Journal of Cleaner Production 389 (2023) 136132

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

A comprehensive review of used electrical and electronic equipment

management with a focus on the circular economy-based policy-making
Zahra Ansari Cheshmeh a, Zahra Bigverdi a, Mohammad Eqbalpour a, Elaheh Kowsari a, *,
Seeram Ramakrishna b, **, Mohammad Gheibi c
a
Department of Chemistry, Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic), Hafez St, Tehran, 15875-4413, Iran
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Center for Nanofibers and Nanotechnology, National University of Singapore, 119260, Singapore
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Cecilia Maria Villas Bôas de In recent years, technological advancements have resulted in a proliferation of electrical and electronic equip­
Almeida ment (EEE), accompanied by a rising massive amount of used electrical and electronic equipment (UEEE).
Studies show that if transboundary flows of UEEE are carried out illegally, it can be one of the reasons for the
Keywords: increase in the volume of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) in developing countries, which
UEEE
necessitates urgent attention to the management of UEEE and WEEE. Toxic chemical components of WEEE can
Circular economy
negatively impact ecosystems and human health and pose a severe threat to accomplishing sustainable devel­
WEEE
Sustainable development goals opment goals (SDGs). This review article provides an in-depth survey of UEEE and its differences from WEEE.
Transboundary movement UEEE is examined in detail to determine whether it is a potential toxic threat or a valuable source. If the
transboundary flows of UEEE occur under legal regulations, it is a step toward a circular economy (CE), and the
UEEE is recognized as a valuable resource. Otherwise, it is a potential threat to developing countries. Further­
more, the UEEE and WEEE are assessed from the perspective of international law, particularly the transboundary
movement guidelines. In the following, the challenges in the transboundary flows of UEEE from developed to
developing countries are mentioned. These challenges include a lack of inventory data, weak waste management
policies and laws, expansion of the informal sector, and weak monitoring by law enforcement agencies for
reliable environmental management. Finally, solutions to current challenges are presented. Undoubtedly, proper
global management and legislation of UEEE and WEEE can help reduce the risks of e-waste and be the most
effective way to achieve sustainable development goals.

2014). Functional and non-functional UEEE are frequently sent to

developing countries due to the high demand for lower-cost equipment
1. Introduction
(Ife-Adediran, 2019). When electronic equipment loses its function, it
becomes a waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). About 50
Electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) has revolutionized society
million metric tonnes of WEEE are generated annually worldwide, and it
nowadays by increasing living standards and creating new communi­
is estimated to increase to 111 million tonnes per year by 2050 (Parajuly
cation methods. The widespread and global use of EEE has become a
et al., 2019). Some developed and many developing nations lack the
growing trend due to its unique features (Andooz et al., 2021). Used
appropriate legislation and strategies to construct the necessary infra­
electrical and electronic equipment (UEEE) is also growing in parallel
structure to ensure ecologically sound electronic waste management
because of the shortened life of electronic products, which is caused by
(Patil and Ramakrishna, 2020). The informal sector is expanding around
the rate of technological changes and the need of users to upgrade their
trading, repairing, and recovering materials from obsolete electronic
products (Roychoudhuri and Debnath, 2020). The UEEE can be
devices due to weak e-waste management. This unregistered and lacking
considered a large share of used equipment that is not yet considered
structure sector risks the environment and human health by using
waste (Ongondo et al., 2013). Such equipment can still be utilized
inefficient and unsafe processes (Shittu et al., 2021). In addition, illegal
without fixing or may require repair before being used again (Agu,

* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Kowsarie@aut.ac.ir (E. Kowsari), seeram@nus.edu.sg (S. Ramakrishna).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136132
Received 27 May 2022; Received in revised form 13 January 2023; Accepted 18 January 2023
Available online 20 January 2023
0959-6526/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Z.A. Cheshmeh et al.
Abbreviations
EEE Electrical and Electronic Equipment
UEEE Used Electrical and Electronic Equipment
WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment
ICT Information and Communications Technology
IoT Internet of Things
EPR Extended Producers Responsibility
CE Circular Economy
SECO State Secretariat for Economic Affairs
EMPA Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and
Research
ITU International Telecom Union
GeSI Global Enabling Sustainability Initiative
SVTC Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition
BAN Basel Action Network
PACE Partnership for Action on Computing Equipment
SOMO The Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations
LoW European List of Wastes
e-waste exports to developing nations in Africa and Asia result from
weak law enforcement by customs and monitoring agencies (Patil and
Ramakrishna, 2020). Hence, monitoring the worldwide pathways of
e-waste and its quantity is challenging, and there is no coordinated
end-of-life monitoring method for any country (Maes and
Preston-Whyte, 2022). A detailed review of e-waste quantifying and
previous UEEE approaches found that the actual percentage of waste in
UEEE imports is highly unknown. There is no exact data on the func­
tionality of imported UEEE, and it is impossible to predict their lifespan
(Odeyingbo et al., 2019). An ambiguous distinction between the UEEE
and the WEEE leads to the illegal cross-border transfer of equipment
from developed countries to developing countries (Cesaro et al., 2019).
In some cases, exporters in developed countries illegally send their
obsolete EEEs with the label of second-hand items and in the form of
charitable donations to low-income and developing countries that do
not have the appropriate facilities (Daum et al., 2017). This transaction
opens the door to illegal waste exports and trans-border waste move­
ment (Kumi et al., 2019). Previous research has continuously claimed
that these exports are sometimes carried out to dispose of dangerous
wastes by dumping them in developing nations (Odeyingbo et al., 2019).
The lack of reliable data on this topic is extremely disquieting and will
continue to be a significant primary foundation for future research.
Filling this research void will help promote well-informed policy for­
mation and regulation at both the national and international levels
(Ogungbuyi et al., 2012). As a result, many international organizations,
including the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the In­
ternational Telecommunication Union (ITU), the International Labor
Organization (ILO), and other members of the e-waste coalition,
consider tackling this issue to be their most essential duty (Ilyassova
et al., 2021). The majority of studies on this subject focus on the
economic-political and environmental perspectives of the problem
(Geisendorf and Pietrulla, 2018). Recent studies scarcely consider the
subject from the perspective of international law, namely, legal fore­
casting (Ilyassova et al., 2021). Despite the massive amount of electronic
waste generated worldwide, very few articles have looked into the
possibility of the second life of electronic components that are still
functional (Kim et al., 2019). Therefore, the present review article
generally covers objectives such as examining the distinction of UEEE
from WEEE and understanding how to deal with it, reducing illegal
transboundary flows, evaluating policies, and finally, realizing a circular
economy with the right attitude to UEEE. This study is divided into
seven main sections. Section 1 provides an introduction to the content of
the article and the main goals of this article. Section 2 focuses on a
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 389 (2023) 136132
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
WCO World Customs Organization
OEMs Original Equipment Manufacturers
PCB Printed Circuit Board
CFC Chlorofluorocarbons
HS Harmonized System
SCN Supply Chain Network
EoL End of Life
ESM Environmentally Sound Management
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
StEP Solving the E-waste Problem
MPPI Mobile Phone Partnership Initiative
OVAM The Public Waste Agency of Flanders
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
SEEA System of Environmental-Economic Accounting
COP Conference of the Parties
GEC Global Electronics Council
THM Three Horizon Model
BCGM Boston Consulting Group Matrix
literature review of the UEEE and WEEE over recent years and highlights
the importance of selecting this title. Section 3, methodology, deals with
analyzing the selection of articles and keywords. Section 4 provides a
complete description of UEEE’s place in the life cycle of EEE. Then it
comprehensively discusses the export and import of UEEE and WEEE in
developing and developed nations. Section 5 assesses the laws and
guidelines for UEEE and WEEE transboundary movement. In addition,
Section 6 targets the importance and benefits of using UEEE and its legal
trade. Finally, Section 7 presents challenges and solutions in creating
and implementing laws and guidelines, managing UEEE and WEEE, and
monitoring transboundary flows to achieve a sustainable circular
economy. The research roadmap of the present study as the guideline for
readers is presented in Fig. 1.
2. Literature review
The current review article analyzes the relevant research on UEEE
from the perspective of CE over the past years. The significant CE
applicability has been highlighted in recent years, given the growing
amount of electronic products. For example, Rizos and Bryhn (2022)
reviewed a CE approach to electrical and electronic equipment. In
another review, Barapatre and Rastogi (2021) focused on e-waste
management from a CE perspective. Also, Ottoni et al. (2020) have
addressed the valorization of electronic waste through urban mining in
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, according to the circular economy approach. In
addition, with the CE approach, Nowakowski and Mrówczyńska (2018)
studied the sustainable WEEE collection and transportation methods.
The increase in published articles shows the importance of CE and that it
is also becoming an essential aspect of academic studies. CE is consid­
ered to be an impressive strategy for promoting sustainable develop­
ment. Most of the CE studies in e-waste management research have
mainly focused on recycling, and the other aspects, namely reusing,
reducing, and repairing, have been neglected. For example, Cucchiella
et al. (2015) and Islam and Huda (2019) have assessed the economic
worth and material composition of e-waste for various products.
Also, there have been few global efforts to minimize e-waste levels,
reuse, and repair EEE (Forti et al., 2020). Using second-hand electronic
devices by increasing the product’s life cycle can help achieve the cir­
cular economy’s goals. However, fewer articles have investigated this
issue. The articles’ scopes revealed that UEEE was not investigated
comprehensively in the previous reviews, and the subjects were dis­
cussed more regionally or partially. For example, Shittu et al. (2021)
reviewed e-waste trends, legislation, contemporary issues, and future
Z.A. Cheshmeh et al.
Fig. 1. The research roadmap of the present review article as a guideline for readers.
challenges. Pathak and Srivastava (2017) focused on assessing legisla­
tion and practices for the sustainable management of waste electrical
and electronic equipment in India. Ghosh et al. (2016) studied waste
electrical and electronic equipment management and Basel Convention
compliance in Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS)
nations. In addition, some studies presented by Sayers et al. (2020) and
Perkins et al. (2014), and Li et al. (2013) focused on the definition,
quantification, and tracking of e-waste. Therefore, there is a notable
knowledge gap in understanding the comprehensive picture of UEEE.
This review article is the first attempt to examine UEEE and how it
places in the path of circular economy considering all aspects. Notably,
this review provides new discussions and perspectives on UEEE as a
pathway to achieving CE. The current article highlights an overview of
the current status of UEEE and WEEE and their related policies at the
international and global levels. Also, it looks at UEEE as a valuable
resource and tries to provide best practices for the correct and sustain­
able use of UEEE, which are found in less literature. Furthermore, it
examines the environmental and economic effects of UEEE and WEEE
transboundary flows in developed and developing countries. Finally, it
presents challenges and gaps along with suggestions and
recommendations.
3. Methodology
This review offers the basis for expanding knowledge of the topic and
finding gaps in published studies. The present article was conducted
following the findings of the content analysis. The authoritative data­
bases Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, and research gate were
used to cite scientific articles. Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) are
recognized as the two overbearing scientific publications search engines
because of their wider envelopment (Compagnoni, 2022). After the
validation, Scopus was chosen as the scientific base due to the significant
number of contributions. A recurrent search was used to find valid re­
sults and data. The search was performed on February 2022. The key­
words WEEE and UEEE were searched, focusing on the main objectives
of the article. These two keywords were chosen to examine the trans­
boundary flows of WEEE and UEEE and clarify their distinction. Also, a
combination of keywords circular economy and UEEE were used to ach­
ieve sustainable development goals through the legal export and import
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 389 (2023) 136132
of UEEE. In addition, a list of secondary keywords such as informal sector,
formal sector, internet of things, and the cloud was searched in order to
find the challenges and solutions of UEEE in the path of the circular
economy. As a result, about 600 references using these keywords were
obtained. Then, in a screening process, the title, abstract, and, if
necessary, the main text of these references were studied. About 300
unrelated references were removed according to the topic of discussion
and the purpose of this review article. Finally, 180 references out of 300
references were collected based on their relevance to the topic of the
current article. These references included review articles, book chapters,
research articles, and books. These references were carefully investi­
gated, and valuable and relevant information was extracted. In the next
step, for library assessment of UEEE and WEEE in connection with the
circular economy, first, a databank from Scopus is presented. Then the
created databank was analyzed by the VOS viewer software based on the
main authors’ contributions (Fig. 2a), countries’ participations (Fig. 2b),
and keyword occurrence (Fig. 2c). According to Fig. 2a, it can be
demonstrated that there are some distributed research groups in
different regions which are working on connections of circular economy
and both UEEE and WEEE. It can be concluded that the declared
research area is developed locally and based on specific rules, laws,
policies, socials, and cultures. Finally, it is worth noting that the area is
active now, and many scientific communities are focused on it. As per
Fig. 2b, it can be found that UK and Italy had the leading roles in ex­
tensions of the research area. However, today some countries such as
Spain, Sweden, Belgium, and India are assumed to be the frontiers of the
research zone. Fig. 2c illustrates that in the field of WEEE and UEEE,
economic aspects and sustainability issues are developed today more
than other dimensions. Considering the scheme, it is clear that in the
present study, the most mentioned concepts, such as life cycle assess­
ment, sustainable development goals, circular economy, reuse, and
recycling are assessed.
4. Used electrical and electronic equipment
WEEE and UEEE are two widely used terminologies for discarded
appliances and devices, defined as EEE. Based on the findings of some
studies, UEEE can be defined as a considerable share of equipment that
plays an influential role in component extended or recovery usage (Song
Z.A. Cheshmeh et al.
Fig. 2. The outcomes of the Scientometric assessment in the UEEE and WEEE and circular economy connections as per (a) authors, (b) countries’ activities, and (c)
keyword occurrences.
et al., 2017). The purpose of recovery is to recondition, repair, and
remanufacture, i.e., use UEEE parts before disposal as waste. The parts
from UEEE can be used for various applications after separation,
depending on the warranty conditions. Many components inside a
product may still perform well enough, even when the entire product
has reached the end of its lifecycle (Ijomah et al., 2007). However, in the
definition of WEEE, parts are disposed of as waste by the owner without
reuse (Sanito et al., 2021). The Basel Convention technical rules on
transboundary e-waste flows and UEEE distinguish waste streams based
on the requirement or the opportunity for repair and functionality. Fig. 3
highlights these flows. According to these guidelines, waste streams are
divided into 4 categories (Perkins et al., 2014).
However, it can often be difficult to distinguish between WEEE and
UEEE in practice and literature (Song et al., 2017). The terms WEEE and
UEEE have multiple meanings under international laws and regulations,
and they do not pursue a worldwide standard for communication. Ac­
cording to the rules and regulations, each nation has a different
approach to the definition of WEEE and UEEE (Li and Zhao, 2010). A
nation may prohibit the importation of WEEE, but the same nation may
permit the import of UEEE for recycling or reusing (Wenger and Police,
Fig. 3. Transboundary flows of UEEE and WEEE.
4
Journal of Cleaner Production 389 (2023) 136132
2010). For example, some Asian countries like Malaysia, Indonesia,
Thailand, and Japan use specific standards or definitions to categorize
UEEE (Li and Zhao, 2010). Hence, Standardized UEEE and WEEE defi­
nitions would help make a filtering procedure before UEEE items are
deemed as waste (Vincent Wang et al., 2015).
