials as well as the included disposal processes.
In order to compare the resulting environmental impacts, a system without any recycling
activities was taken as baseline scenario.

3.1. System boundaries and functional unit

The main system examined covers all materials from the point where electronic
equipment becomes waste until the point where the fractions resulting from the various
sorting, dismantling and recycling processes either become secondary raw materials or
are disposed of by incineration or by landfilling. An overview of the system is shown
in Fig. 1.
The first part—bcontractors of SWICO/S.EN.SQ—covers the activities of the two Swiss
systems of SWICO and S.EN.S. The second part of the system (bclients for fractionsQ)
represents all additional treatment steps necessary to transform the various fractions
leaving the two Swiss systems by becoming either secondary raw materials or waste for
final disposal.
SWICO / S.EN.S
contractors of

collection

sorting & 1) PWB = printed wiring board

dismantling = transports
for fractions

battery recycling metals cables PWB1) CRT-screen

recycling other haz. w. recycling recycling recycling recycling
clients

disposal of disposal of other waste

cli

capacitors plastics fractions

ferromanganese copper, glass cullets,

zinc mercury steel copper lead, zinc, wood,
mercury gold, silver waste paper
heat and
electricity

Fig. 1. System boundaries of the modeled WEEE take-back and recycling systems, including processing steps up
to the production of secondary raw materials.
 R. Hischier et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25 (2005) 525–539 529

= transports
collection

Incineration
WEEE
incineration

zinc
Primary Production

ferro- precious other

mercury steel copper
manganese metals materials

ferromanganese copper, glass cullets,

zinc mercury steel copper lead, zinc, wood,
mercury gold, silver waste paper
heat and
electricity

Fig. 2. System boundaries of the baseline system, including incineration of the complete WEEE and primary
production of raw materials generated from WEEE take-back and recycling.

The functional unit of the study includes all activities linked with the disposal and
recycling of the WEEE accumulated over one year (2004) in Switzerland according to the
above system boundaries.
For the baseline scenario the functional unit chosen had to result in the same basket of
benefits as that for the Swiss WEEE system, i.e. to cover the disposal of the WEEE
accumulated over one year in Switzerland and to produce a similar amount of raw
materials. The scenario chosen assumes that no WEEE take-back and recycling system is
installed, and instead the complete WEEE amount is incinerated in an MSWI plant. Thus,
an amount of materials has to be produced by the respective primary production paths
similar to that which would have resulted from secondary production following the Swiss
take-back and recycling systems. An overview of this baseline system is shown in Fig. 2.

4. Inventory data

4.1. Material flow analysis

The MFA step covers the activities of the contractors of SWICO and S.EN.S including
the collection as well as the sorting and dismantling steps. Subsequent treatment steps are
not taken into account in this approach. The data, which are the foundation for the annual
technical reports of the SWICO and the S.EN.S systems, are annually collected and
evaluated. In Table 1, the resulting material flows of the year 2004 of all companies
participating in either of the two systems are summarized.
These fractions are derived from a total of almost 75,000 t of devices—about 29%
of which is composed of office equipment, 24% of large household appliances (i.e.
white goods), 18% of cooling appliances, 15% of consumer electronics and about 10%
of small household appliances—were collected, sorted and dismantled in Switzerland in
2004.
530 R. Hischier et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25 (2005) 525–539

Table 1
Resulting fractions of the material flow analysis of all contractors of the two Swiss take-back and recycling
systems for the year 2004
Fraction Amount in t In %
Batteries 204 0.3
Capacitors 120 0.2
Other hazardous materials 233 0.3
Metals 45,869 61.2
Metal–plastic mixtures 8776 11.7
Plastics 9133 12.2
Cables 1105 1.5
Screens (CRT & LCD) 6862 9.2
Printed wiring boards 1204 1.6
Other materials 1450 1.9
Total 74,957 100.0

