AN EXPLORATION INTO THE GLOBAL E-WASTE PROBLEM: MOVING TOWARDS THE

RESPONSIBLE LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT OF MOBILE PHONES

Jenna, Grzeslo
Graduate student, Penn State University, United States
email: jenna.grzeslo@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Mobile phone proliferation is expanding worldwide, which is leading to an increase in end-of-life mobile
devices. End-of-life mobile devices can be reused, recycled, or become electronic waste (e-waste).
While e-waste contains valuable materials, it also contains harmful chemicals which when not handled
properly can harm individuals, livestock, and water supplies. Case studies of individuals countries
revealed that e-waste disposal is governed individually country to country, and practices for mobile
phone disposal vary greatly in the developed versus in the developing world. The objective of this paper
is to present mobile phone disposal, a contributing factor to the increase in e-waste, as an international,
telecommunications issue. This study concludes with recommendations for future policies and
initiatives, which operate from a global perspective.

KEYWORDS: mobile phones, ICTs, end-of-lifecycle management, e-waste

1. INTRODUCTION

It is difficult to envision the seas of tech waste in areas like Lagos, Nigeria, but thanks to our smart
phones and the help of Google, we can easily retrieve thousands of images in a second. The scene is
devastating; young men and women scrambling through thousands of discarded mobile phones
collecting valuable materials to be resold. Everything else will be burned. Not only do mobile phones
contain valuable plastics and metals, but they also contain numerous toxins which when not handled
properly are a threat to the environment. The debris from the discarded mobile phones will eventually
end up the area’s water supply, polluting crops and endangering livestock and humans.

The second session of the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM2) in Geneva,
Switzerland in May of 2009 cited electronic waste (e-waste) as one of its top four emerging policy
issues [36]. This paper explores the issue of mobile phone disposal as a contributing factor to e-waste
generation. First, a discussion of the power and proliferation of mobile phones illustrates how the
increasing number of end-of-life mobile phones is contributing to an overall increase in e-waste. Then,
a discussion of the nature of e-waste explains how the components of a mobile phone impact its
recycling and disposal. Moving research forward, the analysis focuses on brief case studies outlining
the policies and practices in China, Africa, and the United States. In doing so, this paper contextualizes
the issue of e-waste as an international, telecommunications issue, highlighting successful policies and
interrogating practices that do not put people and the environment first. Although existing policies are of
interest to this analysis, this paper concludes with recommendations for future interventions for key
stakeholders, namely policy makers and corporations. This analysis argues that it is the responsibility of
mobile phone producers and distributors, as well as any organization that introduces mobile phones
into a community, to actively participate in the end-of-lifecycle management of mobile phones.

2. POWER AND PROLIFERATION OF MOBILE PHONES

Mobile phones stand out from other ICTs in that their adoption rate has been significantly greater over
the past few decades [15]. Gunasekaran and Harmantzis [17] state that although it took the landline

Page 1 of 10
telephone 100 years to reach one billion people around the world, it only took cellular phones 20 years
to accomplish the same feat. Mobile phone adoption has grown so much that approximately 93 per 100
individuals, worldwide, have access to a mobile phone [42]. In the developed world, the number of
mobile phones is approximately 115 per 100 individuals compared to the developing world, which is
approximately 70 per 100 individuals [19]. The most recent figure suggests that there are 7.4 billion
mobile phones worldwide [9]. It is unmistakable that there are a substantial number of mobile phones in
the world. What is of interest is what happens to a mobile phone once it is no longer of use to its
owner?

End-of-life is a loosely defined characteristic that is used to describe a phone that is no longer of use to
its owner, or a mobile phone that is no longer functioning. It is clear that we have not fully explicated the
concept “end-of-life” for the purpose of mobile phone disposal. A device may no longer be of use to its
owner but may still be functional. In that case do we classify it as nearing the end of its life? Devices
that are still functional can be donated and reused. Even devices that are no longer functional can
usually be returned to the mobile phone manufacturer where they can be refurbished and still function
for years to come.

The practice of recycling mobile phones is difficult task. Compared to paper, plastic and scrap metal,
which have established recycling practices, mobile phones have many components that need to be
sorted, separated, and managed individually for recycling purposes [33]. While the task of recycling is
difficult, the raw materials that can be retrieved are valuable [38]. Figure 1 illustrates materials that can
be extracted from mobile phones, if handled properly. Moreover, due to the presence of high toxicity
metals in the rechargeable batteries of mobile phones, there needs to be extensive producer
responsibility in the collection and proper disposal of mobile phones [24].