4.1. The place of the UEEE in the life cycle of EEE
The life cycle of electronic equipment can help better understand the
concept of UEEE and distinguish it from WEEE. Debnath et al. (2016)
have proposed a model for the EEE life cycle consisting of 4 steps. Step
(i)- Production of EEE, Step (ii)- Generation of UEEE, Step (iii)- Decision
for fate, Step (iv)- E-waste processing.
The electrical and electronic equipment produced in the first step is
discarded after a certain period of use. The disposal process is not always
due to the expiration of products. Many products are discarded without
expiring due to the user’s need to upgrade. In the second stage, these
discarded items are considered UEEE. There are many reasons for the
transition from the first to the second step. For example, one of the most
favorite consumer events in the last years has been the launch of the
Z.A. Cheshmeh et al.
latest electronics, such as new smartphones or tablets. However, there
are other stories behind these glamorous events and promotions. In line
with this trend, many older devices are discarded. After passing the
second step, the decision for fate is the most critical step in the life cycle
of EEE. This step examines whether the items are considered WEEE or
repaired and reused in the secondhand market. Finally, in the last step,
the e-wastes are processed. Another model has been proposed by Roy­
choudhuri et al. (2019) for the life cycle of EEE. A schematic of this
model is shown in (Fig. 4). The assumptions considered in this model are
as follows:
• The OEMs do not produce any faulty products.
• Throughout the product lifespan, users do not purchase the same
electronic equipment.
• Throughout the chain’s lifespan, no new kinds of equipment are
added.
• The landfill only receives the non-recyclable portion.
• Second-hand users do not refurbish or repair their EoL equipment.
In this proposed model, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)
are the manufacturers of EEEs. After using EEEs, consumers may throw
them away. The UEEEs generated at this stage may enter the secondhand
market without repair, which will be converted to WEEE after reuse by
secondhand users. For example, in India, the wholesalers segregate
UEEEs and sell them to refurbishment workshops if they have the po­
tential for repair, which increases the life cycle of EEE. The UEEE is
refurbished and repaired to sell in the secondhand market at lower rates
in these workshops (Debnath et al., 2019). The second-hand markets
cater to the numerous demand for UEEE and attract individual and bulk
customers (Laha, 2022). In many developed nations, despite pieces of
evidence of second-hand shops for electronic gadgets, the demand for
second-hand devices is frequently limited due to technical regulation or
technological obsolescence (Tran, 2018). Eventually, in this model,
recyclable parts are recycled, and other parts end up in e-waste.
4.2. Classification of UEEE and WEEE
There are numerous EEE items in the market, so it is critical to
classify them into valuable and sensible categories. E-waste may be
categorized in various ways, and each one has the potential to help
establish the foundation for e-waste statistics in the measurement
framework. Systems for classifying are essential for all parties involved,
including waste generators, managers, and recyclers. Waste categori­
zation systems make data supervision, collecting, and monitoring easier
for environmental management authorities and help them develop the
best waste management policies (Wen et al., 2014). However, to
Fig. 4. The position of UEEE in the lifecycle of EEE.
5
Journal of Cleaner Production 389 (2023) 136132
properly harmonize e-waste measurement and provide globally com­
parable and reasonable indicators, the categorization must adhere to
several requirements. Generally, the classifications should not be
defined in detail for products that do not harm the environment, do not
contain precious materials, or do not have a significant market share
because this creates an excessive number of irrelevant codes. Addi­
tionally, there will not be many databases out there from which to
gather data in the necessary categorization. Also, if the categorization
system is too aggregated, it will not be easy to interpret the differences
between nations. Therefore, such discrepancies in reporting will impact
the quality of the data and should be avoided since they make it more
challenging to use the findings for effective policy-making and global
benchmarking (Forti et al., 2018). Several classifications, including
LoW, SEEA, and HS, have been performed in the past to describe waste
and used electronic equipment. The European List of Wastes (LoW) is the
EU’s official waste categorization system that pursues objectives such as
monitoring the management and production of waste. The LoW system
is also used as a central framework for collecting data on waste statistics
by many European countries and some countries in Central Asia and the
Caucasus (Kulczycka et al., 2020). The System of
Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) includes definitions, ac­
counting rules, internationally-adopted standard concepts, classifica­
tions, and tables to produce international statistics on
environmental-economic accounts and their communication with the
economy (Balde et al., 2015). Also, Harmonized System (HS) is the
common name for the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding
System developed by World Customs Organization (WCO) (Altaheri and
Shaalan, 2019). Because there are no unique HS codes for e-waste, the
HS codes are currently inappropriate for measuring e-waste trades and
do not distinguish between EEE and UEEE (McMahon et al., 2021a). In
addition to the classifications mentioned, the EU-WEEE directives,
UNU-Keys, and Basel codes are other types of these classifications. Fig. 5
shows the correlation between waste codes disseminated in Commission
Regulation (EU) and customs nomenclature codes. In this correlation,
Basel and LoW codes are not related to each other, and both are hard to
correlate to HS codes (Forti et al., 2018).
Finally, to classify e-waste and synchronize its statistical data, the
United Nations (UNU) introduced the UNU-Keys. They described the
EEE classification based on material composition, similar functions,
average weight, and EEE fate at the End of Life (EoL). UNU-Keys clas­
sification includes all EEEs and is the most trustworthy categorization to
date (Baldé et al., 2017).
4.3. Imports and exports of UEEE and WEEE
Presently, innovative initiatives and growing reuse policies promote
Z.A. Cheshmeh et al.
Fig. 5. Correlations between numerous classifications of e-waste and used electronic equipment.
the reuse market in developed nations (Coughlan and Fitzpatrick, 2020).
These initiatives cover objectives including encouraging the reuse of
EEE, servicing, and repairing equipment instead of disposing of them
(McMahon et al., 2019). There are many reasons for sending UEEEs to
developing countries. Observations show that significant price differ­
ences in developed countries make many consumers not give up their
interest in buying new electronics. However, this trend is reversed in
developing nations (Williams et al., 2008). Because of such economic
inequalities, sending disposed electronics to developing countries is of
great value for reuse. Equipment shipped to other individuals or com­
munities often has economic potential or is reusable, particularly in
underdeveloped nations, where the lower-cost reuse market makes ICT
more accessible (Williams et al., 2008).
Other factors also drive the UEEE to developing countries. For
instance, the demand for electronic devices by people who do not have
access to them or people who have access but do not have enough in­
come (Osibanjo and Nnorom, 2007). Demand for UEEE continues to
grow in developing countries such as Nigeria. It can be seen that even
with the arrival of EEE from countries like China at cheaper rates, the
demand for UEEE continues. Nigerian consumers prefer the UEEE from
Europe, referred to as ‘tokunbo,’ ‘UK used,’ or ‘second-hand electronics.’
Demand for these items is growing due to information and communi­
cation technology development (Kahhat and Williams, 2009). It can be
concluded that donating used electronic equipment and their interna­
tional trade might be a bridge to the term “digital divide.” This term
refers to the inequality in adopting ICT between developing and devel­
oped countries. Most studies have illustrated that ICT equipment makes
up the bulk of UEEE shipments from developed to developing countries
(McMahon et al., 2021b). In developing countries, the reuse of refur­
bished and second-hand electronic devices reveals the potential for
extending the devices’ lifespan by decreasing the turnover rate
compared to developed countries (Breivik et al., 2014). Also, the posi­
tive environmental aspects of UEEE when they can no longer be repaired
and considered as WEEE can be mentioned as the recovery of valuable
metals (such as copper) from e-waste in developing nations because it
reduces the demand for primary extraction of precious metals from
mines (Zhang et al., 2012).
Nonetheless, UEEEs are not always sent with positive intentions.
6
Journal of Cleaner Production 389 (2023) 136132
Balde et al. (2015) describe that developed nations export their e-waste
to developing nations due to strict environmental guidelines for haz­
ardous waste disposal and expensive human resources. Also, a consid­
erable amount of waste is exported beyond European nations such as
Asia and Africa, most exported under the wrong name of recycling for
renovation and reuse, where inefficient equipment is illegally labeled
“used goods” that cause irreparable damage to local citizens and the
environment. In most situations, repaired UEEEs sent to India under
charity are at the end of their life, contributing to the increasing volume
of e-waste only after it has reached its EoL (Debnath et al., 2015).
Mureithi and Waema (2008) reported that sixty percent of UEEE
delivered to Kenyan beneficiaries, such as schools, was beyond repair.
These objects are classified as e-waste. In addition, a considerable
amount of UEEE imported into Africa is mislabeled. Almost 60,000 tons
of UEEE were imported into Nigeria in 2015 and 2016 (Odeyingbo et al.,
2017). China contributed the most (24 percent), followed by the United
States (20 percent), Spain (12 percent), and the United Kingdom (9
percent) (Odeyingbo et al., 2017). Many products are broken, damaged,
or have outlived their usefulness, contributing considerably to Africa’s
rapidly growing e-waste problem. The lack of regulatory frameworks,
human capacity, and strong institutions undermine projects such as
returning EoL devices and other e-waste to the supply chain via recy­
cling in developing nations, unlike in developed nations. Many devel­
oping countries are known as the final resting place of the UEEE since
the costs of e-waste management are relatively high in developed
countries due to compliance with environmental regulations (Nukpezah
et al., 2014).
Developing countries face a quickly increasing volume of e-waste
from illegal imports and domestic generation (Vishwakarma et al.,
2022). Long-term commercial relationships among retailers, recyclers,
and second-hand market owners make it easier to regularly share in­
formation on the supply and demand of e-waste. Additionally,
second-hand shop owners and dealers may occasionally bid together and
share significant illicit consignments of imported junk electronics (Laha,
2022). Therefore, a semi-formal or informal sector is expanding around
trading, repairing, and recovering materials from obsolete electronic
gadgets that involve the lives and careers of tens of thousands of waste
workers (Shittu et al., 2021). Dismantling and recycling e-waste has
Z.A. Cheshmeh et al.
become a significant source of income and employment in various Af­
rican countries. In Ghana, for example, between 10,000 and 15,000
persons were expected to be involved in restoring second-hand and old
computers in 2010, with another 20,300 to 33,600 working in waste
management and recycling. Also, the livelihoods of about 201,600
people in Ghana, including children and families, have relied on e-waste
management and recycling (Prakash et al., 2010). This number has
recently been reported to be over 40,000 (Oteng-Ababio et al., 2020). In
2019, Africa’s raw parts from e-waste were predicted to be worth 3.2
billion USD (Lebbie et al., 2021). For many deprived people, the trade,
recovery, and repair of materials from e-waste provide a source of in­
come (Daum et al., 2017). Ghana makes 105 to 268 million USD yearly
from materials sourced from e-waste, and also it is estimated that about
200,000 people gain income from e-waste recycling operations (Lebbie
et al., 2021). However, the informal sector is illegal, unregistered, and
lacks structure. Informal actors jointly establish a company to protect
illegal shipments of UEEE that are rarely confiscated and detected (Laha,
2022).
Moreover, the slack of environmental legislation, a substantial UEEE
market, and home collection of UEEE by private recyclers contribute to
the informal sector’s demand (Perkins et al., 2014). Waste scrappers and
brokers collect e-waste informally from consumers, which is more
common in developing nations. The treatment techniques used in this
sector are frequently rudimentary and basic. Typically, collectors look
for metal components in e-waste and use acid leaching and open burning
to extract the metals. This trend also occurs in Europe (Shittu et al.,
2021). Due to inefficient processing methods, copper and gold are
among the valuable resources lost, and the goods retrieved are of poor
purity or quality (Nnorom and Odeyingbo, 2020). In addition to the
workers involved, the residents who live nearby are also exposed to the
risk of environmental contamination (Ilyas et al., 2020). Therefore,
e-waste poses dangers that society should be protected against it. As a
result, e-waste stream management is a worldwide challenge (Dias, P.
et al., 2022). Numerous advancements in e-waste recycling have been
made over the previous several decades. Nevertheless, the lack of an
appropriate collection system is the main issue in the management of
e-waste (Vishwakarma et al., 2022). Hence, a formal e-waste sector has
formed a management system: EoL collection, processing, and recycling
service providers with legal registration. Formal sectors are expected to
manage in a way that protects the environment, human health, and
valuable resources in e-waste (Nnorom and Odeyingbo, 2020).
Fig. 6. Schematic overview of global WEEE and UEEE management initiatives from 1998 to 2012 (it is necessary to mention that there are no more recent WEEE
management initiatives after 2012).
7
Journal of Cleaner Production 389 (2023) 136132
5. Restrictions on imports and exports of UEEE and WEEE
The increased volume of WEEE in Europe increases illegal exports,
mainly to developing countries in Asia and Africa. The primary motive
for dumping WEEE outside Europe is to avoid the high cost of disposal
and recycling. Robust regulatory and enforcement frameworks are
essential to prevent these illicit flows (Mohanty et al., 2015). This sec­
tion focuses on parameters that assess export and import restrictions of
UEEE and WEEE from regulations, environmental, and economic
perspectives.
5.1. Global initiatives and legislation related to UEEE and WEEE
management
Initiatives relevant to the management of UEEE and WEEE began
with the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC) launch to protect secure
environmental justice and human health in 1982 (Dooley, 2002). Then
in 1992, the Basel Convention regulated the transboundary transfer of
dangerous wastes, including WEEE (Okaru, 1992). The Basel Action
Network was founded in 1997 to raise awareness about the illicit WEEE
business (de Oliveira et al., 2012). It is worth noting that many initia­
tives in recycling, treatment, and disposal of WEEE have grown signif­
icantly since 2000 (Li et al., 2013). Fig. 6 shows a schematic of global
initiatives to overcome UEEE and WEEE problems from 1982 to 2012.
The details of these global initiatives are described in detail (see Ap­
pendix A).
Although global awareness of the need for sustainable WEEE man­
agement has evolved, no formal legislation or particular guideline has
been adopted or developed to address the topic in some countries.