4.2. Life cycle assessment

Due to time and data restrictions, only a simplified LCA study was performed with
the data from the material flow analysis. The various further treatment steps were not
examined in detail, but typical treatment options based on readily available data, e.g.
LCI data from the Swiss national LCI database ecoinvent (Ecoinvent Centre, 2004),
were modelled instead of case-specific routes. For the metals and metal–plastics
mixture shown in Table 1 it is assumed—due to a lack of more specific data within the
above described MFA—that this could be used entirely for secondary steel
production—i.e. no other metals such as aluminium are taken into account. Due to
the fact that aluminium offers greater ecological savings for secondary production than
steel does, this assumption leads to conservative results (i.e. the actual environmental
benefit of metal recycling compared to the respective primary production could even be
higher than our results suggest).
Tables 2 and 3 summarize the key characteristics and assumptions used in the LCA
study for the different processing steps of the Swiss take-back and recycling systems.
For the baseline scenario—i.e. incineration of the entire WEEE amount and the primary
production of the respective raw materials—a WEEE-specific incineration dataset was
calculated using the ecoinvent waste tool described in Doka (2003). The elementary

Table 2
Values and assumptions for the bcontractors of the two systemsQ
Step Values Assumptions/remarks
Collection 42.75 km distance: 66% by lorry Transport distances of 35 to 50 km according to type
28 t, 34% by train of collection point. Weighted according to actual
collection amount of the various
types of collection point
Sorting and Electricity consumption for Manual dismantling is free of environmental loads
dismantling mechanical dismantling: (i.e. electricity consumption equal to
38.2 kWh/t 77% mechanical mechanical dismantling. Data of electricity
dismantling consumption from Ansems and van Gijlswijk, 2001)
 R. Hischier et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25 (2005) 525–539 531

Table 3
Values and assumptions for the process steps of the bclients for fractionsQ
Step Values (remarks)
Battery recycling ! Transport to treatment plant: 250 km, 75% by lorry 28 t–25% by train (authors’ own
assumption);
! Remelting and separation in the Swiss battery treatment plant (process input and output
according to Batrec, 2005)
Disposal of capacitors ! Transport to treatment plant: 150 km, 75% by lorry 28 t–25% by train (authors’ own
assumption);
! Incineration as average hazardous waste in average Swiss HWI (hazardous waste
incineration) plant (process input and output according to Doka, 2003)
Disposal remaining ! Transport to treatment plant: 150 km, 75% by lorry 28 t–25% by train (authors’ own
hazardous assumption);
substances ! Mercury: split in Hg, glass and metals—no material or energy consumption included;
! Se drums: separation of Se layer and drum (no costs included)—drum into metal
recycling/layer in HWI (average waste in HWI plant according to Doka, 2003);
! Toner modules and LCD displays: incineration as plastics mixture in an average Swiss
MSWI (municipal solid waste incineration) plant (process input and output according
to Doka, 2003);
! Cooling substances and fluorescent layer from CRT screens: incineration as average
hazardous waste in average Swiss HWI plant (process input and output according to
Doka, 2003)
Metals recycling ! Transport to treatment plant: 250 km, 75% by lorry 28 t–25% by train (authors’ own
assumption);
! Assumption that 100% is iron scrap—being used in the secondary steel production;
! Remelting in an average European electro furnace for steel production (process input
and output according to Althaus et al., 2004)
Cable recycling ! Transport to treatment plant: 50 km, 80% by lorry 28 t–25% by train (author’s own
assumption);
! Separation of plastics and copper (data according to a Swiss cable recycling company);
! Incineration of plastics in an average Swiss MSWI plant (process input and output
according to Doka, 2003);
! Remelting in an average European secondary copper production plant (process input
and output according to Althaus et al., 2004)
Disposal of plastics ! Transport to treatment plant: 50 km, 80% by lorry 28 t–20% by train (authors’ own
assumption);
! Incineration of plastics in an average Swiss MSWI plant (process input and output
according to Doka, 2003)
CRT screen recycling ! Transport to treatment plant: 250 km, 75% by lorry 28 t–25% by train (authors’ own
assumption);
! Separation of metal containing parts and getter from glass;
! Glass: milling, drilling and sorting (process input and output according to a Swiss CRT
screen recycling company–energy consumption estimated based on Ansems and van
Gijlswijk, 2001)–no further processing included. Assumption that 15% of glass end up
in a secondary lead smelter—85% as secondary glass;
! Metals: remelting in an average Euripean electro furnace for stell production (process
input and output according to Althaus et al., 2004)
! Getter: incineration as average hazardous waste in average Swiss HWI plant (process
input and output according to Doka, 2003)
Printed wiring ! Transport to treatment plant: 1500 km, 30% by lorry 28 t–60% by boat–10% by train
board recycling (assumption: treatment at Boliden plant, Sweden);
! Remelting in an average European secondary copper smelter (input and output data
according to European Commission, 2001);
(continued on next page)
532 R. Hischier et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25 (2005) 525–539

