Computer and Electronics Product Stewardship: Policy Options

Computer and Electronics Product Stewardship: Are We Ready for the Challenge? Cate Gable and Bill Shireman The PC revolution continues to produce faster and smarter machines at a stunning pace. Almost forgotten in the rush are the millions of nearly new, but suddenly outdated, computers that are abandoned every year. Can product stewardship offer life-after-end-of-life for this growing mountain of “attic-ware,” while averting a costly—and potentially toxic—waste disposal crisis? © 2001 by Cate Gable, Axioun Books. Used with permission. R ory Bakke, the Senior Program Manager and Director of Stop Waste Partnership in Alameda County, one of the precincts bordering the San Francisco Bay, knows that municipal landfill operations are in trouble.1 “Schools in our area aren’t taking old computers anymore,” says Bakke, “and the California Department of Toxics has just declared that CRTs are hazardous waste. Now what?” Bakke and a group of local government officials are beginning a dialogue that addresses the growing problem with computers and electronic waste in municipal landfills. This is only one of many computer disposal forums happening around the nation as awareness of the computer waste problem reaches a larger audience. Computer waste poses two core problems: the volume of computers and related electronic equipment improperly disposed in landfills, and the toxicity of both the computer chip manufacturing process and the computer and the cath- © 2001 by Cate Gable, Axioun Books. Used with permission. ode ray tube (CRT) monitor itself as a waste product.2 These key facts provide background on the issues: • • • • • More than 2.2 million computers are sold each year in California alone. Most of these are obsolete in little more than two years. Based on this, more than 6,000 computers go to waste every day in California. Most of these are stored in back rooms and offices because people are unwilling or reluctant to discard them as trash. However, an increasing number are entering the waste stream. E-waste represents from two- to fivepercent of the U.S. municipal solid waste stream. An estimated 300,000 tons of e-waste ended up in U.S. landfills in 2000, and the problem is expected to grow four-fold in the next few years. E-waste contains significant quantities of toxic materials. Each computer or television display monitor con- ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT / Autumn 2001 / 35 While computer waste is relatively valuable when delivered to a recycler, the high cost of transportation and handling generally makes it uneconomical. • • • • • • • tains an average of four to eight pounds of lead.3 Monitor glass contains about 20 percent lead by weight. About 70 percent of the heavy metals (including mercury and cadmium) found in landfills comes from electronic equipment discards. These heavy metals and other hazardous substances found in electronics can contaminate groundwater and pose other environmental and public health risks. The State of California Department of Toxics has established that it is illegal to dispose of CRTs in landfills. (A copy of this letter can be found on the Materials for the Future Web site, www.materials4future.org). Because of advances in chip technology, the life span of a computer has been reduced from perhaps four or five years to around two years or less. Currently the cheapest e-waste recycling option in the U.S. is to send ewaste overseas; how it is used or disposed of there is largely unknown. Despite aggressive toxics standards mandated by the Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) initiative in Europe, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) in the U.S. are waiting or reluctant to act until there is clear regulatory direction. And yet they want “a level playing field”—i.e., the same regulations applied the same way for all competitors. OEMs lack a system of “end-of-life feedback,” so currently it is not in their individual or mutual interest to design computers for standardization or use of interchangeable parts, since end-of-life problems do not impact them. Second-hand dealers (such as thrift shops, the Salvation Army, and Goodwill) and waste haulers or those 36 / Autumn 2001 / ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT • • in the recycling business are unsure about how to handle equipment they are receiving and what disposal options are legally available to them. Additionally, with no certainty about market volume, infrastructure investment is risky. While computer waste is relatively valuable when delivered to a recycler, the high cost of transportation and handling generally makes it uneconomical. There is insufficient infrastructure to support increased recycling of CRT/computer waste and few economic incentives to create it. STAKEHOLDERS AND THE PROBLEM “NETWORK” These core problems, however, are only part of a network of issues that implicate and involve all stakeholders. In this context, a “stakeholder” is anyone who has a stake in providing materials or components for manufacturing computers, or who is involved in distributing, selling, purchasing, or using computers. A complete product chain analysis for computers/CRT monitors and other electronic appliances would include mining, materials suppliers, component manufacturers, final assembly companies, transportation companies, retail and sales, and consumers. In this article, we focus on the loop from component manufacturers forward (leaving out raw materials