Hazardous waste should not be exported to countries that are not able to
manage it properly. The issue has been incorporated into international
law through the Basel Convention, national legal texts, and several
regional treaties. However, very little success is obtained in restricting
the e-waste trade to nations that do not have the necessary infrastructure
for hazardous waste (Bisschop, 2012). China, India (Pathak and Sri­
vastava, 2017), and African nations, especially West African nations,
have become e-waste disposal locations for developed nations, accord­
ing to studies conducted by the European Union and the United Nations
(Schluep et al., 2012). Only 13 African countries had e-waste laws,
regulations, or policies as of 2019 (Lebbie et al., 2021). Despite pro­
ducing the most e-waste in Africa, Egypt has no national e-waste regu­
lation or policy (Lebbie et al., 2021). The United Nations Environmental
Program analyzed the e-waste issue in five African countries and
discovered that none had regulations or adequate infrastructure to safely
Z.A. Cheshmeh et al.
dispose of e-waste imports (UNEP, 2020). Even though many African
nations have signed international treaties dealing with waste trans­
portation, a lack of rules and insufficient enforcement has increased
illegal e-waste recycling importation and activities (Ilankoon et al.,
2018). In addition, the existing legislative frameworks have several
structural, administrative, and procedural flaws. The bigger problem in
some countries is not the lack of federal laws but how comprehensive
their rules are/will be. For example, just two products, such as com­
puters and TVs, are covered by Australia’s proposed national law; all
other kinds of e-waste are either dumped in landfills or illegally trans­
ported to developing Asian nations (Patil and Ramakrishna, 2020). In
many countries, prosecution for infractions is infrequent or late, and
fines are too cheap. Many environmental inspectorates lack the au­
thority to levy administrative fines or are given criminal police powers,
necessitating strong cooperation with the police, which is frequently
lacking (Mohanty et al., 2015). Many nations, except Europe, appear to
be slow or lacking in initiating, adopting, and drafting WEEE regula­
tions. The causes of this are likely related to political will rather than a
lack of knowledge of the significance of controlling the importation,
treatment, and management of WEEE. Additionally, as technology ad­
vances, the lifetime of electronic items is also changing quickly, and this
shift is happening much more quickly than policy updates (Ongondo
et al., 2011). In general, the legislation and policies now in place do not
take into account the whole life cycle of EEE, and effective enforcement
and oversight are also lacking, demonstrating an apparent discrepancy
between policy and what is occurring (Khan, 2016). In Europe, the issue
of second-hand electronic products and e-waste has always been of po­
tential importance. The direct rules in the field of e-waste are limited,
which is presented in the Table 1. However, according to the European
Union law database (eur-lex.europa.eu), there are significant references
to this type of waste. These instructions can be put forward in the form of
law or policy. The level of policy-making is in strategic dimensions, and
the level of law, is in the dimension of operational activities. According
to this database, there are 178 laws and policies related to the combi­
nation of two keywords, “waste” and “electronics.” Among them, most
laws are related to EU law and case law (139 cases). On the other hand,
the existing laws have been prepared by three main groups, including
the European Parliament (65 laws), the European Commission (36
laws), and the Council of the European Union (30 laws), and the rest of
the groups are in the minority. Finally, it should be mentioned that ac­
cording to the mentioned data bank, between the years 1992 and 2022,
the largest number of laws were approved in 2006 (12 laws), 2008 (12
laws), 2011 (17 laws), 2012 (11 laws), 2015 (10 laws), 2017 (10 laws)
and 2018 (15 laws). Table 1 summarizes existing regulations frame­
works for managing UEEE and WEEE.
5.2. Environmental restrictions
What limits UEEE transboundary flows from an environmental point
of view is their negative impact on the environment and human health
due to illegal trade (Okukpon, 2021). One of the prevalent concerns in
UEEE exports is the lack of clarity in informal activities. Therefore, a
more accurate assessment of UEEE streams is not attainable (Owusu-­
Sekyere et al., 2022). Often, the UEEE is exported illegally or on the
assumption that it is intended for reuse (BAXTER et al.). Today, the
transboundary movement of e-waste from developed to developing na­
tions has raised concerns because it increases the environmental burden
in the destination nations and is also managed by the informal part (Forti
et al., 2020). The demand for bridging the “digital divide” has only
opened up a “digital dump” in developing nations. This is since a large
portion of the UEEE, whether used or EoL, eventually becomes incin­
erated or ends up in landfills. If the disposal operation is not done
correctly, it will cause soil, groundwater, the environment, and atmo­
sphere pollution (Adejonwo-Osho, 2016). For example, a study by
Greenpeace found that the UK always exports its non-repairable UEEE as
second-hand electronics to Africa, particularly Nigeria and Ghana.
8
Journal of Cleaner Production 389 (2023) 136132
Although Nigeria uses thousands of unrepairable UEEEs as spare parts,
many of these UEEEs are still being dumped as WEEE without proper
recycling, posing a menace to human health and the environment
(Adejonwo-Osho, 2016). Because e-waste streams contain both precious
metals and other secondary resources and harmful toxic compounds
(Parajuly et al., 2020), the topic of their regulation exists between
wastes and products. This complicated legal interface brings together
the various and sometimes contradictory international regimes of free
trade and poses the globalization of e-waste as a significant issue of
environmental justice (Khan, 2016). Aside from the global e-waste
landscape’s inherent diversity and complicated interlopings, there is a
broad worldwide consensus that dangerous wastes should not be
exported to nations unable to handle these wastes in an environmentally
sound manner (Li et al., 2013). Despite this, global traders can move
large amounts of hazardous e-waste across borders without considering
environmental constraints due to definitional ambiguities in the Basel
Convention (Mohanty et al., 2015).
5.3. Economic restrictions
The original economic driver behind UEEE shipments is repair and
reuse, but most of these shipments are e-waste (Forti et al., 2020).
Developing countries frequently put economic benefits ahead of envi­
ronmental and human health, exposing their residents to toxic chem­
icals. The same erroneous priority may be found in some developed
countries (Lebbie et al., 2021). For example, many UEEEs are imported
to Africa to improve social and economic development. However, a large
percentage of imported UEEEs are not repairable or functional. Ac­
cording to some studies, most of the UEEE shipped to Africa are haz­
ardous wastes with concentrations considerably beyond the acceptable
levels in developed nations, finally causing a slew of social and eco­
nomic challenges like a threat to general health (Osibanjo, 2009). On the
other hand, developed nations such as the US and the UK export their
UEEEs in the name of gifts and charities as an intelligent alternative to
achieve tax exemptions and eliminate liability to developing nations
(Salomone et al., 2020). Also, other significant economic reasons for
importing UEEE to developing nations include the lack of environmental
legislation and the cheaper cost of living. In addition, these nations lack
the financial resources and qualified personnel to implement them. As a
result, the demand for UEEE by developing nations aided the illegal
e-waste trade, which has bothered the international community for the
past several decades (Okukpon, 2021).
6. UEEE on the path of the circular economy
The philosophy of circular economy seeks solutions to separate
economic development from the exploitation of natural resources,
reduce the adverse environmental effects of human activities, and ach­
ieve a prevalent goal to maximize the value of the resources being used
(Castro et al., 2022). The main driver for CE includes recycling and reuse
of materials (Kirchherr et al., 2017). CE is defined in a variety of ways.
Nevertheless, more specifically, CE is the opposite of the linear economy
that allows the refurbishing and repairing of products, reuse, and
recycling of materials as much as possible, reducing waste disposal, and
at the same time improving resource efficiency, zero waste attitude, an
increase in the life cycle and extraction of urban mines to achieve
environmental sustainability (Cainelli et al., 2020). From the CE point of
view, it is necessary to give priority to waste generation prevention
techniques, such as those that increase product longevity (quality,
redesign, modularity, and increasing durability) (Xavier et al., 2021).
Extending the useful life of electronics can provisionally divert the need
for disposal or recycling (Forti et al., 2020). Importing second-hand
electronics for reuse or repair allows electronics to work for more time
before they eventually become e-waste (Canavati, 2022). Nevertheless,
the transition to a CE is challenging without a shift in consumer
behavior. While manufacturers should act responsibly, consumers
Z.A. Cheshmeh et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 389 (2023) 136132

Table 1
Summary of existing regulations frameworks of countries for managing UEEE and WEEE.
Continents Source countries/ Destination Year Regulations Major contents References
regions countries/regions

Africa Nigeria 2011 Guide for Importers of UEEE into Nigeria. Mandatory registration of every UEEE Nnorom and
importer in NESREA and ban on the importation of near-end-of-life EEE and WEEE. Odeyingbo (2020)
South Africa N.A. N.A. Borthakur (2020)
Ghana 2011 Ghana E-Waste Country Assessment. SBC E-waste Africa Project. WEEE imports are Canavati (2022)
allowed in Ghana. The Basel Convention has been ratified in this country but is not yet
included in national laws.
Gambia N.A. N.A. Lebbie et al. (2021)
Senegal N.A.
Malawi N.A.
Morocco N.A.
Benin N.A.
Liberia N.A.
Egypt N.A.

North United States 2011 HR 2284: Responsible Electronics Recycling Act. Export ban of certain WEEE items. Srivastava and
America Pathak (2020)
Canada N.A. N.A. Shittu et al. (2021)
Asia Japan 2000 Law for the Promotion of Effective Utilization of Resources (LPUR). Jayaraman et al.
(2019)
2001 Law for Recycling Specified Kinds of Home Appliances (LRHA). Arya and Kumar
(2020)
2005 Law for the Control of Import, Export, and others of specified Dangerous Wastes and Barapatre and
other Wastes. Prohibition of export without the consent of the importing country. Rastogi (2021)
2013 Act on Promotion of Recycling of Small Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment. Terazono et al.
(2015)
Singapore 1999 Environmental Protection and Management (Hazardous Substances) Act (EPMA). The Molina et al. (2019)
necessity to have a license for sellers and exporters of hazardous material.
2008 Export and Import of UEEE and WEEE. Export and import permits for dangerous e-waste Barapatre and
will be provided on a case-by-case basis. Rastogi (2021)
South Korea 1994 Act on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Barapatre and
Disposal. Failure to issue a license without the agreement of the importing nation. Rastogi (2021)
Taiwan 1988 Waste Disposal Act (WDA). Importers and producers are responsible for the financing of Lai et al. (2016)
recycling by forming communities of funding.
1997 4-in-1 Recycling Program (Revised WDA). Providing waste collection services from Cheng and Chang
customers by importers and producers and paying the recycling fee to the Environmental (2018)
Protection Administration Taiwan (EPAT).
2001 Amendment to WDA Environmental. To clarify what duties importers, producers, Kurniawan et al.
recyclers have about the 4-in-1 program. (2022)
China 2000 Ban on the import of the seventh category of waste. Encouragement of electronic device Zhang et al. (2015)
producers to develop eco-design and cleaner production.
2006 Implementing the Technical Policy on Pollution Prevention and Control of Waste Li et al. (2006)
Electrical and Electronic Products.
2008 Administrative Measures for the Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution Zhou and Xu (2012)
by Electronic Waste.
2011 Regulation on management of the disposal and recycling of e-waste. Srivastava and
Pathak (2020)
Hong Kong, China 1980 Waste Disposal decree (revised 2018). Review of legal control exports and imports of Ghosh et al. (2016)
UEEE.
2018 Advice on Export and Import UEEE. Review of legal control exports and imports of UEEE. Barapatre and
Rastogi (2021)
Thailand 2007 The criterion for Import of Used Electrical and Electronic Equipment considered as Barapatre and
Hazardous Substances. Control on the classified Used Electrical and Electronic Equipment Rastogi (2021)
as dangerous substances.
2019 Ban on the import of e-waste and plastic waste to the Kingdom of Thailand
India 2008 The Hazardous Wastes Management, Handling, and Transboundary Movement Rules. Arya and Kumar
Prohibition of importation of hazardous waste for dumping or disposal and the need to (2020)
obtain a permit from State Pollution Control Board (SPCB).
2012 The E-Waste Management and Handling Rules. Imposing limitations on the import of e- Abalansa et al.
waste and focusing on extended producer responsibility (EPR). (2021)
2018 E-waste (Management) Amendment Rules (2016). Import of e-waste from other Debnath et al.
countries into India is prohibited. This rule was amended in 2018. (2022)
Malaysia 2008 The Classification of UEEE Guidelines (Department of Environment). Waste producers Agamuthu and
are authorized to export waste for treatment, recycling, or recovery only with the written Victor (2011)
consent of the importing country.
Pakistan 1997 Pakistan Environmental Protection Act. Import of dangerous waste has been prohibited). Iqbal et al. (2015)
2009 Import Policy Order. Imports of Second-hand/Used refrigerators, appliances, and air Ilyas et al. (2020)
conditioners were banned. Import of CRT is permitted only to be imported with second-hand
computers.
Philippines 1994 Temporary Guidelines for the Importation of Recyclable Materials Containing Gonzales (2018)
Dangerous Substances. It applies to importers who want to bring dangerous materials into
the country, like scrap and electronic assemblies.
2004
(continued on next page)

9
Z.A. Cheshmeh et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 389 (2023) 136132

Table 1 (continued )
Continents Source countries/ Destination Year Regulations Major contents References
regions countries/regions

Hazardous Waste Management DENR AO 36 (Under DAO 97–28 and DAO 94–28.
Waste imports, including recyclable materials containing dangerous materials and
electronic assemblies, are permitted. (Revised in 2013).
Vietnam 2005 Law on Environmental Protection. It promotes waste reduction and recycling and Clausen et al.
stipulates waste generators’ obligations to reduce waste generation. Articles for hazardous (2011)
waste management are included as prohibitions on the import and transit of all types of
waste from other countries.
2018 Decree No.69/2018/ND- CP on Guidelines for the Law on Foreign Trade Srivastava and
Management. Prohibition of some imported goods. Pathak (2020)
2019 Decision No. 18/2019/QD-TTg on Import of Used Machinery, Equipment and Can et al. (2020)
Technological Lines. The import of used machines and equipment is subject to being less
than ten years old and manufactured according to a specific standard.
Cambodia 1999 Sub-decree on Solid Waste Management. Banning the export of dangerous waste except San et al. (2018)
with the consent of the importing nation and the approval of the Ministry of Trade.
2016 sub-decree, No. 16 on Electrical and Electronic Equipment Waste Management. Pheakdey et al.
Prohibition of importing UEEE: 1) for refurbishment and repair purposes and 2) without the (2022)
approval of the Ministry of Energy.
Europe Belgium 2002 Directive 2002/96/EC on WEEE. In this country, the producer responsibility and waste Lu et al. (2018)
management are controlled by The Public Waste Agency of Flanders (OVAM).
Finland 2004 Government Decree on WEEE. Exporters are permitted if they prove that recycling or Barapatre and
reuse will be carried out under the instructions of this order. Otherwise, export outside the Rastogi (2021)
EU is prohibited.
France, Germany, 2005 Under EU directives. Producers must use fewer toxic materials; municipalities and Barapatre and
Netherlands distributors must collect and process discarded electronics, and France has implemented an Rastogi (2021)
“eco-cost” for handling WEEE).
UK 2007 Under EU directives. It is a statutory instrument (secondary legislation) approved by the Shittu et al. (2021)
UK parliament in 2006 (under the common law system), and its purpose is to transfer the
EU Directive, which went into full in January 2007.
Norway 2006 In 2006 the revised EU directives entered into force. Establishing WEEE register and Barapatre and
forcing every importer and producer to join a take-back company. Rastogi (2021)
Oceania Australia 2009 National Waste Policy. Reducing the amount of waste (including hazardous waste). It was Dias, P.R. et al.
updated in 2018. (2022)
2011 Product Stewardship Act (Computer and Television).

should also shift their thinking towards adopting new business models,
purchasing green products, and accepting the upgradation of equipment
by refurbishing and repairing processes. The changes in consumer
behavior include extrinsic factors like infrastructure and incentives, as
well as intrinsic factors like personal ethics of human behavior and
values (Vishwakarma et al., 2022). Consumer perceptions of their con­
tributions to a greener environment can be significantly altered by
requiring manufacturers to provide consumers with thorough informa­
tion about each product, including details about its composition, risks
associated with improper disposal, reuse practices, repair and refur­
bishment procedures, and life span (Murthy and Ramakrishna, 2022).