Table 3 (continued)
Step Values (remarks)
Printed wiring ! Further processing and separation steps of a precious metals plant (data according to
board recycling Scharnhorst et al., submitted for publication)
Other waste fraction ! Transport to treatment plant: 150 km, 75% by lorry 28 t–25% by train (authors’ own
assumption);
! Paper/board: sorting of paper/board before becoming secondary raw material (process
input and output according to Hischier, 2004);
! Wood and glass: no further treatment—directly taken as secondary raw material;
! Other waste: incineration as average waste in an average Swiss MSWI plant (process
input and output according to Doka, 2003)

composition of WEEE was taken from Hellweg (2000) (reported in Ecoinvent Centre,
2004). For the primary production, average European primary production datasets
according to Ecoinvent Centre (2004) were used. Due to a lack of data, the precious metals
primary production was represented by the platinum primary production. According to
Meadows et al. (2004), platinum and gold—the most relevant precious metals within the
WEEE fractions—have an equal material intensity factor of around 350,000 kg/kg metal.
Thus the inventory data of platinum are used as representative for all precious metals.

4.3. Impact assessment methods

For the impact assessment, all baseline plus selected study-specific impact categories
according to the CML methodology (Guinee et al., 2001) were used. A list of the factors
used is given in Table 4. No more specific impact factors were taken into account, e.g. land
use, due to the fact that only a streamlined LCA was established.

Table 4
Characterization factors used within this study (according to the CML methodology)
Category Abbrev Unit Remarks
Baseline impact categories
Depletion of abiotic resources ADP kg antimony eq. –
Climate change GWP kg CO2 eq. Factors for GWP 100a
Stratospheric ozone depletion ODP kg CFC-11 eq. Factors for ODP steady state
Human toxicity HTP kg 1,4-DCB eq. Factors for HTP infinite
Ecotoxicity
Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity FAETP kg 1,4-DCB eq. Factors for FAETP infinite
Marine aquatic ecotoxicity MAETP kg 1,4-DCB eq. Factors for MAETP infinite
Terrestrial ecotoxicity TETP kg 1,4-DCB eq. Factors for TETP infinite
Photo-oxidant formation POCP kg ethylene eq. Factors for high NOX values
Acidification AP kg SO2 eq. Factors for average Europe
Eutrophication EP kg PO3-
4 eq. Generic factors

Study-specific impact categories

Ecotoxicity
Freshwater sediment ecotoxicity FSETP kg 1,4-DCB eq. Factors for FSETP infinite
Marine sediment ecotoxicity MSETP kg 1,4-DCB eq. Factors for MSETP infinite
 R. Hischier et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25 (2005) 525–539 533