3. ELECTRONIC (E-WASTE)

Assuming it cannot be donated and reused or recycled, an end-of-life mobile device becomes e-waste.
Although there is no set definition of electronic waste, Widmer, Oswald-Krapf, Sinha-Khetriwal,
Schnellmann, and Boni [40] state, “Electronic waste or e-waste for short is a generic term embracing
various forms of electric and electronic equipment that have ceased to be of any value to their owners”
(p. 438). The primary options for e-waste disposal include landfilling and incineration [33]. The goal of
any disposal program should be to recycle as many of the components of the phone as possible, so a
minimal amount of materials are incinerated or disposed of in landfills. A mobile phone recycling plant
ensures that the phones are broken down, so hazardous materials can be treated and then properly
disposed of in landfills [34]. Scholars argue that mobile phones can and should be reused and recycled
in order to cut down on e-waste [33, 34].

We are witnessing an increasing number of mobile phones that are nearing the end of their lives.
Approximately 60% of U.S. consumers replace their phones every 2-3 calendar years [41]. The rapid
replacement of phones can be attributed to many factors such as the poor quality of some devices,
which are easily damaged, the frequent updating of mobile technology and mobile software, and the
low prices of mobile phones which encourage individuals to upgrade devices regularly. These factors
lead to purchasing a new device much more frequently than most ICTs.

Page 2 of 10
An increase in the number of mobile phones worldwide is inevitably leading to an increase in
dangerous e-waste. There were 48.9 million tons of e-waste generated worldwide in 2012, which is
estimated to increase by 33% by the year 2017 [14]. Pariatmaby and Victor [28] argue that data on e-
waste generation are merely estimates; it is difficult to reliably measure waste generation from country
to country.

Without significant measures to reuse and recycle mobile phones, there is an overall increase in e-
waste, but the question that is often tossed around is, “Whose problem is it?” E-waste disposal is
governed individually country to country. Moreover, e-waste disposal in the developed versus the
developing world varies greatly. The Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003 in the United States
outlines strict guidelines for the proper disposal of e-waste. Although there are many policies in place in
developed countries for how e-waste will be collected and disposed of, over half of the e-waste created
in the United States is sent to poorer countries in the developing world [31]. Therefore, what is of
mounting concern is disposal in the developing world.

E-waste disposal is a multibillion-dollar industry, but over 80% of e-waste is handled by informal or
illegal recycling establishments [14]. This is an issue because the informal sector may avoid the policies
and environmental standards to which the formal waste management sector must adhere. Although
there are regulatory and environmental challenges surrounding the formal e-waste management
industry, it has the potential to be an opportunity for local economic growth [28].

Research suggests that the amount of e-waste produced in the developing world is increasing at a
faster pace than that of the U.S. and other developed countries. Sthiannopka and Wong [31] suggest
that the implications of this shift in waste generation mean that countries that do not have the
necessary provisions for proper disposal will create more e-waste. Moreover, it is estimated that by the
year 2020 China’s e-waste will exceed that created by the United States [35].

In order to explore the global e-waste problem and contextualize mobile phone disposal as a
telecommunication issue, the stakeholders involved in this issue need to be discussed. Obvious
stakeholders include national governments and policy makers. Recently, more attention has been
placed on the role of mobile phone producers in this issue, but it has been insufficient thus far. Finally,
Adediran and Abdulkarim [1] assert that e-waste disposal is not only the responsibility of producers and
distributers of technologies but also mobile phone users because the environmental impact of e-waste
affects everyone. Therefore, we can conclude that the stakeholders in this issue are governments,
mobile phone distributors, and consumers. The next sections of this paper will focus primarily on the
first stakeholders, governments and policy makers.

4. CASE STUDIES

The next sections of this paper present brief case studies. By comparing the individual characteristics
and challenges of regions, trends in e-waste policy and mobile phone disposal will emerge. The
countries chosen for this analysis include China and the United States. As this analysis will point out,
the continent of Africa is one that has been devastatingly exploited by the trans-boundary movement of
mobile phones, yet there are limited e-waste policies throughout Africa. Therefore, this analysis will
explore the issue of mobile phone disposal broadly in Africa, using specific examples from multiple
countries.