Additionally, a shift in outlook about the collected e-waste as a helpful
product at its end-of-life, rather than waste, is essential for increasing
circularity and avoiding losses (Parajuly and Wenzel, 2017). The
economically viable and environmentally sound management of EEE,
which is moving around the world with both used and end of life EEE
forms, is a crucial issue of a circular economy (Lasaridi et al., 2018). In
order to progress towards a circular economy, changes in policies and
the active participation of actors who draft the policies and actors such
as inspection agencies and customs who monitor the implementation of
CE documents are necessary. Also, with the development of the formal
sector, the e-waste industry will become more sustainable. This devel­
opment will strengthen the transition to the circular economy, including
environmental protection and sustainable human capital development
(Awasthi et al., 2019). Despite these interpretations, UEEE faces major
problems being on the circular economy path. EEE products are evolving
quickly due to the quick shifts in market trends; hence selling UEEE to
customers is becoming more challenging. When new models or versions
are released, some items are left out because buyers may no longer
desire them due to the lack of new features. Also, OEMs, to compete with
their competitors in innovation, may prefer to cease the production of
current products to create room for new versions (Vincent Wang et al.,
2015). In addition, the lack of reliable data on transboundary flows
(Cesaro et al., 2018), the difficulty in distinguishing between WEEE and
UEEE (Shittu et al., 2021), and the lack of strict monitoring of shipments
by customs and executive agencies have caused the continuous move­
ment of WEEE (Forti et al., 2020). Also, the weakness in implementing
existing rules and the lack of national laws is boosting the growth of the
informal sector (Sengupta et al., 2022). The recovery processes in this
sector often endanger the environment and human health. These are
discussed more fully in Section 7.3.
Today, evaluating and proving new technologies in the management
of UEEE and WEEE is a perfect area that has been widely discussed
(Debnath et al., 2022). The use of novel technologies such as the cloud,
the Internet of Things (IoT), and the Blockchain (BC) can assist manu­
facturers in maintaining control of products until EoL EEE while
boosting CE strategies (Magrini et al., 2021). Cloud technology in recent
years has been introduced in a variety of scenarios because it allows for
flexible services and the capability of scalable to be customized. The
cloud notion was first introduced to describe many computers connected
via a network using runtime communications (Sobolewski, 2011). The
cloud was then expanded to include additional domains that need
customized services, such as manufacturing (Zhang et al., 2014). Cloud
manufacturing is a manufacturing approach that allows for scalable,
on-demand availability of manufacturing services, both physically and
digitally (Xu, 2012). UEEE can be supported by high-level data con­
trol/management, pliable service models, and the cloud’s integrated
manufacturing solutions. Also, cloud services, including tracking and
management, are involved in WEEE recycling and recovery processes.
These services cover all stakeholders from the start to the EoL of EEE
(Vincent Wang et al., 2015). In fact, the cloud provides a well-organized
platform for end-users to learn how to manage their used equipment and
an opportunity to turn waste into valuable UEEE for end-users, which
also has significant environmental benefits if implemented correctly
(Wang and Wang, 2018). Also, the UEEE can be rebuilt with the help of
the IoT and sent back to the distribution line. The term “Internet of

10
Z.A. Cheshmeh et al.
Things” refers to the interconnectivity and interfacing of multiple EEEs
across a network (Internet), allowing data to be exchanged and inter­
acted between connected devices (Shittu et al., 2021). In addition to
being able to help track UEEE, IoT secures the route through tracking
and protects the device from possible security breaches Cloud and IoT
technology ensure traceability and data security (Debnath et al., 2022).
Much research has investigated the possibility of using BC technology in
e-waste management. Through transparency and traceability, BC can
connect CE sustainability with the Supply Chain Network (SCN). Also, it
can make information about a product’s origin, processes, and the
parties involved in associated logistics and transactions traceable,
visible, and verifiable by all stakeholders in the SCN (Kouhizadeh and
Sarkis, 2018). Furthermore, due to the lost connection between the
natural product sold by OEMs in the market and the product recovered
by the ultimate processor, it is expected to assist in overcoming the
shortcomings of the current Extended Producers Responsibility (EPR)
system (Esmaeilian et al., 2020). BC and IoT technologies are more
related to the “reduce” part of the circular economy concept (Magrini
et al., 2021). Much research has been done in technology areas. For
example, Debnath et al. (2022) have proposed a model for cyclical
e-waste management in India. In this model, the role of novel technol­
ogies has been deeply studied. Also, this research presents a solution
framework combining the CE enablers and the e-waste supply chain
network stakeholders with the assistance of ICT. As a result, technolo­
gies such as IoT, cloud, and BC might help achieve a circular economy.
However, some structural barriers have hampered the implementation
of new technologies in developing nations. Limited human resources
skills, privacy and security issues (Al Mudawi et al., 2020), weak
infrastructure, and poor internet connectivity (Hopalı and Vayvay,
2018) are the main challenges to using these technologies. Hence, the
feasibility of these technologies requires further research.
Furthermore, several initiatives have been undertaken to track WEEE
and UEEE imports and exports. Business statistics, trade codes, EPR
registries, and Global Positioning System (GPS) technology have all been
employed in these initiatives (Forti et al., 2018). There are still faults in
the methodology utilized in those research. For example, manufacturers
can evade their responsibilities in programs such as EPR by exporting
illegal UEEE overseas. The EPR cannot deal with unlawful trans­
boundary movement. It can, however, capture the legitimate movement
of secondhand goods (Manomaivibool, 2009).
Fig. 7. The comparison between legal and illegal exportation of UEEE.
11
Journal of Cleaner Production 389 (2023) 136132
7. Discussion and future directions
This study introduces reuse as one of the end-of-life options for EEE.
Compared to manufacturing new devices, utilizing used electronic de­
vices can save the environment because the embedded energy and the
material content are recycled from manufacturing procedures (Sharpe
et al., 2018). Also, as depicted in (Fig. 7), the comparison between the
legal and illegal exportation of UEEE is examined in this study.
While most studies have focused on e-waste management, scant or
scarce research has been performed on UEEEs that have led to e-waste
generation. Numerous studies have described that developed countries
export their WEEE in the form of UEEE to reduce the “digital gap” in
developing countries. This process opens the door to illegal trans­
boundary flows. It will now be debated in depth whether resolving the
challenges and upgrading some management systems will improve the
transboundary flow of UEEE and put them on the path to a circular
economy. To better understand this topic, the challenges and solutions
were examined in four sections: 1) Problem elimination of WEEE and
UEEE distinction, 2) Systematic WEEE and UEEE policy-making
assessment, 3) Resolving challenges of UEEE on the path of the circu­
lar economy, 4) Conceptual CE modeling and managerial insights.
7.1. Problem elimination of WEEE and UEEE distinction
Lack of strategy and guidance for law enforcement agencies and
shipping on how to distinguish between WEEE and UEEE from
frequently highlighted topics is, in fact, unlawfully trading WEEE is one
of the most common methods because some of the upstream WEEE ac­
tors affiliate heavily on income from this source (Bran et al., 2016). One
of the most problematic issues during the inspection is distinguishing
between the UEEE and the WEEE because the regulations governing
waste give authorities a more substantial basis for controlling and
restricting waste movement between governments. Now the questions
that arise in this section focus on when do UEEE become waste and falls
under the jurisdiction of waste laws? What is the difference between
UEEE and WEEE? A UEEE is a WEEE when the owner intends to dispose
of or is required to dispose of it. In most cases, the supervisory authority
can determine whether UEEE should be classified as WEEE. To make this
determination, one must look at the item’s history on a case-by-case
basis. However, interdependent the circumstances, the supervisory au­
thority may also rely on particular relevance criteria when assessing
UEEE as WEEE. Finally, these criteria serve as indications for deter­
mining if the UEEE may be classified as WEEE in specific instances
Z.A. Cheshmeh et al.
(Brandt and Holberg, 2015). The general criteria for considering UEEE
as WEEE are as follows:
• The product is incomplete; lack of essential parts in the product.
• It demonstrates physical damage which leads to impairment of its
safety or functionality, as determined by relevant standards.
• The packing is insufficient to prevent it from harm during shipping
and loading and unloading procedures.
• The item’s look is often worn or damaged, lowering its marketability.
• Its components contain things forbidden by national or community
law or should be discarded (e.g., CFCs, PCBs, asbestos).
• Instead of being reused, the UEEE is meant for disposal or recycling.
• There is no established market for secondhand EEE.
• It is a used, out-of-date EEE that will be cannibalized (to gain spare
parts).
As a result, when the criteria are judged correctly, the UEEE can be
considered WEEE. The ambiguity in the Basel Convention’s definitions
of the UEEE and the WEEE is one of the primary reasons for the illegality
of exports (Arabi et al., 2018). For this reason, some countries may ban
the import of WEEE and UEEE. For example, Thailand’s ban on e-waste
imports resulted in lost trade opportunities for firms with lawful import
authority. However, even if imports of secondhand goods and e-waste
were outright prohibited, the impact on those involved in smuggling and
other illicit import activities would be minimal since they do not bother
to get the necessary e-waste import licenses.
Additionally, recycling businesses with legitimate e-waste import
licenses lose economic prospects due to the general import prohibition
(Sasaki, 2021b). Hence, all UEEE movements across borders must be
supported by documentation that unequivocally demonstrates that each
good in the shipments is not just accounted for but also functional. The
main factor in determining whether UEEE labeled is reusable is its
functionality, which must be proven before shipments leave the
exporting country. In addition, recorded evidence of proprietorship and
functionality, and a certificate of the non-waste condition of all equip­
ment inside a consignment must be provided to the appropriate au­
thorities by the exporter (Khan, 2016). The Basel Convention has made
many efforts to resolve this ambiguity. Recently, at its 15th COP, it
developed a novel set of technical guidelines to prevent the illicit trade
in e-waste. The changes are expected to help governments distinguish
Fig. 8. The Cause-Effect model of WEEE and UEEE management and convention’ outputs based on the fishbone technique in (a) social, (b) environmental, and (c)
economic aspects.
12
Journal of Cleaner Production 389 (2023) 136132
between waste and non-waste consignments of UEEE and simplify
e-waste trade enforcement worldwide.
7.2. Systematic WEEE and UEEE policy-making assessment
There are some approved activities in different conventions about
both WEEE and UEEE, which should be considered a unique system. On
the other hand, all the considered policies and efforts should be evalu­
ated as a unit framework because they are the trends of policies with a
holistic target about the management of WEEE and UEEE from 1982 to
2012. This research section presents a systematic model in three cate­
gories of sustainable development goals (SDGs) as per the fishbone
(cause-effect) model. The mentioned model is generally known and can
provide an apparent possibility to analyze effective pressure levers in
decision-making by combining it with the SDGs. The innovations are
categorized into three social-caused, environmental-caused, and
economic-caused sections, which are modeled based on Fig. 8a–c. Be­
sides, the world followed the SDGs and approved different activities,
rules, and policies to reach sustainability consideration for electrical
development in new lifestyles.
In Fig. 7a, it can be seen that in the social aspects of policy-making in
WEEE and UEEE management, three steps are trended: justice execution
between developed and developing countries, sustainability and human
rights, and transformational participation of social resources (Appendix
A). With the trend, plus eco-environmental aspects of the WEEE and
UEEE management system, the citizens’ support is put behind the
policies.
In environmental aspects (Fig. 8b), it can be seen that four main
targets include; water quality control, solid waste management and toxic
material emission prevention, environmental impacts control, and
WEEE and UEEE circular economy are developed in all conventions and
participated plans. In the declared category, four main steps contain;
monitoring WEEE and UEEE, their impacts assessment, health risk
reduction, and recycling the materials with integrated environmental-
economic goals. With the application of the plans during 1982–2012,
some goals such as good health and well-being, clean water and sani­
tation, climate action, and life on land are met. The further details of
each convention are summarized in (Appendix A) section.
According to Fig. 8c, it is clear that in the economic process of WEEE
and UEEE management, four different steps are developed: transferring
Z.A. Cheshmeh et al.
WEEE and UEEE, economic collaborations, and creating global markets.
With supporting economic goals, some innovations will be increased
more and more.
7.3. Resolving challenges of UEEE in the path of circular economy
7.3.1. Consumer unwillingness to use UEEE in developed countries
As mentioned in this review, using UEEE can increase the product life
cycle and result in being on the path of the circular economy. However,
in the first place, there are challenges in using the UEEE that can be
summarized as follows (Vincent Wang et al., 2015):
• In some cases, UEEE recovery costs are higher, which means that
despite the environmental benefits, remanufactured EEE may be
even more costly than new EEE.
• From an economic standpoint, the general preference is for new
products because convincing customers to accept products contain­
ing UEEE components or recovered EEE is problematic.
• Competitive UEEE production requires special facilities that are
costly. Therefore, skilled technicians and operators are also required.
• Despite the environmental consequences, convincing firms to
implement remanufacturing technologies and commercialize WEEE
recovery in the present supply chain is challenging.
• It is hard to persuade people to pick recovered EEE or components
over better versions since the warranty status of these items may
change. The warranties must be defined separately, for example, a
warranty for the recovered components and a warranty for the entire
product
• The modern market is still unconcerned with environmental and
social effects.
Hence, considering incentives for consumers, they can be pushed to
use products containing UEEE components or recovered EEE. Moreover,
sharing knowledge about hazardous materials that could be reduced
thanks to long lifecycles and recycling and recovery services can
strengthen the consumer’s motivation to buy UEEE.
7.3.2. Non-expansion of the formal sector
Even though the official sector, as a registered and legal sector, by
providing services such as recovery, repair, and recycling of used elec­
tronic devices and electronic waste can help achieve a circular economy,
it faces challenges. The three major challenges are as follows:
• Limited access of formal sectors to e-waste
In developing nations, informal sector door-to-door e-waste collec­
tion is opined to notably achieve higher collection rates than voluntary
retake systems in Europe. Because such procedures are convenient for
consumers, occasionally, the money given by collectors acts as an eco­
nomic inducement for consumers to participate. (Nnorom and
Odeyingbo, 2020). Additionally, companies and consumers are
becoming less interested in returning their e-waste to the formal sector
due to a lack of knowledge and the associated costs (Parajuly et al.,
2020). The disparity between developing nations like India and devel­
oped nations is significant in that people in developing nations prefer to
sell their outdated equipment in the informal sector because they
anticipate benefiting when they sell a WEEE. In contrast, consumers in
nations like Japan must pay to dispose of their WEEE (Dias, P. et al.,
2022). Therefore, consumers may sell their e-waste to shops directly or
to scrap dealers in the informal sectors (Vishwakarma et al., 2022).
Moreover, over 80 percent of the registered formal recyclers gather
e-waste, according to a government official in the Ministry of Electronics
and Information Technology, and then sell it to unlicensed informal
operators (Laha, 2022). Consequently, the informal sector is more active
in managing and collecting e-waste worldwide. According to some
studies, another reason for the limited access of the official sector to
13
Journal of Cleaner Production 389 (2023) 136132
e-waste is that despite using newer versions, many consumers maintain
their older equipment for long periods. These objects are ultimately
thrown away long after they would have been valuable on the secondary
market for secondhand goods (Agamuthu and Awasthi, 2020). For
example, Ottoni and Xavier (2019) demonstrated that a significant
proportion of Brazilians (roughly 85%) choose to keep their obsolete or
broken appliances at home instead of giving them to the country’s
e-waste collection points. Also, in Canada, about 20% of electronic
waste is either left in domestic storage or disposed of as municipal waste
(Xavier et al., 2021).