suppliers and other component vendors), including the back-end or post-consumer disposal process, second-hand dealers and thrift shops, local landfill facilities, recyclers, and waste haulers. For purposes of our discussion, key stakeholder groups include the following: • OEMs: This group is comprised strictly of manufacturers of computer and electronic appliances and components (such as Apple, IBM, Cate Gable and Bill Shireman • • • • • • Agilent, Intel, Toshiba, Sony, Motorola, Mitsubishi, HewlettPackard, and Philips, and contract manufacturers for these and other brands). Municipalities/local governments: Generally municipalities contract with waste haulers for curbside pickup of waste and recycling. Some municipalities own their own landfills; others contract with private landfill operators. Consumers: For purposes of this article, we group together all purchasers and users of computers/CRTs. Corporate and government users (and procurement officers) and individual users could be broken into separate categories. Government and regulatory agencies: Any local, county, state, or national agencies that have regulatory jurisdiction regarding computer/CRT or waste disposal issues, such as regional and national EPA offices, state departments of toxics, and waste boards. Retailers: Any “brick and mortar” or online sellers of computers/CRTs, such as Dell, Gateway, Fry’s, Computer USA, and Best Buy. Second-hand dealers: Any local independent thrift shops or thrift shop “chains” such as the Salvation Army, the St. Vincent De Paul Society, and Goodwill Industries. Waste haulers/recyclers: Commercial firms like Recycle America, as well as scrap metals dealers and processors. The thrift shop chains mentioned above could be included in this category if they provide curbside/doorstep pickup. Local government and municipal landfill operators argue that it should not be their sole responsibility to manage and bear the financial burden for the computer waste problem. Manufacturers and retailers of computers reply that they are simply providing a needed product to a ready consumer. Waste haulers have been reluctant to commit to capital investment in order to create new services until they are sure that a market for those services exists. And consumers are largely in the dark about the toxicity of one of their favorite household devices. So the roots of the problem are not created by any one stakeholder; the problem is a system of interrelated circumstances. In the following summary of circumstances, stakeholders are indicated by italics: • • • • • • OEMs and retailers market newer technology to consumers and therefore create a demand for more and more sophisticated machines, resulting in a need for upscale purchasing without a re-use, or safe means of disposal, for outdated machines Consumers have demanded cheaper and more sophisticated CRTs/computers and other electronic appliances (such as microwaves, cell phones, and handheld devices) without having the proper means of disposing of out-of-date equipment Because of advances in technology by microchip manufacturers, the life span of a computer has been significantly reduced, and is now about two years or less Consumers are unclear about how to dispose of or get rid of old computers and e-waste; many consumers have two or three older, unused computers in an attic or storage space Currently the cheapest e-waste recycling option in the U.S. is to send it overseas; how it is used or disposed of there is largely unknown OEMs in the U.S. are waiting to act on the e-waste problem until they receive clear direction via regulations or other means; they also want to ensure that Computer and Electronics Product Stewardship: Are We Ready for the Challenge? The roots of the problem are not created by any one stakeholder; the problem is a system of interrelated circumstances. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT / Autumn 2001 / 37 • Although millions of computers, screens, and peripherals are being rendered obsolete, just a small percentage of these are reaching the solid waste stream. • • • • • • regulations will be applied the same way to all competitors OEMs are supported by a complex supply chain of materials and electronic component suppliers; this complexity makes it more difficult to standardize designs, track e-components, and undertake R&D for safer materials CRT/computer waste in effect cannot be “returned to the manufacturer” because the end product is made up of many different component parts (such as housing, keyboard, mouse, screen, and hard drive) that have different OEMs Municipalities are unclear about how to handle the e-waste they are receiving; they do not want to bear the full burden and cost of computer and electronic waste Government agencies seem unable or unwilling to lead with aggressive legislation, or to provide clear guidelines about current legislation and its enforcement Government regulations are unclear, not consistently enforced, or inconsistent from municipality to municipality, county to county, state to state, state to national, and national to international Most retailers are either ignoring the problem or are uninformed about it (note, though, that Fry’s Electronics in California has made an effort to take back computers, and Best Buy has announced a take-back program that they will initiate in selected outlets) Second-hand dealers and waste haulers, and those in the recycling business, are unsure about how to handle equipment they are receiving and what disposal options are legally available