The most recent available data suggests that most e-waste is generated in the developed world [30].
Among the countries that will be discussed in this analysis, the United States leads in the generation of
e-waste. Where e-waste is generated and where it is processed and disposed of are both important
considerations to make when discussing this issue. More research is needed on the development of e-

Page 3 of 10
waste, specifically that generated by mobile phones, as well as the trans-boundary movement of such
waste.

4.1 CHINA

China has the largest population of any country in the world and is one of the top countries in surface
area as well. The most recent data suggest that there are 81.3 mobile phones per 100 individuals in
China [37]. Goldemberg [16] explains that in areas of China, mobile phones have replaced landline
phones because mobile phones lack the costly infrastructure associated with traditional
telecommunications. For these reasons, mobile phones are especially beneficial in rural areas.

There are few existing policies in place for e-waste disposal in China. In 1993, China’s National
Environmental Protection Agency (China NEPA) established a center at Tsinghua University. The
National Training and Technology Transfer Center for Hazardous Waste Management and Disposal of
China (NTTTC) would later evaluate e-waste recycling practices. This was an important step in
recognizing that the country faces environmental challenges.

Regulation on the Administration of the Recovery and Disposal of Waste Electrical and Electronic
Products consists of three components that must work together: pollution control, recovery of
resources, and disposal practices [23]. In 2011, the People’s Republic of China, along with the Basel
Convention, signed an agreement regarding the handling of hazardous waste [20]. The principles of the
Basel Convention will be outlined in greater detail in a later section.

There are undeniable challenges for China, both with existing policies as well as for future policies.
Challenges for future policies can be attributed to the structure of China’s government as well as the
attitudes of China’s citizens. Hicks, Dietmar, and Eugster [18] explain that a major challenge for China,
compared to western societies, is that individuals in China expect payment when they surrender an
electronic device. In western societies, such as those in the United States and the European Union,
individuals often have to pay to recycle an electronic device. These funds ensure the safe handling of
the discarded waste. They go on to explain that it is difficult for properly run recycling plants to compete
with the many illegally run recycling plants.

A significant amount of the world’s exported e-waste ends up in China. As a result, the drinking water in
Guiyu city, China, the site of a major recycling plant, is no longer suitable for consumption [39].
According to Leung, Cai, and Wong [21], the contamination has become so prevalent that it is not only
affecting those individuals who live and work in Guiyu but is also affecting individuals who reside
downstream of Guiyu.

4.2 AFRICA

Although the original goal of this project was to explore e-waste policies in several countries, as the
research process continued, it was evident that there are issues facing almost every region of Africa
that could not be ignored. For this reason, this section will discuss specific examples from several
countries and regions, which will open up the discussion of the issue of e-waste in Africa and illuminate
the areas where additional research is needed.

Page 4 of 10
In Africa, mobile technology is especially prominent as there are many regions without access to
traditional telecommunications. Leapfrogging technologies are those in a region or country that by way
of implementation skip prior technologies that would usually proceed said technology. If a rural African
village has access to mobile phones prior to accessing landline telephones, then mobile phones in this
situation would be considered a leapfrogging technology. Chircu and Mahajan [8] believe that mobile
technologies can allow developing countries to bridge the digital divide without investing in costly
infrastructure. In essence, countries will leap over expensive technologies in order to reap the benefits
of mobile technology. Donner [10] compares areas with no phones to a town with dirt roads. He
explains that there are multiple factors that affect why people do not have access to phones including
economic issues and lacking access to a signal in that area, but mobile phones open up opportunities
for development that were once not possible in Africa.

The exportation of used devices into Africa has had two major results. The first result is that many
people in Africa now have access to less expensive devices, causing the mobile phone penetration rate
to go up. The second result of the exportation of used devices into Africa is the potential for an increase
in e-waste. Since these devices may be close to the end of their lives or may already be
nonfunctioning, this leads to a substantial amount of e-waste, especially in Ghana and Nigeria [6].