5. Results

5.1. Environmental impact of the contractors and their clients for the fractions

Fig. 3 shows the relative contribution of the complete secondary production system
—i.e. the activities of the contractors of SWICO/S.EN.S plus the further treatment of
each of the fractions up to the respective secondary product or into waste for final
disposal—to the non-toxicity impact categories given in the Dutch CML methodology.
As can be seen in Fig. 3, the activities in the licensed area are only of minor importance
in the entire secondary raw material production chain with less than 5% in all impact
factors. An in-depth analysis of the licensed area shows that its environmental impacts are
dominated by the various transport activities within the collection phase. The dismantling
and sorting activities, contribute only between 10% (eutrophication) and 40% (abiotic
resources, climate change) to the total impact of the licensed area, whereas mechanical
processing is responsible for more than 75%. On the other hand, all factors—except
climate change—are dominated by the secondary metals production step. This step is
responsible for up to more than 90% of the total load of the secondary production. In the
case of climate change, the large amount of bother materialsQ is due to incineration of the
plastics. One of the main reasons for this is the fact that the fraction of metals accounts for
more than 60% of the output of the dismantling step.
Fig. 4 shows a detailed overview of the impacts from the various activities within the
metal recycling step, including transportation from the licensed company to further
treatment plants, i.e. electro arc furnace installations. It can be seen that the most important

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Acidification

Climate Change

Eutrophication

Photochem. Oxidation

Stratos. Ozone Depl.

Resources

Collection, Sorting, Dismantling Batteries

Metals Cables
Screens Printed Wiring Board
Other materials
Fig. 3. Relative environmental impacts of the complete take-back and recycling system (i.e. collection and sorting
plus further treatment steps)—the total impact of these steps is shown as 100%.
534 R. Hischier et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25 (2005) 525–539

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Acidification

Climate Change

Eutrophication

Photochem. Oxidation

Stratos. Ozone Depl.

Resources

Infrastructure Electricity Heat (fuels) Auxillaries

Transports Waste disposal direct emissions

Fig. 4. Relative environmental impacts of the further treatment of the metal fraction out of the licensed area (i.e.
transport to electro arc furnace, electro arc furnace process)—the total impact is shown as 100%.

contribution is due to the electricity consumed by the furnace as well as the transportation
costs of moving the various materials. These impacts are responsible for 70%
(beutrophicationQ) up to more than 90% (bacidificationQ). In the case of bphotochemical
oxidationQ, the direct emissions from the furnace contribute also to more than 20% to the
total impact.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Acidification

Climate Change

Eutrophication

Photochem. Oxidation

Stratos. Ozone Depl.

Resources

Batteries Metals Cables

Screens Printed Wiring Board Other materials
Fig. 5. Relative environmental impacts per kilogram of treated fraction of the various secondary production
paths—the total impact of these steps is shown as 100%.
 R. Hischier et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25 (2005) 525–539 535

Finally, in Fig. 5, the influence of the various further treatment steps, per kilogram of
the respective fraction, is shown.
Here it can be clearly seen that on a per kilogram basis the treatment of the batteries and
printed wiring boards is much more relevant than the secondary steel production. While the
first one is very important for eutrophication and stratospheric ozone depletion, the latter one
is the most important one as regards acidification, photochemical oxidation and abiotic
resource consumption. The secondary production of steel is important concerning especially
photochemical oxidation and abiotic resource consumption.

5.2. Environmental impacts in comparison with the baseline scenario

In a second step, a comparison was done between the environmental impacts of the entire
Swiss take-back and recycling system (including all further secondary material processing
steps) and a system without any recycling and thus one based only on disposal—here

Fig. 6. Environmental impacts of the WEEE recycling system, i.e. collection, sorting and further treatment (dark
bars), compared with the avoided environmental impacts of the WEEE incineration and the primary production of
the raw materials (bright bars).
536 R. Hischier et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25 (2005) 525–539

represented by incineration of all WEEE in a waste incineration plant—and primary

production.
In both figures of this chapter, the environmental impact of the WEEE recycling system
is shown with dark bars on the positive side, while the avoided primary production is
shown as bright bars on the negative side of the x-axis. In the first row, the value on the
negative side represents the incineration of the complete WEEE in an MSWI plant. In the
very last row, the bars are on the reverse side—as these bars represent the substitute energy
generated by the incineration of organic materials in either of the two systems examined.
For all impacts examined in Figs. 6 and 7, the sum of the burden produced (dark
bars) is much lower than the burden avoided (bright bars). While the various impact
categories summarized in Fig. 6 are dominated by the primary production of steel and
precious metals, the toxicity factors in Fig. 7 are all dominated by the incineration of all
WEEE material in the baseline scenario. The amount of toxicity caused by the Swiss
take-back and recycling system is of minor importance when compared to the