to them There are other problems that are more difficult to assign to any one stake- 38 / Autumn 2001 / ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT holder. These aspects of the problem network are related to economic dynamics: • • • • • • • • • The current high cost of handling and transport of CRT/computer waste inhibits the creation of an economically viable e-waste recycling infrastructure There is no current infrastructure to support increased recycling of CRT/computer waste Recycled materials (like plastics) are not labeled, so they cannot be efficiently separated for re-use Costs for disassembly and labor are high There generally is no “matching volume” for recycled material (e.g., glass to glass); even if a plant were established on the West Coast, there would be no matching volume use for materials collected, so shipping would still be needed CRT/computer waste is a complex waste—including various types of plastic, lead solder in memory boards, and lead (or barium) in monitor glass—and therefore is difficult to handle efficiently There is no standardization in product manufacturing requirements for design or disposal There is no labeling or standardization to assist in the disassembly process There is no clear or consistent understanding of when a product legally becomes “hazardous waste” Although millions of computers, screens, and peripherals are being rendered obsolete, just a small percentage of these are reaching the solid waste stream. Most are stored in attics, garages, and warehouses, their owners unwilling to throw away something they perceive to have so much value. Consumers’ perception of value may be accurate. Xerox has earned more than Cate Gable and Bill Shireman $1 billion from an asset management program in which it takes back, disassembles, and remanufactures copy machines. Pitney-Bowes earns millions each year with its own postage meter remanufacturing system. In both cases, systemic barriers originally made the systems uneconomical. Only when a whole-systems approach was adopted did the companies find ways to profit from remanufacturing. If computer remanufacture were highly profitable under today’s systems, it would already be happening to a much greater extent. Clearly, however, there are technical, marketplace, political, and other systemic barriers. Computers are fast-cycle products with short life spans due to continual technology innovation. Nevertheless, they too could be made more durable, upgradable, reusable, and recyclable. Among the manufacturers now examining or testing product takeback and rebate systems are HewlettPackard, Sony, Sharp, IBM, and Mitsubishi Electric. Yet no manufacturer has yet initiated a financially successful program. Why did Xerox and Pitney-Bowes succeed where computer makers so far have failed? One contributing factor is that they established a de facto system of voluntary extended producer responsibility (EPR). Both built their companies on leasing rather than selling machines. Both accumulated millions of returned machines, which they stored in warehouses on the assumption that one day they would find a way to discard or reuse them. Both eventually benefited from the initiative of interested staff members, who took on the challenge and found ways to make use of the returned machines. And most important, both eventually used the knowledge they gained from the machines they took back to redesign their products at the front end, in order to enhance durability, reusability, and recyclability. Soon, the computer industry will face a similar challenge and opportunity. States and government agencies, including EPA, are pursuing a variety of projects dealing with computer EPR. Pressure is building to impose systems of extended product responsibility by law. Environmental activists are developing proposals to mandate changes in computer design and disposal. Some municipalities have begun adopting ordinances that call for OEM responsibility. The push for legislation will compel the computer industry to offer its own, more voluntary approach as an alternative. Now, before positions have hardened and enmities have deepened, there is a brief window of opportunity for the development of a logical, workable system that all sides can ultimately embrace. CAN PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP PROVIDE A SOLUTION? The fact that computer and electronics disposal is a “problem system” means that it requires a “solution system.” By that we mean an approach to solution making that invokes systems thinking. Any living system has built into it constraints, requirements, and rules that must be followed if the system is to stay alive; the main purpose of any system is to continue to exist. Generally, the regulatory mechanism in a system involves a feedback loop, with the system receiving information about itself in order to know if it needs to make adjustments. For a simple living system—an amoeba, let’s say—the instructions or rules might be few in number: Follow or avoid light. Stay within certain chemical and temperature parameters. As an amoeba receives information about light, chemistry, and temperature, it makes adjustments in what it is doing in order to enhance what it wants and avoid what is harmful to it. Computer and Electronics Product Stewardship: Are We Ready for the Challenge? Only when a wholesystems approach was adopted did the companies find ways to profit from remanufacturing. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT / Autumn 2001 / 39 We must reconceive the manufacturing process not as a linear chain, which leaves obsolete computers in a heap at its end, but rather as a loop, which brings the equipment back into the design and manufacturing process. Feedback is a critical component to any healthy living system. A system needs feedback in order to continue to exist and increase its vitality. In the context of the computer and electronic waste problem, we might say that the system we have created has no feedback loop. Since there has been no consistent end-of-life product awareness or responsibility that feeds into computer design and manufacturing, the electronic manufacturing system is only beginning to understand that it has a sustainability problem. The system has no way of knowing how to correct itself without proper feedback. There is a network of causes and effects that explain why the current situation is not working in the best interests of all stakeholders. These causes occur at many points along the product manufacturing cycle. But in order to find a systemic solution, we must reconceive the manufacturing process not as a linear chain, which leaves obsolete computers in a heap at its end, but rather as a loop, which brings the equipment back into the design and manufacturing process as raw information (feedback) and as material to be re-used. Product stewardship is a system that promotes a closed-loop manufacturing process and, as a general solution framework, may be an appropriate approach for the computer and electronic waste problem. By “closed loop” we mean the concept that product manufacturers are responsible (or share responsibility) for creating a system that brings these products, at end-of-life, back into the re-use, repair, or recycling stream. It is a cycle that loops back to influence design and manufacturing processes based on a new system of values. Product stewardship, as it is generally practiced, therefore includes a design for the environment, or DfE, commitment. In a bias-neutral world where all stakeholders in a system recognize the 40 / Autumn 2001 / ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT economic value of sustainability and a reduced environmental footprint for all human endeavors, the solutions to our computer and electronics problem might easily flow from a product stewardship analysis. If all stakeholders in our system agreed to the general conditions or values under which the computer and electronics production/disposal system operated, there would be no need for stakeholder position-taking and negotiation. Below, we enumerate solution options that have been discussed by a wide range of stakeholders in forums that were established to create a biasfree environment. This range of solutions and suggestions has been compiled from a variety of sources, including one-on-one conversations, conference panel discussions, large-group stakeholders meetings, and project team brainstorming sessions.4 Each of these possible changes would impact one or more groups of stakeholders. And in each phase of our product loop, selected stakeholders would be agents with more or less to gain from taking an active role in creating these initiatives. An initial system of solutions, with accompanying stakeholder agents, might be mapped as follows: Phase One: Design for the Environment (DfE) Impacted Stakeholders: OEMs • Label materials to assist in recycling (particularly plastics, which are made up of many different resin types) • Standardize components for easy disassembly • Re-evaluate “cheap products” use that makes the product cycle itself “cheap”—and therefore lacking in any inherent value that would encourage a recycling infrastructure build-out Cate Gable and Bill Shireman • • • • • • • • Change sales models, where appropriate, to emphasize selling computing or leasing services rather than computers themselves in order to encourage computer re-use and refurbishing Create an exterior computer “box” with upgradable inner components Create computer components and peripherals of biodegradable materials Utilize technology sharing across OEMs, particularly for manufacturing and demanufacturing Encourage/promote/require green procurement for corporate buyers Look at green packaging options: The consumer computer package costs $30; is it always needed? Create or support other consortia for CRT/computer problem solving, like the IEEE green design group Form investment consortia (and patent sharing programs) for green R&D • Phase Three: Generate Funds, Create Investment Incentives, and Take Additional Actions to Build Collection/Transportation Infrastructure Impacted Stakeholders: Retailers, SecondHand Dealers, Waste Haulers, Consumers • • • • Phase Two: Harmonize Legislation and Regulation Impacted Stakeholders: EPA (National and Regional); State Environmental Protection Agencies; State Departments of Toxics; Local Governments (Counties and Municipalities) • Ban CRTs from landfills nationwide (during the time this article was being prepared, California regulators determined that CRTs should be banned from landfill disposal) • Clearly define/agree on a definition for “hazardous waste” and create educational/marketing communication programs to broaden consumer awareness of the definition and the underlying problems • Create/encourage an EPR/product take-back mentality or formal program • “Harmonize” state and local laws regarding CRT/computer waste • Consistently enforce current/future regulations Create green procurement programs for government agencies and promote selective group purchasing (and recycling) of