• Regulatory framework
Although international e-waste laws and policies play an essential
role and influence 71% of the world’s crowd, only 17.4% of all e-waste
generated is formally recycled (Fig. 9). The electronics industry does not
perform regulatory and legal policies well. Hence, the informal sector
still dominates major regions despite the various regulations and rules
(Murthy and Ramakrishna, 2022). For example, in India, it was antici­
pated that the flow of e-waste into the informal recycling sector would
decrease after the performance of the e-waste (Management) rules in
2016, consequently instituting control over the formal sector. Never­
theless, until now so far, the informal sector still dominates the country’s
e-waste management system (Sengupta et al., 2022). Also, there is no
universal model with rigid rules to manage e-waste for developing and
developed nations because many nations have distinct rules. Therefore,
establishing and upholding a global legal framework would prevent
policy ambiguity and conflicts of interest (Patil and Ramakrishna,
2020).
• The need for expensive facilities
Formal e-waste recycling facilities must be operated and constructed
at high maintenance costs and capital, which is a significant economic
limitation (Vishwakarma et al., 2022). It should come as no surprise that
developing nations seldom have these facilities. For instance, since
Nigeria lacks the infrastructure and facilities necessary to process WEEE
utilizing cutting-edge technologies, informal sectors employ simple
techniques that put the environment and human health in danger
(Nnorom and Odeyingbo, 2020).
Possible solutions to strengthen formal sector management and shift
the e-waste management of the informal sector into a safe and profitable
component of the worldwide circular economy for sustainability are as
follows:
Raising public awareness and participation: Lack of knowledge
regarding dismantling locations, recycling centers, disposal, consumer
ecological awareness, and waste accumulation are all obstacles to effi­
cient e-waste management. Sharp consumer awareness of waste makes
up the opportunity for consumers to assume responsibility for a mini­
mum share of the recycling of e-waste (Gollakota et al., 2020). In order
to raise public knowledge of e-waste management, a capacity-building
program should be designed to encourage public engagement. Such a
program needs to cheer activities like newsletters, workshops, and TV
advertisements (Lu et al., 2015). Awareness and training campaigns
pursued by government backing will be very motivating and count steps
toward effective management. These initiatives might serve as a plat­
form for collaboration between the two EEE stakeholders, enhancing
mutual consumer awareness, providing a firm foundation for incentives
in public, and enabling the commitment and accountability of the old
usage of EEE (Gollakota et al., 2020). Also, to help those peddlers,
dealers, and informal workers recognition the potential health and
environmental concerns associated with e-waste, appropriate training
programs should be created for them (Ignatuschtschenko, 2017).
Creating economic incentives: In developed nations like Spain,
Germany, and others in the European Union, residents are forced to
bring their e-waste to collection points, and manufacturers are in charge
Z.A. Cheshmeh et al.
Fig. 9. Schematic of current statistics of formal recycling and e-waste generation.
of the expense of recycling. Because recycling fees are included in the
selling price of new electronic equipment in Japan, consumers are
responsible for paying for e-waste recycling. Citizens, producers, and the
government contribute to the cost of recycling e-waste in most United
States regions (Yafeng and Tetiana, 2021). In Switzerland, the govern­
ment collects an advance recycling fee for the disposal of EoL electronic
items from electronics consumers (Ghosh et al., 2016). Due to the
relative lack of economic development and environmental conscious­
ness in developing nations and their relatively good currency income,
EoL EEE owners prefer informal collection channels. They want to avoid
paying for e-waste recovery (Yafeng and Tetiana, 2021). Accustomed to
being paid for their e-waste, Chinese residents are unknown with the
concept of recycling fees for electronics, which is typical in other na­
tions. For example, a Dell campaign demanded that customers in
Shanghai and Beijing to transfer their old computers to nearby Dell
shops and pay for transportation charges themselves, but people were
unwilled to participate in such voluntary programs (Ignatuschtschenko,
2017). Therefore, it is necessary to design incentive schemes to
encourage people to recycle their e-waste. Consumer intentions to
engage in e-waste collection initiatives are significantly and favorably
impacted by economic factors because incentives encourage people to
sort and put waste in authorized collection locations correctly (Sari
et al., 2021). According to Akdoğan and Coşkun (2012), all recovery
actions have indirect and direct interests connected to economic gains.
Economic actions in the form of penalties and incentives are required to
steer motives in the appropriate direction. Society ranks economic mo­
tivations as the primary motivator of waste recycling (Mak et al., 2019).
For example, Lu et al. (2015) suggested that the government adopt a
“carrot” policy due to the lack of an efficient collection system in China,
namely, using a marketing strategy to encourage the collection of
e-waste. Such a strategy may support waste reduction measures via
deposit, redesign, fixed asset management reform, and tax and also
educate both consumers and industries on the problems surrounding
e-waste generation, delivery, and disposal. Another suggestion was to
receive a deposit on the first sale of a new e-product. Only when cus­
tomers return their e-waste to the formal sector will they be able to
reclaim such deposits. Such a strategy would guarantee a cost connected
with the generation of e-waste and incentivize customers not to sell their
e-waste to informal peddlers. Finally, to achieve an efficient e-waste
management system, the manufacturers, government, recycling sys­
tems, recyclers, retailers, collectors, enterprises, institutions, and con­
sumers should all participate. The manufacturers, government, and
recycling systems should share the financial costs.
Change and evolution of the informal sector: Due to the
14
Journal of Cleaner Production 389 (2023) 136132
considerable domination of the informal sector in handling e-waste and
the dependence of the livelihood of a large population on this sector, the
financial achievements of the informal sector cannot be ignored. It is
essential to educate and change them about the risks created by their
unorthodox and illegal ways of processing e-waste. It would be simple to
maintain transparency and trace the quantity of e-waste created and
handled if they were formalized. It can also solve ninety percent of the
environmental concerns brought on by e-waste (Murthy and Ram­
akrishna, 2022). Policies and laws place more emphasis on regulation
and the formal sector’s punitive measures than on offering economic
incentives to informal recyclers and collectors to integrate their opera­
tions into the formal sector or improve the environmental imple­
mentation of practical recycling methods. Purely repressive efforts that
concentrate on removing informal recycling facilities are expensive and
ineffective due to the flexibility of the informal sector, which is sup­
ported by the adoption of basic procedures in small-scale enterprises
that can comfortably be moved when closed down (Ignatuschtschenko,
2017). A legally appointed integration between the informal and formal
systems has been recommended as a beneficial alternative to punitive
and stringent rules to consider local economic-socio dynamics (Ardi and
Leisten, 2016). According to this strategy, the formal sector could be
responsible for residual disposal and the metal refining process. In
contrast, the informal sector could carry out manual disassembly and
collecting to extract worthwhile WEEE components. This type of action
might lessen the amount of WEEE generated on entering and site the
informal sector. The establishment of financial motivations for inte­
grating informal e-waste workers into the formal sector would move
informal conduct toward formality without reducing the capacity for
appointed recycling and collection, as opposed to criminalizing informal
activity (Ignatuschtschenko, 2017).
7.3.3. Weakness in controlling the transboundary movements of UEEE and
WEEE
One challenge on the path of the circular economy is the weakness in
the performance of law enforcement agencies, such as customs, in
controlling the transboundary movements of UEEE and WEEE in
developing countries. In some cases, customs officials do not examine all
the entering shipments at the ports, and there is a weak implementation
of the law and awareness (Laha, 2022). Increasing and improving reg­
ulatory capacity through measures such as creating legal frameworks,
developing inspection methods, and educating customs and imple­
menting agencies can effectively strengthen waste management control
and prevent illicit transboundary movement of UEEE and WEEE (Li and
Zhao, 2010). Also, more information should be available to harbor
Z.A. Cheshmeh et al.
officials and customs inspectors to fight the illicit e-waste trade (Forti
et al., 2020). Because some nation does not create criteria for regulating
international product reuse, establishing global standards might aid in
enhancing the efficiency of border control procedures at customs
(Sasaki, 2021a). Concerning topics such as drug shipments, weapons
trade, and human trafficking that often seem more important to customs
officials, it is not surprising that despite the recent development toward
a circular economy, e-waste is not on the priority list (Forti et al., 2020).
7.4. Conceptual CE modeling and managerial insights
In this section of research, some different statistical data are pre­
sented due to the exact determination of future risks based on all
different parts of SDGs, including; social, environmental, and economic
aspects. Meanwhile, it is clear that all risks and threats are converted to
opportunities with CE concepts in managerial plans. According to
Fig. 10, it can be found that smartphone market revenue worldwide
from 2013 to 2025 is more significant in comparison to other devices
such as TV (Fig. 10a), tablets (Fig. 10a), cameras (Fig. 10b), video game
consoles (Fig. 10b), etc. Considering (Fig. 10a), it is clear that the
smartphone trade has the hugest volume of electronic device trades and,
therefore, in the near future, it will have the most waste. Besides, CE
approaches can help control future environmental challenges. Because
with the execution of the declared concepts, secondhand electronic
devices such as smartphones can reuse by some developing countries
from the source of developed communities.
Based on Fig. 11, it can be seen that generally, a large part of elec­
tronic waste is produced in developed and most western countries.
Meanwhile, it is impossible to issue the same model for all countries for
implementing a circular economy due to electronic (particularly
smartphone) reuse and safe transfer plan. Therefore, this part of the
study describes the structure of the circular economy in two different
categories, including the model of developed and developing countries.
In the following, it can be understood that the CE business models
include five different sections (Neligan et al., 2022):
• Circular supplies: This model is related to using renewable, recy­
cled, and non-harmful inputs to the environment and is not empha­
sized by the proposed model of this research. Because in this part of
the study, the emphasis is on managing electronic parts after con­
sumption in developed societies.
Fig. 10. Worldwide revenue of electronic devices in 2013–2025 based on (a) billion US$ containing a TV, smartphone, tablet, and total trades and (b) million US$
including video game consoles and digital cameras (Statista).
15
Journal of Cleaner Production 389 (2023) 136132
Fig. 11. High potential electronic waste collected by different regions, 2019
(Million metric tons) (Statista).
• Resource recovery: This model is related to recycling the flow of
materials to the main production cycle and cannot be the focus of this
research as in the previous case.
• Product life extension: The concentration of this model is linked to
the repairing process, reselling, and upgrading and can help reach to
goals of the investigation).
• Sharing platform: This method emphasizes the use of inactive assets
to increase the level of access in society and cannot be considered the
main model of this research.
• Product as service: This strategy refers to the repeated utilization of
a product based on Pay to Use arrangements, which is precisely
based on the proposed model of the present study.
Therefore, both models contain (i) product life extension and (ii)
product as service are targeted by this investigation for semi-smart
planning of electronic devices (particularly smartphones) safe transfer
from developed to developing countries with the integration of the
Three Horizon Model (THM) (Canfell et al., 2021) and Boston Consul­
ting Group Matrix (BCGM) (Septiani and Sulistyawati, 2022). Mean­
while, the product life extension (Reselling) and product as service
(Reusing) are applied to developed and developing countries. In the
present research, the integration of TH-BCG is applied due to the
execution of the circular economy concept in WEEE and UEEE. For
reaching the mentioned goal, with the TH technique, it was possible to
perform step-by-step management operations considering short, middle,
Z.A. Cheshmeh et al.
and long-term planning. Because conditions are different in diverse
periods, managers can realize potential policies. Likewise, the BCG
method creates multi-mode solutions as the market feedback in new
business. In contrast, the BCG model increases the flexibility of
decision-making for managers. Therefore, the combination of TH-BCG
methods can direct to a comprehensive, flexible platform due to busi­
ness plan creation in WEEE and UEEE management.
Three-horizon model is about planning secondhand electronic waste
transfer from developed to developing countries in short-term (5-year),
medium-term (10-year), and long-term (15-year) timeframes. In the
short term, the current conditions are considered. In the medium term,
an average level of idealism (systematization and interest in transferring
electronic goods from developed to developing countries) is assumed.
Meanwhile, long-term conditions for transferring second-hand elec­
tronic goods are assumed to be ideal (Chen and Ji, 2021). Also, the
mentioned model is utilized for applying BCGM to create a business
strategy and technical planning.
Based on the two main indicators of market growth and product
shares, the position of business strategies is determined in the method
mentioned. It may be placed in one of the four sub-categories below
(Septiani and Sulistyawati, 2022):
Star: High market shares and significant growth rate
Cash cow: High market shares and low growth rate
Question mark: Low market shares and high growth rate
Dog: Low market shares and low growth rate
In fact, based on this model, a dynamic behavior can be used in
different conditions and periods in order to realize CE. The main purpose
of this part of the study is to express short, medium, and long strategies
capable of guiding the market strategies in the direction of the circular
economy in both developed and developing countries (dog to star
changes). The outputs of the integrated TH-BCGM method for second­
hand electronic waste transfer plans are illustrated in Fig. 12 (devel­
oping countries). This approach of CE for the secondhand electronic
device is presented in the investigation for the first time.
Based on the library research, it is evident that in the selling sector
(developed countries), due to the existence of strong tax laws and also
the possibility of imposing fines for the emission of pollutants from the
used electronic components, there is a significant welcome to the cheap
sale of the declared electronic goods (Chen and Ji, 2021; Hischier and
Fig. 12. The outputs of the TH-BCGM method in (a) short-term (5-year), (b) middle-term (5-year), and (c) long-term (15-year). a: (Habib and Sarwar, 2021), b:
(Khudair, 2022), c: (Saphores et al., 2006), d: (Burk, 2005), e: (Hristova, 2019), f: (Kariuki, 2022), g: (Duckett and Macfarlane, 2003), h: (Monden et al., 2019), i:
(Lane et al., 2009), j: (Melay and Kraus, 2012), k: (Guiot and Roux, 2010), l (Shen et al., 2020).
16
Journal of Cleaner Production 389 (2023) 136132
Böni, 2021). Nevertheless, according to other economic models, most of
the bargaining power is in the hands of the buyer. For this reason, the
current study has focused on creating business frameworks in devel­
oping countries (Amalia et al., 2021; Rene et al., 2021).
This part of the study aimed to determine the essential solutions for
implementing circular economy approaches in developing countries.
Based on the mentioned model, it turned out that by using the strategies
extracted from the research background, it is possible to convert the
conditions of a Dog, Cash cow, and Question mark into a star in the TH-
BCGM method. In other words, by using a series of previous experiences
and scientific approaches, it is possible to stabilize and increase the level
of second-hand electronic goods transactions in developing countries.
7.5. Recommendations
According to the present review article, recommendations can be
made to quicken the process of solving UEEE problems sustainably as
follows:
• Creating long-term import guidelines for UEEE to aid importers in
distinguishing between UEEE and WEEE
• Awareness to motivate the customer to buy used EEE due to envi­
ronmental benefits
• Develop a marketing approach to promote e-waste and used equip­
ment collection and create awareness by governments in developing
and developed countries.
• Adopt technical guidelines to prevent the illegal e-waste trade
• Implement international and national measures in the field of more
sustainable consumption instead of expanding sustainable
production
• The need for a workable and effective regulatory framework to
control the proper labeling of UEEE and WEEE and monitor
shipments
• Creating a suitable platform for the use of technologies such as IoT,
cloud, and BC in WEEE and UEEE management
• Forcing EEE producers to create, practice, and pursue WEEE take-
back programs
8. Conclusions
Every year, large amounts of UEEE are generated across the world.
Z.A. Cheshmeh et al.