Fig. 7. Toxicity potentials of the secondary production, i.e. collection, sorting and further treatment (dark bars),
compared with the avoided environmental impacts of the WEEE incineration and the primary production of the
raw materials (bright bars).
 R. Hischier et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25 (2005) 525–539 537

incineration step. In general, it could be observed that the incineration of all WEEE
causes considerable environmental impacts in the first row of the two figures—this is
due to the combustion of the organic part and the resulting air emissions and due to the
effects attributable to the landfilling of the non-burnable parts of the WEEE input.
A similar result—i.e. that the avoided impact is higher than the impact produced by the
Swiss take-back and recycling system—could also be obtained when the incineration of
WEEE is not taken into account for the baseline scenario—i.e. when the burdens of the
WEEE recycling are compared only with the avoided primary production of the various raw
materials.

6. Conclusions and outlook

From the results of the LCA study presented here it could be concluded that a take-back
and recycling system for WEEE as established in Switzerland has clear environmental
advantages, compared with the respective baseline scenario assuming a complete
incineration of all WEEE. This is even true if only the primary production of the raw
materials is considered in the baseline scenario and the disposal of the WEEE (i.e. its
incineration) is ignored. However, it is not possible to recycle WEEE without causing any
environmental impacts. In particular, the further treatment of products to produce secondary
raw materials from them causes considerable environmental impact. However, the impact is
much smaller than that from the respective primary production.
As recycling shows environmental advantages over incineration, the goal of 4 kg of
recycled WEEE per inhabitant defined in the European WEEE directive (European Union,
2002) cannot be sufficient for sustainable development in the area of WEEE. Instead, a
value as high as possible should be aimed at. The rate of 11 kg per inhabitant obtained in
Switzerland proves that higher rates are possible.
The framework of a simplified LCA is sufficient to identify the most sustainable
treatment option. However, as soon as more detailed questions—regarding e.g. the
differences between mechanical and manual dismantling, various treatment options for
plastics from WEEE, etc.—become the main focus, more detailed data should be used. In
this regard it has to be pointed out that especially the precious metal part is based on weak
data so far. As soon as more detailed data e.g. for gold or silver will be available, the
treatment of more differentiated issues will be possible.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to our colleagues from the technical control organizations of the Swiss
WEEE recycling systems for the fruitful discussions which preceded the writing of this
paper. Furthermore we would like to thank the two owners of the Swiss systems, SWICO
and S.EN.S—especially Peter Bornand (SWICO) and Robert Hediger (S.EN.S)—for the
confidence they have placed in Empa over the years, regarding us as a major partner
within the Swiss take-back and recycling systems for WEEE. Finally we would also like to
thank the three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
538 R. Hischier et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25 (2005) 525–539