computers and electronics • • • • • • Create an advance disposal fee to be applied to retail purchases (including online and mail order), to be paid by consumers Alternatively, create a rebate coupon for returning CRTs/computers to point of sale (this would operate like the core charge for acid batteries) Partner with Goodwill Industries, the Salvation Army, and other third parties for establishment of a pick-up and transport system Create consumer drive-up days at local and community locations for computer and CRT collection Partner with waste haulers to create a consistent disposal fee (Recycle America currently imposes a fee of $7 to $10) Consider e-waste pick-up from curbside (although many think the weather can make this impossible in certain parts of the country because it degrades working equipment) Create a Web-based directory of recycling facilities and or pick-up services/sites Educate consumers about the ewaste problem in order to create consumer demand for solutions Require industry to produce a “seed money fund” for infrastructure build-out Encourage collaboration among stakeholders to develop shared facilities for centralized storage and transport Computer and Electronics Product Stewardship: Are We Ready for the Challenge? California regulators determined that CRTs should be banned from landfill disposal. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT / Autumn 2001 / 41 • A range of policy options is available to implement the solution possibilities listed above. Encourage collaboration among stakeholders to develop shared demanufacturing facilities • Phase Four: Expand/Create Re-Use and Disassembly/Recycling Capacity Impacted Stakeholders: OEMs, Recyclers, Rehabilitation and Re-Use Organizations, Schools • Partner with re-use and rehabilitation centers (or create community development and investment programs) to fix and distribute preowned CRTs/computers • Establish public/private partnerships so machines made obsolete by yearly corporate upgrade programs can find a home in the public sector (with “digital divide” tie-ins) • Establish a technology-sharing consortium for plastics to facilitate materials recycling issues • Establish public/private/government investment partnerships to create more recycling facilities • Create uses for recycled end waste, or build by-product synergies (for glass to glass, plastic to plastic, etc.) • Note that the first three items of Phase One impact these Phase Four items Phase Five: Educate Consumers on Current Disposal Options Impacted Stakeholders: OEMs, Non-Profit Organizations, Activist Groups, Government Agencies, Media • Disseminate information about computer and e-waste disposal dangers and options • Encourage municipalities and other local government organizations to host public awareness meetings and sponsor programs to encourage correct computer and e-waste disposal • Undertake public relations efforts (through national governmental organizations and interested par- 42 / Autumn 2001 / ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT • ties/organizations) to spread the word via media Create regional Web sites to assist consumers in locating the closest recycling facility and finding relevant computer and e-waste information Fund computer take-back pilots and model programs regionally to increase awareness of the problem and provide temporary solutions Phase Six: Provide Feedback Loop to DfE Impacted Stakeholders: Consumers, OEMs • Utilize recycled products to inform the general design process • Utilize recycled products to inform materials use (especially to reduce the number of plastics resins currently in use) and encourage parts standardization where possible • Utilize recycled products to inform design for disassembly (sometimes referred to as DfD) • Create dialogue between the general public and OEMs about computer features and product options, especially regarding Earth-friendly manufacturing specifications This broadcast list of product-loop solutions cannot, of course, be easily embarked upon by any one group of stakeholders without agreements between and among themselves about costs, liabilities, and corresponding responsibilities. We believe, however, that the problem of computers and ewaste has matured enough to warrant a discussion of next steps, and we propose that all stakeholders begin the difficult but timely process of negotiating for a variety of these solutions. MENU OF POSSIBLE POLICY OPTIONS A range of policy options is available to implement the solution possibilities listed above. Some major policy themes and their potential variations are listed below. Several of these options will be Cate Gable and Bill Shireman explored in greater detail in a follow-up article to appear in a future issue of Environmental Quality Management. • • • • Advance Disposal Fees —Charge industry for costs of disposal for all computers sold —Charge industry for costs of disposal only for computers disposed —Charge industry for costs of disposal as hazardous waste for all computers sold —Charge industry for costs of disposal as hazardous waste only for computers disposed Advance Recycling Fees —Charge industry for costs of recycling for all computers sold —Charge industry for costs of recycling only for computers recycled Deposits —Institute a government-imposed $25 deposit on each computer sold (fund to be managed by government) —Institute an industry-imposed $25 deposit on each computer sold (fund to be managed by industry) Labeling —Label each computer for materials content, energy efficiency, and