The increase in mobile phone proliferation, especially through donated mobile phones, is only one of
the contributing factors to the e-waste problem in Africa. Unfortunately, the region is also home to many
landfills for end-of-life electronics. Sometimes end-of-life devices, such as used computers and mobile
phones, are passed off as donations in an effort to avoid regulations governing proper e-waste disposal
[11]. Preventing e-waste from being imported into one country or region results in its shipment to
another country or region. West Africa is experiencing an influx in end-of-life electronics imported into
the region as a result of other nearby regions banning the importation of e-waste [22].

There are a lack of recycling centers and lack of awareness among both individuals and the informal
sector on the dangers of electronic waste. “Even countries that have ICT policies do not seem to have
an interest in establishing e-waste plants. Zambia for example, has an ICT policy but has no e-waste
plant. In East Africa, only Kenya has an e-waste recycling plant, while in Southern Africa, only South
Africa has recycling plants” [22].

Benebo [7] argues that there should be more pressure on the part of corporations, through Extended
Producer Responsibility, to help developing countries deal with their challenges both in infrastructure to
recycle e-waste and knowledge of how to properly handle such waste.

Uganda has two policies in place for the management of e-waste. The Electronic Waste Management
Policy for Uganda was established in 2010. One of the policy’s provisions includes establishing a
Producer Responsibility Organization (RPO), which requires companies to pay a fee a in order to help
cover the costs associated with the proper handling and recycling of e-waste [29]. These funds help
ensure the safe disposal of end-of-life devices. As previously stated, recycling centers can promote
economic growth, but not without the necessary funds to run them. The second waste policy in place in
Uganda relates directly to the disposal of larger electronics such as refrigerators, computers, and
television sets, which does not apply to this analysis.

4.3 UNITED STATES

With over 325 million people in the United States, mobile phone penetration has reached approximately
98.2 mobile phones per 100 U.S. citizens [37]. The most recent figures available from the United
States’ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suggest that in 2009 141 million mobile phones were
ready for end-of-life management. While only 11% of the mobile devices sold in the United States were
recycled, 129 million mobile phones were disposed of, either in landfills or through incineration [12].

Page 5 of 10
The EPA created The National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship in 2011 to improve the handling
and environmental implications of electronic waste. “As one of the largest consumers of electronics in
the world, the U.S. has the responsibility to minimize the negative effects that discarded electronics
have on health and the environment, in the US and abroad” [13]. The task force indicates that it is
important to ensure the safe handling of e-waste both in the United States and abroad. The strategic
plan outlines the difficultly of ensuring that waste will not be handled by “sham” recycling plants in
developing nations. In order to ensure the safe handling of e-waste, more data needs to be collected on
recycling facilities and individual country’s policies.

Moreover, the task force states that its goal is to, “Encourage electronics manufacturers to expand their
product take-back programs, and use certified recyclers as a minimum standard in those programs, by
expanding the use of manufacturer take-back agreements in Federal electronics purchase, rental and
service contracts” [13]. This statement places additional emphasis on the role of electronics producers.
In the case of this analysis, it is asking mobile phone producers to expand on Extended Producer
Responsibility (EPR). The United States Environmental Protection Agency maintains a database of
companies that will take back electronic devices. This is a step towards ensuring that mobile phones do
not end up improperly disposed of in landfills, but these measures do not fully address the global e-
waste problem.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

While most governments would agree that e-waste, when not handled properly, is dangerous, the
range of policies that exist worldwide is vast. As the case studies above illustrate, individual countries
face unique challenges in establishing and enforcing e-waste programs and policies. Moreover, the
range and scope of electronic waste policies varies greatly from country to country. This is especially
problematic with developing countries. One option is for transnational groups to help ensure that
developing nations are not exploited by the shipment of dangerous e-waste.

5.1 TRANSNATIONAL GROUPS

The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their
disposal is a United Nations treaty, which was adopted in 1989. The policy extends beyond e-waste to
include other types of dangerous waste as well. The Basel Convention [6] requires that parties be
aware of and approve of the shipment of e-waste from one country to another. One of the challenges of
this policy is distinguishing between shipments of e-waste and electronic and electrical equipment
(EEE). This means distinguishing between functional or recyclable devices and end-of-life devices that
need to be disposed of. Where a device is in its lifecycle can help determine the difference on a device-
to-device basis. On the other hand, it is far too easy for e-waste to be passed off as functioning EEE.
This influx of nonfunctioning devices being exported from developed nations into developing nations
causes many problems that these countries do not have the resources or infrastructure to address.