Using UEEE and its legal trade can increase the product’s life cycle,
prevent the loss of valuable resources, create favorable economic and
environmental aspects, reduce the “digital divide” between developing
and developed nations, and also a step toward a circular economy. Legal
importation of UEEE to developing countries has high value for re-use,
giving them greater access to information and communication tech­
nology. Despite these benefits, many developed countries export their
WEEE to developing countries under UEEE. Because of the lack of
accompanying procedures, regulations, and infrastructure to appropri­
ately deal with the waste, developing countries are rapidly being
affected by this hazardous e-waste. Toxic compounds included in e-
waste negatively influence human health and the environment. This
topic is contrary to environmental justice and sustainable development
goals. Therefore, it is necessary to adopt solutions for the optimal use of
UEEE and its legal export and import, which leads to being on the path of
a circular economy. These solutions include the adoption of compre­
hensive and consistent laws and their strict implementation, the exis­
tence of reliable data in transboundary flows, the creation of standard
guidelines to help distinguish between UEEE and WEEE, strict moni­
toring of shipments by customs and executive agencies, strengthening
the formal sector, and comprehensive participation of policymakers, law
enforcers, producers, and consumers. Also, using technologies such as
the cloud, the Internet of Things, and blockchain can create an oppor­
tunity to convert waste into valuable UEEE. All studies, including this
study, are not free of limitations. Few studies focus on UEEE issues.
Hence, it has been tried to do many searches with different keywords to
find comprehensive information about UEEE, resulting in many unre­
lated search results. Another limitation is the lack of access to accurate
and reliable statistics and data due to the smuggling of huge shipments
of UEEE and illegal activities. This study identifies significant gaps in the
transboundary movement of UEEE and handling systems that may
attract researchers for further research.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Zahra Ansari Cheshmeh: Conceptualization, Resources, Writing –
original draft, Writing – review & editing. Zahra Bigverdi: Conceptu­
alization, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Mohammad Eqbalpour: Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing –
review & editing. Elaheh Kowsari: Conceptualization, Writing – review
& editing, Project administration, Supervision, Funding acquisition.
Seeram Ramakrishna: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing,
Project administration, Funding acquisition. Mohammad Gheibi:
Methodology, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing – review &
editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for the financial support provided by
AmirKabir University of Technology (AUT) in Tehran, Iran. Author
Seeram Ramakrishna acknowledges (Sustainable Tropical Data Centre
Test Bed: A-0009465-05-00) awarded by the National Research Foun­
dation of Singapore.
17
Journal of Cleaner Production 389 (2023) 136132
Appendix B. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136132.
Appendix A. Global initiatives related to UEEE and WEEE
management
• (1982) Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC): SVTC was estab­
lished when groundwater pollution was detected in Silicon Valley
near high-tech production facilities. This initiative is originally from
the United States but today works globally, continuing to monitor the
industry. Since its founding, the SVTC has worked on grassroots
organizing, research, and advocacy to address the consequences of
the manufacture, use, and disposal of electronic items on the envi­
ronment and human health. It has also assisted in passing legislation
to safeguard high-tech communities. Holding the high-tech industry
responsible and transferring it to move towards recyclable products,
toxic-free, green technological innovations, and strong support for
workers and the community have all been significant accomplish­
ments of this initiative (http://svtc.org/).
• (1992) Basel convention: Since 1992, a worldwide agreement has
governed the transfer of hazardous waste, including e-waste. An
Amendment to the Basel Convention calls for restrictions on the
export of dangerous waste from the Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) to non-OECD nations (htt
p://www.basel.int/). The Basel Convention has banned trans­
boundary movement, and signatory nations are expected to impose
restrictions on transferring hazardous waste, including e-waste,
across their borders. Shipments of WEEE are still imported under the
pretense of UEEE because it is difficult to differentiate it from UEEE
and because importers’ nations have lax enforcement policies.
Therefore, the imposed restrictions have not helped to stem the
movements in certain signatory nations (Shittu et al., 2021). The
Basel Convention’s fifteenth Conference of the Parties (COP) has
seen changes. These amendments create novel definitions of
non-hazardous and hazardous e-waste and ensure that these two
categories will either be banned from the trade or, at the very least,
require consent by the importing nation previous to export and
notification by the exporting nation. Apart from health benefits and
the obvious environmental, these amendments are expected to
simplify e-waste trade enforcement worldwide because the envi­
ronmental border and customs authorities will not have to undertake
costly testing to identify hazardousness. The new regulations will go
effective on January 1, 2025 (https://e-stewards.org/).
• (1997) Basel Action Network (BAN): Although established in the
United States, BAN operates in Asia and Europe. The organization is
dedicated to countering worldwide environmental injustice and in­
efficiencies in the trade of toxic materials and its negative and often
catastrophic consequences (https://www.ban.org/). BAN has been
crucial in increase public awareness about the e-waste trade and
preserving the Basel Convention. The efforts of BAN help expose
shortcomings in regional, national, and international attempts to
prohibit the export of e-waste to developing nations and manage­
ment problems within nations. For example, despite the findings that
the CE seems to be working, BAN has recently looked into European
countries and exposed evidence of illegal trade leaks in the region’s
CE (Theis, 2021).
• (2001) Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI): With its partners
and members, GeSI fosters innovative and collaborative approaches
to sustainability, works with various international stakeholders
committed to ICT sustainability, and guides the global change to a
more sustainable, more innovative world in 2030 with digital solu­
tions at its core. GeSI supports member initiatives in developing and
developed nations that address issues such as energy/resource effi­
ciency, climate change, security and privacy, people’s rights, digital
Z.A. Cheshmeh et al.
literacy, and the digital divide. By forming these alliances, GeSI ad­
vances its broad goal of faster progress in the ICT industry to better
address the problems of sustainable development (https://gesi.org/).
• (2002) Mobile Phone Partnership Initiative (MPPI): This initia­
tive was established during the 6th COP of the Basel Convention
when twelve producers signed a statement to build a sustainable
partnership to promote and develop environmental management of
the EoL mobile phone (http://archive.basel.int/industry/mppi.ht
ml).
The MPPI Work Programme was developed for the following:
• Increase product stewardship.
• Convince consumers to make decisions that are better for the
environment.
• Promote the greatest refurbishing, recycling, and disposal choices.
• Promote institutional and political patronage for environmental
stewardship.
• This initiative has resulted in the formation of a novel private/public
partnership for managing hazardous waste, and other waste flows in
an environmentally responsible manner (Vishwakarma et al., 2022)
• (2003) SECO/EMPA e-waste program: A project has been carried
out to improve and evaluate e-waste recycling systems by
exchanging knowledge and analyzing systems in various sectors. The
project was established by SECO and also improved by EMPA in
collaboration with many local officials and partners (http://www.e-
waste.ch/).
• (2003) Electronic Product Environmental Assessment (EPEAT):
Applying green standards, like EPEAT, is widespread globally,
particularly in the electronics sector. The EPEAT non-profit organi­
zation is managed and developed through representatives from
environmental defense, manufacturing, business communities,
recycling, government entities, and academia to recognize greener
computers (http://www.epeat.net/). The Global Electronics Council
(GEC) manages the ecolabel EPEAT, which covers services and goods
in the electronics industry. As the biggest electronics consumer, the
United States federal government requires its purchasers to buy
EPEAT-certified electronics. Additionally, EPEAT uses continuing
monitoring procedures to guarantee the accuracy of the data for the
registered products (Kleinknecht, 2021). Through 2022, the EPEAT
Registry’s functioning will be improved because of plans made by the
Global Electronics Council (GEC). These improvements include
saved product searches, enhanced search capability, and identifying
how EPEAT-registered items contribute to corporate sustainability
targets (http://www.epeat.net/).
• (2003) The Good Electronics Network: The organizations, net­
works, and people concerned with sustainability issues and human
rights in the global electronics supply chain are brought together by
the Good Electronics network. The members include grassroots or­
ganizations, trade unions, research and campaigning organizations,
activists, and academia. This initiative supports strong regulations to
shift towards durability, recycling, and reusability of electronics and
strict legislation to lessen the export of e-waste done illegally. The
steering committee of Good Electronics is currently working in
Mexico, India, South Korea, the Netherlands, the Philippines,
Malaysia, Switzerland, and the United States of America (http://goo
delectronics.org/).
• (2003) e-Stewards Pledge Program: The e-Stewards Pledge initia­
tive was introduced by the Basel Action Network, a nonprofit orga­
nization devoted to stemming the flow of garbage and pollutants into
developing nations. This certification seeks a responsible way to
recycle electronic devices and ensures there is no export, landfilling,
or incineration of dangerous electronic waste. This certification is
approved internationally, is available worldwide, and is indepen­
dently audited by qualified auditors. More than 40 licensed elec­
tronic recyclers with 100 facilities across Canada and the US pledged
18
Journal of Cleaner Production 389 (2023) 136132
to use globally secure instruments to process e-waste. Only BAN’s e-
Stewards Pledge program in North America made significant
advance in ensuring and founding optimal methods for recycling
harmful materials from e-waste (http://e-stewards.org).
• (2004) Solving the E-waste Problem (StEP): StEP Initiative
appeared in 2004 as a multi-stakeholder and an independent plat­
form and, in 2019, got registered as a standalone entity. The work of
StEP is based on scientific evaluations and predicted commercial
practices. It includes a comprehensive perspective of the economic,
environmental, and social aspects of EEE’s design, manufacture,
utilization, and ultimate disposal. Also, StEP specifically addresses
United Nations sustainable development goal 12, “Responsible
Consumption and Production.” (https://www.step-initiative.org/i
ndex.html).
• (2008) Partnership for Action on Computing Equipment (PACE):
PACE was established during the 10th COP of the Basel Convention
that will supply a tribunal for industry heads, academia and non-
governmental organizations, and governments. As well as stan­
dards for labeling refurbished equipment and certification of
ecologically sound repair, recycling facilities, and reconditioning,
this initiative has developed various sets of technical guidelines for
computer apparatus recovery, repair, refurbishment, and recycling.
The PACE stands out due to fostering innovative management
practices, including boosting overhaul and maintenance, increasing
equipment life cycles, encouraging eventual open removal, sup­
porting the area principle, and weakening transportation to low-
income nations. These technical suggestions are valuable and must
be considered supplementary resources for the various global e-
waste management plans (Vishwakarma et al., 2022).
• (2012) Secretariat of the Basel Convention and ITU Agreement:
The ITU-SBC cooperation focuses on harmonious works like capacity
and international collaboration and the extension of green ICT
standards. This partnership seeks to recycle and collect dangerous
materials by providing safeguards for e-waste management
(http://www.itu.int).
References
Abalansa, S., El Mahrad, B., Icely, J., Newton, A., 2021. Electronic waste, an
environmental problem exported to developing countries: the GOOD, the BAD and
the UGLY. Sustainability 13 (9), 5302.
Adejonwo-Osho, O., 2016. E-waste in west africa: beyond environmental and health
risks. Unilag J. Human. 3 (2), 17–29.
Agamuthu, P., Awasthi, A.K., 2020. Improving Electronic Waste Processing by the
Informal Sector to Enhance Sustainability. SAGE Publications Sage UK, London,
England, pp. 921–922.
Agamuthu, P., Victor, D., 2011. Policy trends of extended producer responsibility in
Malaysia. Waste Manag. Res. 29 (9), 945–953.
Agu, O.B., 2014. Exploring the linkages between E-waste trade, globalisation, and
protection of the environment in Nigeria1. Economic Cult. Aspect. Select. Global
Prob. 115.
Akdoğan, M.Ş., Coşkun, A., 2012. Drivers of reverse logistics activities: an empirical
investigation. Procedia-Social Behav. Sci. 58, 1640–1649.
Al Mudawi, N., Beloff, N., White, M., 2020. Issues and challenges: cloud computing e-
government in developing countries. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 11 (4), 7–11.
Altaheri, F., Shaalan, K., 2019. Exploring machine learning models to predict
harmonized system code. Europ., Mediterranean, Mid. East. Conf. Inform. Syst.
291–303. Springer.
Amalia, B., Liu, X., Lugo, A., Fu, M., Odone, A., van den Brandt, P.A., Semple, S.,
Clancy, L., Soriano, J.B., Fernández, E., 2021. Exposure to secondhand aerosol of
electronic cigarettes in indoor settings in 12 European countries: data from the
TackSHS survey. Tobac. Control 30 (1), 49–56.
Andooz, A., Eqbalpour, M., Kowsari, E., Ramakrishna, S., Cheshmeh, Z.A., 2021.
A comprehensive review on pyrolysis of E-waste and its sustainability. J. Clean.
Prod., 130191
Arabi, H., Berendsen, S., Cavalleri, S.A.E., Das, A., Espinoza Cordova, F., Huidobro
Giménez, C., Laroche, V., Litjens, S., Matrai, I., Nygaard, T., 2018. Dare to repair:
exploring open repair to keep critical materials in the loop. IIIEE SED Rep. 1–39.
Ardi, R., Leisten, R., 2016. Assessing the role of informal sector in WEEE management
systems: a System Dynamics approach. Waste Manag. 57, 3–16.
Arya, S., Kumar, S., 2020. E-waste in India at a glance: current trends, regulations,
challenges and management strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 271, 122707.
Z.A. Cheshmeh et al.
Awasthi, A.K., Li, J., Koh, L., Ogunseitan, O.A., 2019. Circular economy and electronic
waste. Nat. Electronic. 2 (3), 86–89.
Baldé, C.P., Forti, V., Gray, V., Kuehr, R., Stegmann, P., 2017. The Global E-Waste
Monitor 2017: Quantities, Flows and Resources. United Nations University,
International Telecommunication Union.
Balde, C.P., Kuehr, R., Blumenthal, K., Fondeur Gill, S., Kern, M., Micheli, P.,
Magpantay, E., Huisman, J., 2015. E-Waste Statistics-Guidelines on Classification,
Reporting and Indicators”. United Nations University. IAS-SCYCLE, Bonn (Germany)
2015, 51 pages (ISBN Print: 978-92-808-4553-2)(with CP Balde, K. Blumenthal, S.
Fondeur Gill, M. Kern, P. Micheli, E. UNU.
Barapatre, S., Rastogi, M., 2021. E-Waste Management: A Transition towards a Circular
Economy.
Baxter, J., Prestrud, K., Egebæk, K., Mckinnon, D., Collection of Electronic Waste
(Innsamling Av EE-Avfall).
Bisschop, L., 2012. Is it all going to waste? Illegal transports of e-waste in a European
trade hub. Crime Law Soc. Change 58 (3), 221–249.
Borthakur, A., 2020. Policy approaches on E-waste in the emerging economies: a review
of the existing governance with special reference to India and South Africa. J. Clean.
Prod. 252, 119885.
Bran, F., Ioan, I., Radulescu, C.V., 2016. The Economics of Recycling as Premise of
Circular Economy: from Govermental Support to Functional Markets.
Brandt, J., Holberg, J.S., 2015. Restrictions on export of used EEE: a study on the legal
possibilities to restrict exports of used electric and electronic equipment. Nordic
Coun. Ministers.
Breivik, K., Armitage, J.M., Wania, F., Jones, K.C., 2014. Tracking the global generation
and exports of e-waste. Do existing estimates add up? Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 (15),
8735–8743.
Burk, D.L., 2005. Legal and technical standards in digital rights management technology.
Fordham Law Rev. 74, 537.
Cainelli, G., D’Amato, A., Mazzanti, M., 2020. Resource efficient eco-innovations for a
circular economy: evidence from EU firms. Res. Pol. 49 (1), 103827.