toxics content (MET), with labels to be modeled after appliance energy-efficiency stickers —Award an “Eco-Star” label to the best 25 percent of computers, as measured by their MET, with the label to be modeled on Energy Star STIRRINGS OF A SOLUTION During the course of researching and writing this article, awareness of the computer and e-waste issue has grown and a corresponding momentum among many stakeholder groups had been building for the creation of a workable solution to the e-waste problem. On the West Coast, a group of environmental organizations has come together with local government representatives to form the Western Electronic Product Stewardship Initiative (WEPSI). We are currently organized into two regional efforts, Northwest (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska) and Southwest (California, Arizona, Hawaii, and Nevada). Each of the WEPSI organizations will take on slightly different responsibilities during our product stewardship planning process for computers and electronics. In the Northwest, the WEPSI project is being managed by Wayne Rifer of Recycling Advocates (Portland) and David Stitzhal of the Northwest Product Stewardship Council (Seattle). The coauthors of this article, Cate Gable and Bill Shireman of Global Futures Foundation, are coordinating the strategic planning and stakeholder mapping efforts in the south. Sheila Davis, of Materials for the Future, will continue convening large group stakeholder meetings and working groups. Additionally, in Oregon, Larry Chalfan is leading the Zero Waste Alliance. In Minnesota, efforts are being led by Maureen Hickman and Sherry Enzler of the Office of Environmental Assistance. Ted Smith of the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition is coordinating a research effort into what really happens to computers that are shipped overseas for recycling. SVTC is also involved in a national “Take It Back!” campaign with other non-governmental organizations, including Bill Sheehan and the Grass Roots Recycling Network. WEPSI has one of 45 official seats at the table in the National Electronic Product Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI), a national dialogue (the word “negotiation” has been carefully avoided). Members of the NEPSI dialogue represent a broad range of stakeholders, including industry trade groups, OEMs, state and local government officials, Computer and Electronics Product Stewardship: Are We Ready for the Challenge? A group of environmental organizations has come together with local government representatives to form the Western Electronic Product Stewardship Initiative. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT / Autumn 2001 / 43 The data would indicate that over 7,500 computers a day should be coming back into the waste stream for disposal at municipal landfills or recycling centers in California alone. NGOs, environmental activists, and recyclers. The NEPSI process, as it now stands, will be conducted in a series of six meetings over the course of a year, to be held in different locations around the nation. Meetings are being facilitated by Gary Davis, Director of the Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies, University of Tennessee.5 NEPSI hopes to be a clearinghouse and dialogue forum for solutions to the problems outlined in this article. The first NEPSI meetings were held at the end of June 2001 in San Francisco and laid considerable groundwork for productive dialogue. Global Futures’ consultants will continue to be involved in facilitating—with our WEPSI partners—the dialogue that has begun regarding the various policy options. We hope to keep Environmental Quality Management readers informed about the continuing discussion in future articles. In the past several months, as interest in the issue has grown, there has been a feeling among involved stakeholders that the time is right for coordinated action focused on solutions. The current environment is characterized by the following: • • Based on our data, 2,764,100 computers (desktops and laptops) were sold in California in 1997. If one assumes a two- to three-year useful life for these computers and monitors, the data would indicate that over 7,500 computers a day should be coming back into the waste stream for disposal at municipal landfills or recycling centers in California alone. Since that is not happening, we assume that most computer users have stored old computers and CRTs in an attic or closet. The hope is that a system for safe disposal can be put into place before this “historical waste” enters the waste stream. The three most critical steps to solving this disposal problem are the following, in roughly sequential order: • • • Pilot projects have taken place in many states (where learnings have been brought forward as the seeds for next steps) and are being planned for many others. In many states, legislative action is in the works to ban CRTs/computers from landfills. In general terms, industry agrees that computers and electronic products do not belong in landfills. There is a growing awareness among OEMs of the meaning and importance of product stewardship and Design for Environment. Recyclers are ready to assist if and when a steady volume of goods can be guaranteed. 