The Basel Action Network (BAN) is a global organization that works to carry out the mission of the
Basel Convention treaty. The goals of BAN are to reduce toxic trade and specifically prevent toxic
waste from ending up in developing nations [2]. As of 2012, 179 countries, as well as the EU, have
signed the Basel Convention. Among the countries that have not signed the treaty are the United
States, Angola, and Burma. The mission of BAN includes: “Preventing toxic trade, the practice of
externalizing risk and harm to developing countries; Promoting a toxics-free future by advancing green
design and responsible consumption; Campaigning for global environmental justice, the right to a
pollution-free environment for everyone” [3].

In 2002, the Basel Convention launched the mobile phone partnership initiative (MMPI). MMPI has a
working group, which is composed, of members of the Basel Convention as well as representatives

Page 6 of 10
from mobile phone corporations, which are invested, in the safe handling of end-of-life devices [6].
Moreover, the working group approved four primary projects that would begin implementation in 2003:
“Reuse of used mobile phones after refurbishment; Collection and trans-boundary movement of used
mobile phones; Recovery and recycling of end-of-life mobile phones; Awareness raising on design
consideration” [5].

Groups like the Basel Convention, and its subsidiaries, can aid developing nations in their efforts to
manage e-waste. “Elaboration of the role of the Basel Convention Regional Centers to assist countries
in developing legislation, establishing potential recycling companies, raising awareness, disseminating
information and capacity-building” [4]. Nokia, Samsung, and Sony Ericcson are among the corporations
that agreed to participate in the initiative. The partnership between corporations and transnational
agencies is key to addressing this problem. Corporations can be especially useful in the collection of
end-of-life devices, ensuring their safe handling and disposal.

5.2 LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT

Although some advantageous corporations, such as Nokia, exceed their legal responsibilities and
participate voluntarily in the collection and safe disposal of end-of-life mobile phones, there is not
enough legal pressure placed on mobile phone manufacturers and distributers to manage the full life
cycle of mobile phones. Therefore, more rigid policies involving Extended Producer Responsibility
(EPR) are recommended. EPR is an approach that many mobile phone producers use to handle e-
waste [27]. EPR is defined as, “An environmental policy approach in which a producer’s responsibility
for a product is extended to the post-consumer stage of a products’ life cycle including its final disposal”
[25].

EPR is a component in some e-waste policies, but it is not without its flaws. Any policy faces challenges
in implementation and enforcement. EPR is not only difficult to enforce in developing nations, but
because many of the policies prohibit importing e-waste into developed countries, this also means that
e-waste will likely end up in developing countries. One of the provisions of any e-waste policy should be
the prevention of e-waste importation into a region that does not have the necessary facilities and
capabilities to process the waste in a safe manner.

While on the surface EPR appears to be a policy that can address the issue of mobile phone disposal,
it is not fully addressing this issue on an international level. EPR has the potential to be a positive policy
component because it places added responsibility on mobile phone producers. On the other hand, EPR
needs to be revamped, so it does not further the exploitation of developing nations. For this reason,
among others, there needs to be a push for more proactive measures, especially on the part of the
mobile phone producers and distributers.

There are corporations that are advancing policy through its own initiatives. By not only meeting
baseline expectations but also exceeding those standards, these corporations are essentially
participating in self-regulation. Nokia is working closely with the European Union Commission in order
to improve the methodologies needed to collect meaningful data and promote lasting policies. Nokia
claims that they are leading the mobile phone industry in terms of material management. “We use legal
compliance not as a mere baseline but as a starting point from which to grow” [32]. The Ericsson
Corporation claims that it is “raising the bar” on the handling of e-waste. Moreover, the company
asserts that it promotes take back programs and recycles or reuses 98% of the materials of collected
mobile phones [14].

Page 7 of 10
5.3 CONCLUSIONS

Mobile phone disposal and the overall increase in e-waste is a serious social and environmental issue.
If we are to encourage public policy, telecommunications corporations need to not only meet current
standards but also strive to go above and beyond existing standards. Moreover, any individual or group
who introduces mobile phones into a community owns stock in this issue. This analysis identified that a
significant amount of e-waste is passed off as functioning devices. Future research should explore the
role that individual groups have in the introduction of new technologies into communities. Specifically,
what roles do ICT4D researchers maintain in the lifecycle management of mobile phones?

