The ecological impact of the most ubiquitous consumer-electronics device in history – yes, mobile handsets – may be likened to a coin.
On the coin’s face is the easily recognized topic of recycling, as familiar to most Americans as a likeness of George Washington – and just as ignored.
The obverse of this coin, however, is more complex and less visible and arguably more important. It involves the less-tangible aspect of discovering and replacing toxic materials in the supply chain and end-product and reducing energy use – and, therefore, carbon footprints – from manufacturing processes. These are factors consumers typically never see and, therefore, never think about. Out of sight, out of mind.
Though discussion and awareness of the issues has never been higher – try Googling “recycling” or “climate change,” for instance – real progress has been gradual. Vendors have economic and regulatory incentives, as well as brand value to protect, but a lack of standards has made “green” claims largely meaningless, some say.
That’s despite leadership from firms such as Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications L.P. and Nokia Corp., which appear genuinely interested in corporate responsibility as well as manufacturing efficiency and score relatively favorable ratings from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Greenpeace.
Consumers, on the other hand, talk the talk but don’t always walk the walk. Recycling surveys from several sources have found generally dismal consumer participation in recycling programs. At the same time, the sheer volume of discarded handsets has created an entire industry that thrives on take-backs, recycling and reuse.
“Consumer surveys find high ‘concern rates,’ ” said Frost & Sullivan analyst Sharifah Amirah. “The environment is high on everyone’s agenda.”
“The consumer is trying to go in that direction,” said Ken Stanvick, a senior VP at Design Chain Associates L.L.C., which advises vendors on reducing hazardous materials and energy use. “But, in my opinion, cellphones are built as a throw-away product – and the astronomical volumes equate to substantial energy-use and disposal problems.”
Handset volumes: an industry driver, and curse
The mobile handset industry is based on selling enormous volumes of handsets, particularly in emerging markets, where the product’s life cycle is shortening as innovation gains speed. And that is antithetical to one potential solution that appears at odds with the design- and fashion-conscious nature of the market: a single, long-lived hardware platform that could be upgraded via software or a component swap-out might well contribute to the industry’s eco-sustainability.
That path may be taken, in the future. Mobile-device management firms and carriers can use FOTA, or firmware-over-the-air, to extend a handset’s useful life. And Nokia and Apple Inc. clearly have targeted software and services as the follow-on to hardware sales, though both continue to use device volumes to drive their current and future businesses. First they must race to establish brand loyalty with ubiquitous hardware – a land-grab for eyeballs, as it were – before they can cash in on less-tangible endeavors.
But consider the world in which we live, rather than pipe dreams of the future.
More than a billion handsets are likely to be sold globally this year and the sheer numbers of handsets being manufactured and discarded underscore the importance of reducing carbon footprints and recycling, reuse or disposal.
Americans alone dump 125 million handsets annually, creating 65,000 tons of waste, some toxic and hazardous to clean air and water and, therefore, humans, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
We’re fouling our own nest in ways that can affect human development, health and longevity. Carbon emissions threaten the planet’s ecological stability as well as individual human cardio-vascular systems. Various carcinogenic materials and toxic components can directly impact an individual’s or community’s health. The latest consumer-electronic materials of concern, according to Greenpeace: PVCs, or polyvinyl chlorides, used in hard and malleable plastics, and BFRs, or brominated flame retardants, that can give off toxic gas during use.
Thus, there’s a race to identify, eliminate or replace hazardous elements in the manufacturing process and handset content while maintaining the economic sustainability critical to a profitable venture.
The complex picture that emerges is one of high consumer and industry awareness. Vendors are driven by financial, regulatory and brand-value incentives, as well as corporate consciences (to cynics, a seemingly oxymoronic term). Consumers appear to demand “green” practices and products, but surveys show low participation in recycling programs. (Cynicism can cut both ways.) Meanwhile, consumers and vendors are deluged by “green” claims so ubiquitous – yet lacking standards-based credibility – that the buzzword du jour rings hollow, if not false. This may have muddied the achievements of true leaders.
The bottom line: We’ve begun a long – some say endless – journey and we’re not there yet. Some say we’re not even close.
Surveys: a sketchy recycling picture
Despite long-term, consistent efforts by industry players from wireless trade group CTIA to handset vendors to carriers to recycling firms to charities to government agencies – as well as by advocacy groups such as Greenpeace – consumers generally have been slow to recycle.