44 / Autumn 2001 / ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT • • Municipalities are requesting, and receiving, legal clarification with respect to their liabilities regarding CRTs and electronic waste products. They are beginning to realize that they currently bear an unfair burden in the disposal of CRTs and electronic equipment waste. Retailers, like Best Buy and Fry’s Computers, are aware of the issue and are proposing take-back programs for consumers in partnership with industry, partly as a green branding strategy. The one “sleeping dragon” is the consumer, who as yet is mostly unaware of the problem, although this is beginning to change as more articles on these issues appear in the mainstream news. Currently, the level of awareness among most computer and electronics buyers as to the scope of the ewaste problem can be characterized as “low” to “none.” Even most sophisticated technology users do not understand the nature of the waste problem, or the fact that many of the materials used in computer/CRT manufacturing are considered hazardous and need special disposal. Cate Gable and Bill Shireman • • • Wider use of design for environment (DfE) principles and broader adoption of a product stewardship approach to computers and electronics Establishment of agreed-upon roles and financial responsibilities for all stakeholders Catalyzing of market and infrastructure development for computer and electronics recycling www.globalfutures.org or e-mail Cate Gable at cate@globalfutures.org. We would also like to thank the Environmental Protection Agencies in Regions 9 and 10 and municipal government agencies for seed monies for our efforts. If any readers in the western-states area would like to become involved in the e-waste dialogue, or would like further information, please contact Cate Gable at 510-644-0193. As a society of stakeholders, our ability to take these steps will determine our success or failure in dealing with computer and electronic waste over the months and years to come. NOTES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2. This article and its data are based on a report written for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. The full report was authored by project manager Cate Gable and consultants Bill Shireman and Steve Cassel of the Global Futures Foundation. The authors of this article would like to thank Heidi M. Hall, Manager, Office of Pollution Prevention and Solid Waste, USEPA Region 9, California, for funding; and Tachi Kiuchi, past-CEO of Mitsubishi Electric and Chairman of the Global Futures Foundation board, for his guidance and assistance. For the complete text of the report and list of acknowledgements, see 1. 3. 4. 5. With offices in San Leandro, California, Stop Waste provides consultancy services for Alameda County businesses that want assistance in reducing their waste stream and in using their resources more efficiently. For more details on recent projects, see www.stopwaste.org. For a report that documents the computer and electronic waste problem in a more comprehensive way, see the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition’s June 2001 report, “Poison PCs and Toxic TVs,” available at www.svtc.org. Charles Corcoran, Manager at the California Department of Toxic Substances, makes the point that televisions and monitors made after 1995 have a smaller proportion of lead materials than earlier models. Conference panel discussions occurred at the Industrial Ecology Conference 2000 sponsored by the Global Futures Foundation/The Future 500 and hosted by the University of California Haas School of Business. Large stakeholder meetings were convened by Materials for the Future, under the direction of Sheila Davis; WEPSI planning sessions were under the direction of Wayne Rifer of Recycling Advocates. Oneon-one conversations happened informally and were conducted by Global Futures Foundation project staff. The National Safety Council also featured electronic stewardship issues at its recent EPR2/Summit conference in Arlington, Virginia. Documents that chart NEPSI’s progress will be posted at www.cleanproducts.org. Cate Gable is an author and business consultant specializing in technology and sustainability. President of Axioun Communications International and senior consultant for the Global Futures Foundation, Gable divides her time between California, the Pacific Northwest, and Paris. Author of Strategic Action Planning NOW! TeamBased Planning in Four Steps, Gable writes a column on global ecology and information technology for the Canadian online magazine Mindjack and teaches “Strategic Action Planning—Sustainable Business for the New Century” at Hautes Etudes Commerciales (HEC), the top business college in France. Gable graduated magna cum laude with honors from the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and completed a graduate degree with honors at the University of Washington in Seattle. She can be reached at cgable@axioun.com. Bill Shireman, President of the Global Futures Foundation, has been called “a master of environmental entrepreneurism.” Shireman wrote California’s Bottle Bill and has been working in the field of sustainable business and industrial ecology for over 20 years. Shireman co-leads the Future 500, a network of international companies and environmental leaders. His writings have appeared in USA Today, Technology Review, Business Week, the LA Times, and other publications. He is co-author, with Tachi Kiuchi, of the upcoming Berrett-Koehler book What We Learned in the Rainforest. Shireman has a degree from the University of California at Berkeley. He can be reached at Bill@globalfutures.org. Computer and Electronics Product Stewardship: Are We Ready for the Challenge? ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT / Autumn 2001 / 45