6. REFERENCES

[1] Adediran, Y. A., & Abdulkarim, A. (2012). Challenges of electronic waste management in Nigeria. International Journal of
Advances in Engineering & Technology, 4(1), 640-648.

[2] BAN. (2011). About the basel action network – BAN. Accessed August 13, 2015, at http://www.ban.org/about/

[3] BAN. (2012). 2012 annual report: Turn back the toxic tide. [Pdf]. Accessed August 13, 2015, at
http://www.ban.org/files/BAN_2012_Annual_Report.pdf

[4] Basel Convention. (2002). Sustainable partnership for the environmental sound management of end-of-life mobile
telephone. [Pdf]. Accessed August 13, 2015, at
http://www.basel.int/Implementation/TechnicalAssistance/Partnerships/MPPI/Decisions/tabid/3249/Default.aspx

[5] Basel Convention. (2007). Information note: Mobile phone partnership initiative. Accessed August 13, 2015, at
http://archive.basel.int/industry/mppi/documents.html

[6] Basel Convention. (2011). Where are WEEE in Africa: Findings from the Basel Convention e-waste Africa programme.
[Pdf]. Accessed August 13, 2015, at
http://www.basel.int/Portals/4/Basel%20Convention/docs/pub/WhereAreWeeInAfrica_ExecSummary_en.pdf

[7] Benebo, N. S. (2011). E-waste Africa project: Nigeria’s experience. [PowerPoint slides]. Accessed August 13, 2015, at
http://www.basel.int/Portals/4/Basel%20Convention/cop10/side-events/e-Waste_Thursday/6_Nigeria_LessonsLearned.pdf

[8] Chircu, A. M., & Mahajan, V. (2009). Perspective: Revisiting the digital divide: An Analysis of mobile technology depth and
service breadth in the BRIC Countries. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(4), 455-466. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
5885.2009.00671.x

[9] Cisco. (2015). Cisco visual networking index: Global mobile data traffic forecast update, 2014-2019 [White paper].
Accessed August 13, 2015, at http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-
vni/white_paper_c11-520862.pdf

[10] Donner, J. (2006). The social and economic implications of mobile telephony in Rwanda: An ownership/access typology.
Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 19(2), 17-28. doi:10.1007/s12130-006-1021-7

[11] Embassy of Finland. (2014). E-waste evolution in Africa. Accessed August 13, 2015, at
http://www.formin.finland.fi/public/default.aspx?contentid=300133&contentlan=2&culture=en-US

[12] EPA. (2011 a). Electronics waste management in the United States through 2009. Accessed August 13, 2015, at
http://www.epa.gov/waste//conserve/materials/ecycling/docs/summarybaselinereport2011.pdf

[13] EPA. (2011 b). National strategy for electronics stewardship: Interagency task force on electronics stewardship. Accessed
August 13, 2015, at http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/materials/ecycling/taskforce/docs/strategy.pdf

[14] Ericsson. (2015). Taking responsibility for e-waste. Accessed August 16, 2015, at
http://www.ericsson.com/article/extended-producer-responsibility_1823748761_c

[15] Geyer, R., & Doctori Blass, V. (2010). The economics of cell phone reuse and recycling. The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 47(5), 515-525. doi:10.1007/s00170-009-2228-z

Page 8 of 10
[16] Goldemberg, J. (2011). Technological leapfrogging in the developing world. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs,
12(1), 135-141.

[17] Gunasekaran, V., & Harmantzis, F. C. (2007). Emerging wireless technologies for developing countries. Technology in
Society, 29(1), 23-42. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2006.10.001

[18] Hicks, C., Dietmar, R., & Eugster, M. (2005). The recycling and disposal of electrical and electronic waste in China—
legislative and market responses. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(5), 459-471. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2005.04.007

[19] ITU. (2011). Measuring the information society. Geneva: Switzerland.