On the ostensibly obvious topic of recycling and reuse, consumers remain woefully in the dark, essentially stuffing discarded handsets into drawers, according to several leading surveys of consumer behavior. That doesn’t bode well for addressing the less-tangible topics of removing hazardous substances from the product, life-cycle management, overall energy use and carbon footprints.
Still, those same surveys provide a glimmer of hope: recycling rates are low, but increasing.
A recent iSuppli survey found that, in the fourth quarter of last year, less than 10% of American consumers recycled their handset, yet that was double the rate of the preceding quarter.
More than one-third – 37% – stashed those handsets away in drawers based on a perception of “residual value,” though iSuppli predicted that those handsets eventually would end up in the trash. Meanwhile, 16% gave away old phones to friends or family, 10% threw handsets away or lost them, 9% gave their handsets to charity, 8% kept them to use, 6% returned them to a retailer and 3% sold them. Another 3% said they didn’t know the fate of their last handset.
A global survey by Nokia Corp. of 6,500 people in 13 countries, released last month, also depicted an uphill battle for awareness and participation in recycling handsets. Nokia found that only 3% of global citizens recycle and 75% don’t even think about it, though a similar percentage agreed that recycling would have a positive impact on the environment. Half of respondents said they didn’t know recycling was possible. A majority said they didn’t know how or where to recycle. The good news: only 4% of handsets end up in a landfill. The bad news: 44% of discarded handsets are placed in drawers, prone to end up in landfills, if iSuppli’s hunch is correct.
One contrast worth noting: Consumers in the mature market of the United Kingdom, perhaps conscious of the limits of their island existence, are most likely to recycle. The least likely were consumers in India, an emerging market that leads global demand for handset volumes.
Nokia found that the average user has had an average of five phones. According to Markus Terho, Nokia’s director of environmental affairs, if each of the world’s 3 billion mobile-phone users returned one phone, that would save 240,000 tons of raw materials and reduce carbon emissions equivalent to taking 4 million cars off the road.
Talk about “incentivizing” the consumer.
Manufacturing, networks = carbon footprint
The
less-visible challenge lies in cutting overall carbon emissions. Handsets have some hidden costs.
A Frost & Sullivan study revealed that in a handset’s overall carbon footprint, 50% to 70% of the associated energy use comes from carbon-emitting fossil fuels used in the manufacturing process. And, while that handset is in use, 70% to 80% of related energy use is drawn by the network.
Consumers, in contrast, tend to be more focused on the device’s battery capacity and need for recharging, another potential, energy-wasting avenue being tackled by vendors, notably Nokia.
According to Frost & Sullivan’s Amirah, three basic drivers affect vendors and carriers: meeting local regulations, conserving energy to lower operational costs and an interest in protecting their brand value.
Consumer perceptions of corporate responsibility are icing on the cake. Wall Street tends to ignore vendors’ eco-friendly practices in its assessment of stock valuation, for instance, unless transgressions make headlines and threaten future earnings, according to analyst Mark McKechnie at American Technology Research.
And there are inherent contradictions to various solutions.
High “concern rates” among consumers for eco-friendly practices run counter to the ubiquitous thirst for consumer electronics and vendors’ drive to sell high volumes, Amirah pointed out. And one possible solution – extending the life cycle of the hardware platform – runs counter to incentive programs that entice consumers to recycle when they buy new handsets.
The replacement cycle, in general, is getting shorter, not longer.
Challenges = opportunities
Given the complexity of supply chains and manufacturing processes, patchwork regulation and the potential public-relations pitfalls of ending up in a negative headline, vendors can get help from a thriving industry that focuses on easing the challenge.
For instance, Design Chain Associates, based in San Francisco, advises manufacturers on how to meet regulations in various parts of the world, reduce energy consumption, reduce reliance on hazardous and toxic materials and manage the entire life cycle of their products.
This is an in-depth, nuts-and-bolts approach to a dizzying investigation of details and processes and potentially mind-numbing mitigation efforts, according to Design Chain’s Stanvick. The firm explores every single component supplier, audits their materials and guides clients to eco-friendly replacement materials and processes.
One enemy of honest solutions? “Green-washing” – similar to brain-washing – is common today, feeding on consumers’ desire to be eco-friendly, Stanvick said.
“Going ‘green’ has a significant market advantage,” said Stanvick, “just not a consistent, standard meaning. And there’s a substantial push to mine that advantage.”
“Consumers who see ‘green’ or ‘enviro-friendly’ must be alert to details,” Stanvick continued. “Without clear standards, companies are using these terms for marketing advantage. It’s difficult to make intelligent choices.”