Can, T.D., Xuyen, N.H., Minh, N.T.H., Ha, P.T., Anh, N.H., Huong, N.T.L., 2020.
Vietnam’s policy on supporting enterprises in technology mastering in the fourth
industrial revolution. J. Invest. Manag. 9 (2), 40–46.
Canavati, A., 2022. The World’s Electronic Graveyard: what Is the Solution to Ghana’s E-
Waste Dilemma?.
Canfell, O.J., Littlewood, R., Burton-Jones, A., Sullivan, C., 2021. Digital health and
precision prevention: shifting from disease-centred care to consumer-centred health.
Aust. Health Rev.
Castro, C.G., Trevisan, A.H., Pigosso, D.A., Mascarenhas, J., 2022. The rebound effect of
circular economy: definitions, mechanisms and a research agenda. J. Clean. Prod.,
131136
Cesaro, A., Belgiorno, V., Gorrasi, G., Viscusi, G., Vaccari, M., Vinti, G., Jandric, A.,
Dias, M.I., Hursthouse, A., Salhofer, S., 2019. A relative risk assessment of the open
burning of WEEE. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 26 (11), 11042–11052.
Cesaro, A., Marra, A., Kuchta, K., Belgıorno, V., Van Hullebusch, E.D., 2018. WEEE
management in a circular economy perspective: an overview. Glob. Nest J 20,
743–750.
Chen, X., Ji, Z., 2021. Networked coordination to facilitate secondhand electronics
recycling and exchange: a case study on aihuishou. Business Innov. New ICT Asia-
Pacific: Case Studies 327–347. Springer.
Cheng, C.-P., Chang, T.-C., 2018. The development and prospects of the waste electrical
and electronic equipment recycling system in Taiwan. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag.
20 (1), 667–677.
Clausen, A., Vu, H.H., Pedrono, M., 2011. An evaluation of the environmental impact
assessment system in Vietnam: the gap between theory and practice. Environ. Impact
Assess. Rev. 31 (2), 136–143.
Compagnoni, M., 2022. Is Extended Producer Responsibility living up to expectations? A
systematic literature review focusing on electronic waste. J. Clean. Prod., 133101
Coughlan, D., Fitzpatrick, C., 2020. Trialling the preparation for reuse of consumer ICT
WEEE in Ireland. J. Clean. Prod. 256, 120512.
Cucchiella, F., D’Adamo, I., Koh, S.L., Rosa, P., 2015. Recycling of WEEEs: an economic
assessment of present and future e-waste streams. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 51,
263–272.
Daum, K., Stoler, J., Grant, R.J., 2017. Toward a more sustainable trajectory for e-waste
policy: a review of a decade of e-waste research in Accra, Ghana. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Publ. Health 14 (2), 135.
de Oliveira, C.R., Bernardes, A.M., Gerbase, A.E., 2012. Collection and recycling of
electronic scrap: a worldwide overview and comparison with the Brazilian situation.
Waste Manag. 32 (8), 1592–1610.
Debnath, B., Baidya, R., Ghosh, S.K., 2015. Simultaneous analysis of WEEE management
system focusing on the supply chain in India, UK and Switzerland. Int. J. Manag. IT
Eng. (IJMIE) 2 (1), 16–20.
Debnath, B., Das, A., Das, A., 2022. Towards circular economy in e-waste management in
India: issues, challenges, and solutions. Circular Economy Sustain. 523–543.
Elsevier.
Debnath, B., Das, S., Das, A., Das, A., 2019. Smart Devices for Smart Cities in India
Exploring Security Vulnerabilities of E-Waste Management.
Debnath, B., Roychoudhuri, R., Ghosh, S.K., 2016. E-waste management–a potential
route to green computing. Procedia Environ. Sci. 35, 669–675.
Dias, P., Bernardes, A.M., Huda, N., 2022. E-waste management and practices in
developed and developing countries. Electronic Waste: Recyc. Reprocess.Sustain.
Future 15–32.
Dias, P.R., Cenci, M.P., Bernardes, A.M., Huda, N., 2022. What drives WEEE recycling? A
comparative study concerning legislation, collection and recycling. Waste Manag.
Res. 0734242X221081660.
19
Journal of Cleaner Production 389 (2023) 136132
Dooley, E., 2002. EHPnet: Silicon Valley Toxics coalition. Environ. Health Perspect. 110
(4). A183–A183.
Duckett, H., Macfarlane, E., 2003. Emotional intelligence and transformational
leadership in retailing. Leader. Organ. Dev. J.
Esmaeilian, B., Sarkis, J., Lewis, K., Behdad, S., 2020. Blockchain for the future of
sustainable supply chain management in Industry 4.0. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 163,
105064 eur-lex.europa.eu. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
search.html?scope=EURLEX&text=Waste+from+Electrical+and+Electronic+Eq
uipment&lang=en&type=quick&qid=1673123866471.
Forti, V., Balde, C.P., Kuehr, R., Bel, G., 2020. The Global E-Waste Monitor 2020:
Quantities, Flows and the Circular Economy Potential.
Forti, V., Baldé, K., Kuehr, R., 2018. E-Waste Statistics: Guidelines on Classifications,
Reporting and Indicators.
Geisendorf, S., Pietrulla, F., 2018. The circular economy and circular economic
concepts—a literature analysis and redefinition. Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev. 60 (5),
771–782.
Ghosh, S.K., Debnath, B., Baidya, R., De, D., Li, J., Ghosh, S.K., Zheng, L., Awasthi, A.K.,
Liubarskaia, M.A., Ogola, J.S., 2016. Waste electrical and electronic equipment
management and Basel Convention compliance in Brazil, Russia, India, China and
South Africa (BRICS) nations. Waste Manag. Res. 34 (8), 693–707.
Gollakota, A.R., Gautam, S., Shu, C.-M., 2020. Inconsistencies of e-waste management in
developing nations–Facts and plausible solutions. J. Environ. Manag. 261, 110234.
Gonzales, A.B., 2018. Sustainable decommissioning and integrated closure planning of
selected mine sites in the Bicol Region, Philippines. Europ. J. Environ. Sci. 8 (1),
76–82.
Guiot, D., Roux, D., 2010. A second-hand shoppers’ motivation scale: antecedents,
consequences, and implications for retailers. J. Retailing 86 (4), 355–371.
Habib, M.D., Sarwar, M.A., 2021. After-sales services, brand equity and purchasing
intention to buy second-hand product. Rajagiri Manag. J. 15 (2), 129–144.
Hischier, R., Böni, H.W., 2021. Combining environmental and economic factors to
evaluate the reuse of electrical and electronic equipment–a Swiss case study.
Resources. Conserv. Recycl. 166, 105307.
Hopalı, E., Vayvay, Ö., 2018. Internet of things (IoT) and its challenges for usability in
developing countries. Int. J. Innovat. Eng. Sci. Res. 2, 6–9.
Hristova, Y., 2019. The second-hand goods market: trends and challenges. Izvestia
Journal of the Union of Scientists-Varna. Economic Sci. Series 8 (3), 62–71 w.b.i.
http://archive.basel.int/industry/mppi.html. http://archive.basel.int/industry/mpp
i.html. http://archive.basel.int/industry/mppi.html. http://e-stewards.org. http://e
-stewards.org. http://e-stewards.org. http://goodelectronics.org/. http://goo
delectronics.org/. http://goodelectronics.org/. http://svtc.org/. http://svtc.org/.
http://svtc.org/. http://www.basel.int/. http://www.basel.int/. http://www.e-wast
e.ch/. http://www.e-waste.ch/. http://www.e-waste.ch/. http://www.epeat.net/.
http://www.epeat.net/. http://www.epeat.net/. http://www.itu.int. www.basel.int.
http://www.itu.int. www.basel.int. http://www.itu.int. https://e-stewards.org/. htt
ps://myemail.constantcontact.com/The-Circular-is-Here—The-e-Stewards-News
letter.html?soid=1114999858498&aid=ZJ_0uqqw7vs. https://myemail.constantc
ontact.com/The-Circular-is-Here—The-e-Stewards-Newsletter.html?soid=1114
999858498&aid=ZJ_0uqqw7vs. https://gesi.org/. https://gesi.org/. https://gesi.
org/. https://www.ban.org/. https://www.ban.org/. https://www.ban.org/. https
://www.step-initiative.org/index.html. https://www.step-initiative.org/index.html.
https://www.step-initiative.org/index.html.
Ife-Adediran, O.O., 2019. Elevated radiation fields from dumpsites in Lagos
Nigeria–waste management concerns and the way forward. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 76
(1), 52–65.
Ignatuschtschenko, E., 2017. E-waste management in China: bridging the formal and
informal sectors. J. Chinese Governance 2 (4), 385–410.
Ijomah, W., McMahon, C., Hammond, G., Newman, S., 2007. Development of robust
design-for-remanufacturing guidelines to further the aims of sustainable
development. Int. J. Prod. Res. 45 (18–19), 4513–4536.
Ilankoon, I., Ghorbani, Y., Chong, M.N., Herath, G., Moyo, T., Petersen, J., 2018. E-waste
in the international context–A review of trade flows, regulations, hazards, waste
management strategies and technologies for value recovery. Waste Manag. 82,
258–275.
Ilyas, S., Srivastava, R.R., Kim, H., Abbas, Z., 2020. Electrical and electronic waste in
Pakistan: the management practices and perspectives. Handbook Electronic Waste
Manag. 263–281. Elsevier.
Ilyassova, G., Nukusheva, A., Arenova, L., Karzhassova, G., Akimzhanova, M., 2021.
Prospects of legal regulation in the field of electronic waste management in the
context of a circular economy. International Environmental Agreements: Politics.
Law and Economics 21 (3), 367–388.
Iqbal, M., Breivik, K., Syed, J.H., Malik, R.N., Li, J., Zhang, G., Jones, K.C., 2015.
Emerging issue of e-waste in Pakistan: a review of status, research needs and data
gaps. Environ. Pollut. 207, 308–318.
Islam, M.T., Huda, N., 2019. E-waste in Australia: generation estimation and untapped
material recovery and revenue potential. J. Clean. Prod. 237, 117787.
Jayaraman, K., Vejayon, S., Raman, S., Mostafiz, I., 2019. The proposed e-waste
management model from the conviction of individual laptop disposal practices-An
empirical study in Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 208, 688–696.
Kahhat, R., Williams, E., 2009. Product or waste? Importation and end-of-life processing
of computers in Peru. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (15), 6010–6016.
Kariuki, D., 2022. The effect of trade liberalization on the textile industry in Kenya.
Journal of economics,. Manag. Sci. Procurement 2 (1), 49–62.
Khan, S.A., 2016. E-products, E-waste and the Basel Convention: regulatory challenges
and impossibilities of international environmental law. Review of European.
Comparative Int. Environ. Law 25 (2), 248–260.
Z.A. Cheshmeh et al.
Khudair, A.L.A.M., 2022. Trading brokers in the stock market. Tikrit University Journal
for Rights-548–574 ,(1) 6 1602#&‫ﻡﺝﻝﺓ ﺝﺍﻡﻉﺓ ﺕﻙﺭﻱﺕ ﻝﻝﺡﻕﻭ‬.
Kim, B., Azzaro-Pantel, C., Pietrzak-David, M., Maussion, P., 2019. Life cycle assessment
for a solar energy system based on reuse components for developing countries.
J. Clean. Prod. 208, 1459–1468.
Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., Hekkert, M., 2017. Conceptualizing the circular economy: an
analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127, 221–232.
Kleinknecht, L., 2021. Can blockchain capabilities contribute to sustainable supply-chain
governance? IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev. 49 (4), 150–154.
Kouhizadeh, M., Sarkis, J., 2018. Blockchain practices, potentials, and perspectives in
greening supply chains. Sustainability 10 (10), 3652.
Kulczycka, J., Dziobek, E., Szmiłyk, A., 2020. Challenges in the management of data on
extractive waste—the Polish case. Mineral Economics 33 (3), 341–347.
Kumi, E., Hemkhaus, M., Bauer, T., 2019. Money Dey for Borla: an Assessment of
Ghana’s E-Waste Value Chain. adelphi, Berlin.
Kurniawan, T.A., Maiurova, A., Kustikova, M., Bykovskaia, E., Othman, M.H.D., Goh, H.
H., 2022. Accelerating sustainability transition in St. Petersburg (Russia) through
digitalization-based circular economy in waste recycling industry: a strategy to
promote carbon neutrality in era of industry 4.0. J. Clean. Prod., 132452
Laha, S., 2022. Governing the network: trust in E-waste informality in India. Geoforum
134, 1–12.
Lai, Y.-Y., Yeh, L.-H., Chen, P.-F., Sung, P.-H., Lee, Y.-M., 2016. Management and
recycling of construction waste in Taiwan. Procedia Environ. Sci. 35, 723–730.
Lane, R., Horne, R., Bicknell, J., 2009. Routes of reuse of second-hand goods in
Melbourne households. Aust. Geogr. 40 (2), 151–168.
Lasaridi, K., Terzis, E., Chroni, C., Abeliotis, K., 2018. Statistics in the national e-scrap
arisings and their movement between countries. Bureau of Internacional Recycling
27.
Lebbie, T.S., Moyebi, O.D., Asante, K.A., Fobil, J., Brune-Drisse, M.N., Suk, W.A., Sly, P.
D., Gorman, J., Carpenter, D.O., 2021. E-waste in Africa: a serious threat to the
health of children. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 18 (16), 8488.
Li, J., Liu, L., Zhao, N., Yu, K., Zheng, L., 2013. Regional or global WEEE recycling.
Where to go? Waste Manag. 33 (4), 923–934.
Li, J., Tian, B., Liu, T., Liu, H., Wen, X., Honda, S.i., 2006. Status quo of e-waste
management in mainland China. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 8 (1), 13–20.
Li, J., Zhao, N., 2010. Controlling transboundary movement of waste electrical and
electronic equipment by developing international standards. Environ. Eng. Sci. 27
(1), 3–11.
Lu, B., Yang, J., Ijomah, W., Wu, W., Zlamparet, G., 2018. Perspectives on reuse of WEEE
in China: lessons from the EU. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 135, 83–92.
Lu, C., Zhang, L., Zhong, Y., Ren, W., Tobias, M., Mu, Z., Ma, Z., Geng, Y., Xue, B., 2015.
An overview of e-waste management in China. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 17 (1),
1–12.
Maes, T., Preston-Whyte, F., 2022. E-waste it wisely: lessons from Africa. SN Appl. Sci. 4
(3), 1–12.
Magrini, C., Nicolas, J., Berg, H., Bellini, A., Paolini, E., Vincenti, N., Campadello, L.,
Bonoli, A., 2021. Using internet of things and distributed ledger technology for
digital circular economy enablement: the case of electronic equipment.
Sustainability 13 (9), 4982.
Mak, T.M., Iris, K., Wang, L., Hsu, S.-C., Tsang, D.C., Li, C., Yeung, T.L., Zhang, R.,
Poon, C.S., 2019. Extended theory of planned behaviour for promoting construction
waste recycling in Hong Kong. Waste Manag. 83, 161–170.
Manomaivibool, P., 2009. Extended producer responsibility in a non-OECD context: the
management of waste electrical and electronic equipment in India. Resources,.
Conserv. Recycl. 53 (3), 136–144.
McMahon, K., Johnson, M., Fitzpatrick, C., 2019. Enabling preparation for re-use of
waste electrical and electronic equipment in Ireland: lessons from other EU member
states. J. Clean. Prod. 232, 1005–1017.