[20] Keli, Y. (2011). E-waste activities for solving e-waste problems on regional level. [PowerPoint slides]. Accessed August
13, 2015, at http://www.basel.int/Portals/4/Basel%20Convention/cop10/side-events/e-Waste_Thursday/3_BCRC_China_e-
waste_activitiesl.pdf

[21] Leung, A., Cai, Z. W., & Wong, M. H. (2006). Environmental contamination from electronic waste recycling at Guiyu,
southeast china. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 8(2), 154-154. doi:10.1007/s10163-006-0002-y

[22] Malakata, M. (2015, Jan. 31). West Africa turns into dumping ground for e-waste. CIO East Africa. Accessed August 13,
2015, at www.allafrica.com

[23] MEP. (2011). E-waste: Policies, regulations and management experiences in China. [PowerPoint slides]. Accessed
August 13, 2015, at http://www.basel.int/Portals/4/Basel%20Convention/cop10/side-events/e-Waste_Thursday/4_e-
waste_%20policies_China.pdf

[24] Nnorom, I. C., & Osibanjo, O. (2009). Heavy metal characterization of waste portable rechargeable batteries used in
mobile phones. International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology, 6(4), 641-650. doi:10.1007/BF03326105

[25] OECD. (2001). Extended producer responsibility: A guidance manual for governments. 1-159. Accessed August 13, 2015,
at http://www.wastenet.net.au/Assets/Documents/Content/Information/EPR-Guide_for_Govt-2001.pdf

[26] Oteng-Ababio, M. (2012). Electronic waste management in Ghana – issues and practices. INTECH. 7, 149-166.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/45884

[27] Panambunan-Ferse, M., & Breiter, A. (2013). Assessing the side-effects of ICT development: E-waste production and
management. Technology in Society, 35(3), 223. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2013.04.002

[28] Pariatamby, A., & Victor, D. (2013). Policy trends of e-waste management in Asia. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste
Management, 15(4), 411-419. doi:10.1007/s10163-013-0136-7

[29] Republic of Uganda. (2012). Electronic waste (e-waste) management policy for Uganda. Accessed August 13, 2015, at
file:///I:/Electronic%20Waste%20Management%20Policy%20for%20Uganda.pdf

[30] Step. (2012). Step e-waste world map. [Data set]. Accessed August 13, 2015, at http://www.step-initiative.org/step-e-
waste-world-map.html

[31] Sthiannopkao, S., & Wong, M. H. (2013). Handling e-waste in developed and developing countries: Initiatives, practices,
and consequences. The Science of the Total Environment, 463-464, 1147-1153. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.06.088

[32] Tanskanen, P. (2012). Electronics waste: Recycling of mobile phones. [White Paper]. Accessed February 14, 2011, from
Nokia Corporation Finland, at http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/37110.pdf

[33] Tanskanen, P. (2013). Management and recycling of electronic waste. Acta Materialia, 61(3), 1001-1011.
doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2012.11.005

[34] Tanskanen, P., & Takala, R. (2006). A decomposition of the end of life process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(15-16),
1326-1332. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.016

[35] UNEP. (2007). E-waste volume II: E-waste management manual. United Nations Environmental Program. Division of
Technology, Industry and Economics. International Environmental Technology Centre. Osaka/Shiga, Japan.

[36] UNEP. (2009). Proceedings from ICCM2 ’09: Second session of the international conference on chemicals management.
Geneva, Switzerland. Retrieved from http://www.unep.ch/saicm/index.php?content=meeting&mid=42&def=1&menuid=9

Page 9 of 10
[37] United Nations. (2014). UN data: A world of information. Accessed August 13, 2015, at http://data.un.org/Default.aspx

[38] Wabwoba, D. F., Sakwa, P. T., Mbugua, D. S., & Kilwake, H.J. (2014). Environmental implications of cells phones
penetration and disposal in Kenya. International Journal of Computers & Technology, 13, 4647-4652.

[39] Weber, R., & Kuch, B. (2003). Relevance of BFRs and thermal conditions on the formation pathways of brominated and
brominated–chlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans. Environment International, 29(6), 699-710. doi:10.1016/S0160-
4120(03)00118-1

[40] Widmer, R., Oswald-Krapf, H., Sinha-Khetriwal, D., Schnellmann, M., & Böni, H. (2005). Global perspectives on e-waste.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(5), 436-458. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2005.04.001

[41] Wilhelm, W., Yankov, A., & Magee, P. (2011). Mobile phone consumption behavior and the need for sustainability
innovations. Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability, 7(2), 20.

[42] World Bank. (2013). World development indicators. Accessed August 13, 2015, at
http://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/WDI-2013-ebook.pdf

Page 10 of 10