References

Althaus H-J, Blaser S, Classen M, Jungbluth N. Life cycle inventories of metals. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle
Inventories. Dübendorf, Switzerland7 EMPA Dübendorf; 2004.
Ansems AMM, van Gijlswijk RN. Eco-efficiency of routes for selected WEEE products containing plastics.
Apeldoorn, The Netherlands7 TNO Environment Energy and Process Innovation; 2001.
Batrec. Facts and figures—energy—and mass balance. Wimmis, Switzerland: Batrec Ltd.; 2005.
Cui J, Forssberg E. Mechanical recycling of waste electric and electronic equipment: a review. J Hazard Mater
2003;B99:243 – 63.
de Benedetti B, Maffia L, Baldo GL. LCA experience in the field of recycling of plastics from electronic waste.
Workshop on recycling of polymeric materials (MODEST). Germany7 Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe (FZK);
2003.
Detzel A, Giegrich J, Krüger M, Möhler S, Ostermayer A. Ökobilanz für PET-Einwegsysteme unter
Berücksichtigung der Sekundärprodukte [Life cycle assessment study of PET one-way bottles respecting
secondary products]. IFEU GmbH, on behalf of PETCORE. Brussels, Heidelberg7 IFEU GmbH; 2004.
Doka G. Life cycle inventories of waste treatment services. EMPA St. Gallen, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle
Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland; 2003.
Ecoinvent Centre. ecoinvent data v11. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. Dübendorf, Switzerland:
Ecoinvent Centre; 2004.
European Commission. Integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC)—reference document on best
available techniques in the non ferrous metals industry. Sevilla7 Institute for Prospective Technological
Studies; 2001. p. 807.
European Union. Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on
waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Brussels: Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities; 2002.
Feszty K, Murchison C, Baird J. Assessment of the quantities of waste electrical and electronic equipment
(WEEE) in Scotland. Waste Manag Res 2003;21:207 – 17.
Grether T, Gilgen PW, Dinkel F. Nachhaltigkeit von aluminium-verpackungen [Sustainability of aluminium
packagings]. Arbeitsgemeinschaft S.E.E.ch- on behalf of IGORA-Genossenschaft, Zurich, St. Gallen; 2003.
Guinee J, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, et al. Life cycle assessment—an operational
guide to the ISO standards. Centre of Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University; 2001.
Hellweg S. Time- and site-dependent life-cycle assessment of thermal waste treatment processes. Zurich7 ETH;
2000.
Hischier R. Life cycle inventories of packaging and graphical paper. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories,
EMPA St. Gallen, Dübendorf, Switzerland; 2004.
Hischier R, Gilgen PW. Life cycle assessment databases as part of sustainable development strategies: the
example of ecoinvent. In: Hilty LM, Seifert EK, Treibert R, editors. Information systems for sustainable
development. Hershey, USA7 Idea Group Inc; 2004. p. 15 – 24.
Hischier R, Wäger P, Gauglhofer J. Environmental impact of recycling ICT equipment—a case study of the Swiss
SWICO Recycling Guarantee: part 1 system and methodology. In: SETAC, editors. 11th SETAC Europe
LCA case study symposium. Lausanne, Switzerland7 SETAC Europe; 2003. p. 40 – 3.
Huisman J. The QWERTY/EE concept—quantifying recycability and eco-efficiency for end-of-life treatment of
consumer electronic products. Thesis Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands; 2003.
Kuehr R, Williams E. Computer and the environment—understanding and managing their impacts. Dordrecht,
The Netherlands7 Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2003.
Meadows D, Randers J, Meadows D. Limits to growth—the 30-year update. Post Mills, USA7 Chelsea Green
Publishing; 2004.
Menad N. Cathode ray tube recycling. Resour Conserv Recycl 1999;26:143 – 54.
Prognos. Nachhaltigkeitsbewertung und Perspektiven des Dualen Systems in Deutschland [Sustainability
assessment and perspectives of bDuales SystemQ in Germany]. Prognos AG- on behalf of Duales System
Deutschland AG. Cologne, Germany: Prognos Ltd.; 2002.
Scharnhorst W, Althaus H-J, Hilty LM, Jolliet O. Environmental assessment of end-of-life treatment options
for a GSM 900 antenna rack. Int J LCA [submitted for publication].
 R. Hischier et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25 (2005) 525–539 539

Zhang S, Forssberg E. Intelligent liberation and classification of electronic scrap. Powder Technol
1999;105:295 – 301.

Roland Hischier is head of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Unit, part of the Technology and Society Lab at the
Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research (Empa). He holds a master’s degree in natural
sciences from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zürich. After three years of experience in industry
he joined EMPA in 2000. His research is focused on methodological issues and the application of LCA.

Patrick Wäger works as a project manager at the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research
(Empa). He holds a master’s degree in chemistry and a PhD in environmental sciences from the Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology (ETH) Zürich. After two years of experience in a consulting company he joined EMPA in
1993. Today he is part of the group Information Systems and Modeling in the Technology and Society
Laboratory. His research is focused on resource management and sustainability issues.

Johannes Gauglhofer is a senior scientist at the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research
(Empa). He holds a PhD in physical chemistry from Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA. He joined
EMPA in 1972 and worked there on different topics, many related to environmental questions. He is now head of
the technical control body which performs the audits for SWICO and S.EN.S.