As for meeting regulations, Stanvick said that large, multi-national vendors tend to use a uniform supply chain and consistent manufacturing processes to meet the most stringent environmental regulations imposed by, say, the European Union, which sets the global standard. That’s good news for consumers in India, for instance. But in the United States, a patchwork of largely state-level regulations address recycling/reuse. California and New York, for instance, require “take-back” programs that allow consumers to return used products to their point of purchase. Other vendors, carriers and organizations offer Web-based or point-of-purchase-based recycling.
“The good guys are making it easy,” said Stanvick.
The U.S. lags far behind Europe and Japan in participation in these programs, he added.
These efforts and consumer interest – if not participation – has spawned an industry focused on recycling, reuse and disposal.
ABI Research has forecast that the market for recycled handsets, for instance, will exceed 100 million units in four years, a $3 billion annual, global market, driven by shortened replacement cycles and demand for low-cost handsets in emerging markets. ABI cited the growth of recycling/reuse firms such as ReCellular, Fonebak (now a division of Regenersis) and Eazyfone, as well as scores of smaller, regional players.
De-materialize the handset
Perhaps it’s not surprising that the company with 40% of the global market for handsets should also be a leader in addressing the foregoing issues. But many credit Nokia with that leadership, apart from its market position.
“Nokia does feel a responsibility as the largest vendor,” said David Conrad, head of environment for Nokia North America. “And a big part of our thrust is consumer awareness. A drawerful of handsets is not the consumers’ top-of-mind issue. So we’re looking at when and where is the best place to intervene. We want the consumer’s attention.”
Nokia is in partnership with carriers, with other large consumer-electronics vendors (such as Microsoft Corp.), meeting local regulations while pushing voluntary recycling programs and looking for ways to influence consumer behavior, Conrad said. The company claims that its global take-back program, in 85 countries, is the industry’s “largest voluntary scheme.”
“There is no single answer,” Conrad said, “but there are common denominators. Being eco-friendly is now a differentiator for certain consumer segments, and carriers are asking for it.”
The vendor’s Nokia 3110 Evolve handset is being sold in Europe, where demand is greatest: its “bio-cover” is composed of 50% renewable materials, and its packaging is made of 60% recycled material. Nokia also is manufacturing chargers that reduce energy use and alert users to unplug them once they are charged. As much as 80% of Nokia’s overall portfolio of some 100 handset models is recyclable.
Two concepts to consider, as you’ll probably hear more about them. First is Nokia’s concept of the “remade” phone, or a handset that is completely derived from the waste stream of old handsets. The other is “de-materializing” the handset, or reducing the physical components and their possible impacts to as low as they can go.
Nokia said its “Remade” concept phone was used to explore the possibility of manufacturing a device from recycled products. The Remade uses upcycled aluminum cans, plastics from drink bottles and rubber keys provided by car tires.
Photo credit: Nokia
The future
“I don’t see any end to it,” said Design Chain’s Stanvick. “Everyone wants to reduce the use of toxic materials and energy. It starts in the sand” – i.e., the raw material for silicon, used in semiconductors – “and it goes forward from there.”
“There’s no magic bullet,” he added. “It’s a combination of factors. You have to look at all the pieces and impact them all. And you have to be a good fortune teller to predict the next problem area.”
Say what you will about Greenpeace’s use of political theater to make its points, the non-governmental organization’s (NGO) analysis is consistent with much of the latest science on reducing the use of hazardous materials and shrinking carbon footprints. That said, its “demands” include timelines that may be difficult to honestly set forth, depending on which side of the coin you view.
A brief excerpt from Greenpeace’s latest ”
Guide to Greener Electronics” sets out the organization’s goals. How the world’s handset leaders stack up in Greenpeace’s rankings will be the subject of future coverage.
“Our two demands are that companies should: 1)Clean up their products by eliminating hazardous substances and, 2)Take back and recycle their products responsibly once they become obsolete."
“The two issues are connected: The use of harmful chemicals in electronic products prevents their safe recycling once the products are discarded.”
- Greenpeace’s five energy-related criteria for “responsible companies serious about tackling climate change:”
- Support for global, mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions;
- Disclosure of the company’s own GHG emissions, plus emissions from two stages of the supply chain;
- Commitment to reduce the company’s own GHG emissions, with timelines;
- Increase the amount of renewable energy used;
- And increase the energy efficiency of new models.