McMahon, K., Uchendu, C., Fitzpatrick, C., 2021a. Estimating the Quantity of Electrical
and Electronic Equipment (EEE) Exported from Ireland as Used EEE. Ireland).
McMahon, K., Uchendu, C., Fitzpatrick, C., 2021b. Quantifying used electrical and
electronic equipment exported from Ireland to west africa in roll-on roll-off vehicles.
Resources. Conserv. Recycl. 164, 105177.
Melay, I., Kraus, S., 2012. Green entrepreneurship: definitions of related concepts. Int. J.
Strateg. Manag 12, 1–12.
Mohanty, S., Vermeersch, E., Hintsa, J., Di Cortemiglia, V.L., Liddane, M., 2015.
Proceedings of the Hamburg International Conference of Logistics (HICL).
Weaknesses in European E-Waste Management, Operational Excellence in Logistics
and Supply Chains: Optimization Methods, Data-Driven Approaches and Security
Insights, 22. epubli GmbH, Berlin, pp. 535–561.
Molina, L.T., Velasco, E., Retama, A., Zavala, M., 2019. Experience from integrated air
quality management in the Mexico City Metropolitan Area and Singapore.
Atmosphere 10 (9), 512.
Monden, K.R., Sevigny, M., Ketchum, J.M., Charlifue, S., Severe, E., Tefertiller, C.,
Berliner, J., Coker, J., Taylor, H.B., Kolakowsky-Hayner, S.A., 2019. Associations
between insurance provider and assistive technology use for computer and electronic
devices 1 year after tetraplegia: findings from the spinal cord injury model systems
national database. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 100 (12), 2260–2266.
Mureithi, M., Waema, T., 2008. E-Waste Management in Kenya. Kenya ICT Action
Network (KICTANet), Nairobi.
Murthy, V., Ramakrishna, S., 2022. A review on global E-waste management: urban
mining towards a sustainable future and circular economy. Sustainability 14 (2),
647.
Neligan, A., Baumgartner, R.J., Geissdoerfer, M., Schöggl, J.P., 2022. Circular disruption:
digitalisation as a driver of circular economy business models. Bus. Strat. Environ.
20
Journal of Cleaner Production 389 (2023) 136132
Nnorom, I.C., Odeyingbo, O.A., 2020. Electronic waste management practices in Nigeria.
Handbook Electronic Waste Manag. 323–354. Elsevier.
Nowakowski, P., Mrówczyńska, B., 2018. Towards sustainable WEEE collection and
transportation methods in circular economy-Comparative study for rural and urban
settlements. Resources. Conserv. Recycl. 135, 93–107.
Nukpezah, D., Okine, H.A., Ofori, B., Ababio, M., 2014. Electronic waste risk assessment
and management in Ghana. Enviro 205–212.
Odeyingbo, A., Nnorom, I., Deubzer, O., 2019. Used and waste electronics flows into
Nigeria: assessment of the quantities, types, sources, and functionality status. Sci.
Total Environ. 666, 103–113.
Odeyingbo, O., Nnorom, I., Deubzer, O., 2017. Person in the Port Project: Assessing
Import of Used Electrical and Electronic Equipment into Nigeria.
Ogungbuyi, O., Nnorom, I.C., Osibanjo, O., Schluep, M., 2012. E-waste Country
Assessment Nigeria, 2012. E-Waste Africa Project of the Secretariat of the Basel
Convention, United Nations Programme (UNEP). Basel Convention Coordinating
Centre for Africa (BCCC- A) in Nigeria and Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials
Science and Technology (EMPA), St. Gallen/Switzerland, May.
Okaru, V.O., 1992. The Basel Convention: controlling the movement of hazardous wastes
to developing countries. Fordham Envtl. L. Rep 4, 137.
Okukpon, I., 2021. Implementing extended producer responsibility (EPR)-based
electronic waste institutions in Nigeria: lessons from the global North. Nigerian
Yearbook of International Law 2018/2019 113–150. Springer.
Ongondo, F., Williams, I., Dietrich, J., Carroll, C., 2013. ICT reuse in socio-economic
enterprises. Waste Manag. 33 (12), 2600–2606.
Ongondo, F.O., Williams, I.D., Cherrett, T.J., 2011. How are WEEE doing? A global
review of the management of electrical and electronic wastes. Waste Manag. 31 (4),
714–730.
Osibanjo, O., 2009. Electronic waste: a major challenge to sustainable development in
Africa, Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM2) held in Geneva during. Cités
15.
Osibanjo, O., Nnorom, I., 2007. The challenge of electronic waste (e-waste) management
in developing countries. Waste Manag. Res. 25 (6), 489–501.
Oteng-Ababio, M., van der Velden, M., Taylor, M.B., 2020. Building policy coherence for
sound waste electrical and electronic equipment management in a developing
country. J. Environ. Dev. 29 (3), 306–328.
Ottoni, M., Dias, P., Xavier, L.H., 2020. A circular approach to the e-waste valorization
through urban mining in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 261, 120990.
Ottoni, M.d.S.O., Xavier, L.H.d.S.M., 2019. Circularity in the Management of Waste
Electrical and Eletronic Equipment (E-waste): Contributions to Urban Mining in
Brazil.
Owusu-Sekyere, K., Batteiger, A., Afoblikame, R., Hafner, G., Kranert, M., 2022.
Assessing data in the informal e-waste sector: the Agbogbloshie Scrapyard. Waste
Manag. 139, 158–167.
Parajuly, K., Fitzpatrick, C., Muldoon, O., Kuehr, R., 2020. Behavioral change for the
circular economy: a review with focus on electronic waste management in the EU.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. X 6, 100035.
Parajuly, K., Kuehr, R., Awasthi, A.K., Fitzpatrick, C., Lepawsky, J., Smith, E.,
Widmer, R., Zeng, X., 2019. Future E-Waste Scenarios.
Parajuly, K., Wenzel, H., 2017. Potential for circular economy in household WEEE
management. J. Clean. Prod. 151, 272–285.
Pathak, P., Srivastava, R.R., 2017. Assessment of legislation and practices for the
sustainable management of waste electrical and electronic equipment in India.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 78, 220–232.
Patil, R.A., Ramakrishna, S., 2020. A comprehensive analysis of e-waste legislation
worldwide. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 27 (13), 14412–14431.
Perkins, D.N., Drisse, M.-N.B., Nxele, T., Sly, P.D., 2014. E-waste: a global hazard. Annals
of global health 80 (4), 286–295.
Pheakdey, D.V., Quan, N.V., Khanh, T.D., Xuan, T.D., 2022. Challenges and priorities of
municipal solid waste management in Cambodia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health
19 (14), 8458.
Prakash, S., Manhart, A., Amoyaw-Osei, Y., Agyekum, O.O., 2010. Socio-economic
Assessment and Feasibility Study on Sustainable E-Waste Management in Ghana.
Öko-Institut eV in cooperation with Ghana Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
& Green Advocacy Ghana, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the
Environment, VROM-Inspectorate.
Rene, E.R., Sethurajan, M., Ponnusamy, V.K., Kumar, G., Dung, T.N.B., Brindhadevi, K.,
Pugazhendhi, A., 2021. Electronic waste generation, recycling and resource
recovery: technological perspectives and trends. J. Hazard Mater. 416, 125664.
Rizos, V., Bryhn, J., 2022. Implementation of circular economy approaches in the
electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) sector: barriers, enablers and policy
insights. J. Clean. Prod. 338, 130617.
Roychoudhuri, R., Debnath, B., 2020. Risk assessment of E-waste recycling with a focus
on ISO 9000 standard. Sustain. Waste Manag.: Policies Case Studies 431–440.
Springer.
Roychoudhuri, R., Debnath, B., De, D., Albores, P., Banerjee, C., Ghosh, S.K., 2019.
Estimation of E-waste generation—a lifecycle-based approach. Waste Manag.
Resource Efficien. 825–832. Springer.
Salomone, R., Cecchin, A., Deutz, P., Raggi, A., Cutaia, L., 2020. Industrial Symbiosis for
the Circular Economy. Springer.
San, V., Spoann, V., Schmidt, J., 2018. Industrial pollution load assessment in Phnom
Penh, Cambodia using an industrial pollution projection system. Sci. Total Environ.
615, 990–999.
Sanito, R.C., You, S.-J., Wang, Y.-F., 2021. Application of plasma technology for treating
e-waste: a review. J. Environ. Manag. 288, 112380.
Z.A. Cheshmeh et al.
Saphores, J.-D.M., Nixon, H., Ogunseitan, O.A., Shapiro, A.A., 2006. Household
willingness to recycle electronic waste: an application to California. Environ. Behav.
38 (2), 183–208.
Sari, D.P., Masruroh, N.A., Asih, A.M.S., 2021. Consumer intention to participate in e-
waste collection programs: a study of smartphone waste in Indonesia. Sustainability
13 (5), 2759.
Sasaki, S., 2021a. Controlling an invisible flow of product reuse: the current state of
international reuse of used household appliances in Thailand and Japan. Int. Trade
Secondhand Goods 173–194. Springer.
Sasaki, S., 2021b. The effects on Thailand of China’s import restrictions on waste:
measures and challenges related to the international recycling of waste plastic and e-
waste. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 23 (1), 77–83.
Sayers, M., Silva, C., Schaer, O., Stowell, A., Yumashev, D., Downes, S., Grantham, L.,
Laundon, C., McCoach, H., 2020. Electrical Waste-Challenges and Opportunities: an
Independent Study on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Flows in
the UK.
Schluep, M., Terekhova, T., Manhart, A., Müller, E., Rochat, D., Osibanjo, O., 2012.
Where Are WEEE in Africa?, 2012 Electronics Goes Green 2012+ IEEE, pp. 1–6.
Sengupta, D., Ilankoon, I., Kang, K.D., Chong, M.N., 2022. Circular economy and
household e-waste management in India: integration of formal and informal sectors.
Miner. Eng. 184, 107661.
Septiani, M.A.D., Sulistyawati, L., 2022. Strategi pengembangan bisnis dengan metode
product life cycle (PLC) dan Boston consulting group (BCG) matriks. Reslaj: Religion
Education Social Laa Roiba Journal 4 (6), 1532–1550.
Sharpe, R.G., Goodall, P.A., Neal, A.D., Conway, P.P., West, A.A., 2018. Cyber-physical
systems in the re-use, refurbishment and recycling of used electrical and electronic
equipment. J. Clean. Prod. 170, 351–361.
Shen, B., Xu, X., Yuan, Q., 2020. Selling secondhand products through an online platform
with blockchain. Transport. Res. E Logist. Transport. Rev. 142, 102066.
Shittu, O.S., Williams, I.D., Shaw, P.J., 2021. Global E-waste management: can WEEE
make a difference? A review of e-waste trends, legislation, contemporary issues and
future challenges. Waste Manag. 120, 549–563.
Sobolewski, M., 2011. Object-oriented service clouds for transdisciplinary computing.
Int. Conf. Cloud Computing Services Sci. 3–31. Springer.
Song, Q., Wang, Z., Li, J., Duan, H., Yu, D., Zeng, X., 2017. Characterizing the
transboundary movements of UEEE/WEEE: is Macau a regional transfer center?
J. Clean. Prod. 157, 243–253.
Srivastava, R.R., Pathak, P., 2020. Policy issues for efficient management of E-waste in
developing countries. Handbook of Electronic Waste Management 81–99. Elsevier.
Statista, https://www.statista.com/search/?q=Revenue+of+the+global+consumer+ele
ctronics+market+from+2013+to+2026&qKat=search&newSearch=true&p=1.
Statista, https://www.statista.com/statistics/1154648/ewaste-collected-recycling-wor
ldwide-by-region/.
Terazono, A., Oguchi, M., Iino, S., Mogi, S., 2015. Battery collection in municipal waste
management in Japan: challenges for hazardous substance control and safety. Waste
Manag. 39, 246–257.
21
Journal of Cleaner Production 389 (2023) 136132
Theis, N., 2021. The global trade in e-waste: a network approach. Environ. Sociol. 7 (1),
76–89.
Tran, P.H., 2018. The Fate of E-Waste in Vietnam: Environmental Evaluation of the
Current Situation and the Way Forward. Ghent University.
(United Nations Environmental Programme) UNEP, 2020. Develop. Integrated Solid
Waste Manag. Plan Training Manual 2. Assessment of Current Waste Management
Systems and Gaps Therein. Osaka/Shiga, Japan, 2009. Available online. https://wed
ocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/7609/ISWMPlan_Vol2.pdf?sequence
=3&isAllowed=y.
Vincent Wang, X., Lopez, N., B, N., Ijomah, W., Wang, L., Li, J., 2015. A smart cloud-
based system for the WEEE recovery/recycling. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 137 (6).
Vishwakarma, S., Kumar, V., Arya, S., Tembhare, M., Dutta, D., Kumar, S., 2022. E-Waste
in information and communication technology sector: existing scenario,
management schemes and initiatives. Environ. Technol. Innovat. 27, 102797.
Wang, L., Wang, X.V., 2018. Product tracking and WEEE management. Cloud-Based
Cyber-Phys. Syst. Manufact. 325–346. Springer.
Wen, X., Luo, Q., Hu, H., Wang, N., Chen, Y., Jin, J., Hao, Y., Xu, G., Li, F., Fang, W.,
2014. Comparison research on waste classification between China and the EU,
Japan, and the USA. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 16 (2), 321–334.
Wenger, E., Police, A.F., 2010. Hazardous Materials: Chemical Biological Radiological
and Nuclear, p. 524, 16th International Forensic Science Symposium Interpol–Lyon 5
th-8 th October 2010 Review Papers.
Williams, E., Kahhat, R., Allenby, B., Kavazanjian, E., Kim, J., Xu, M., 2008.
Environmental, social, and economic implications of global reuse and recycling of
personal computers. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 (17), 6446–6454.
Xavier, L.H., Ottoni, M., Lepawsky, J., 2021. Circular economy and e-waste management
in the Americas: Brazilian and Canadian frameworks. J. Clean. Prod. 297, 126570.
Xu, X., 2012. From cloud computing to cloud manufacturing. Robot. Comput. Integrated
Manuf. 28 (1), 75–86.
Yafeng, H., Tetiana, S., 2021. Вісник СуМського національного аграрного університету.
Серія: ЕконоМіка і МенедЖМент. Exploring Incentive Mechanism in Smart E-Waste
Management System in China, 4, pp. 50–59, 90.
Zhang, K., Schnoor, J.L., Zeng, E.Y., 2012. E-waste recycling: where does it go from here?
Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (20), 10861–10867.
Zhang, L., Luo, Y., Tao, F., Li, B.H., Ren, L., Zhang, X., Guo, H., Cheng, Y., Hu, A., Liu, Y.,
2014. Cloud manufacturing: a new manufacturing paradigm. Enterprise Inf. Syst. 8
(2), 167–187.
Zhang, S., Ding, Y., Liu, B., Pan, D.a., Chang, C.-c., Volinsky, A.A., 2015. Challenges in
legislation, recycling system and technical system of waste electrical and electronic
equipment in China. Waste Manag. 45, 361–373.
Zhou, L., Xu, Z., 2012. Response to waste electrical and electronic equipments in China:
legislation, recycling system, and advanced integrated process. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 46 (9), 4713–4724.