Circular Recovery of Retired Electronics: A Critical Review and Environmental Scenario Modeling of the S25 Framework

Abstract

Electronic waste (e-waste) presents a triple systemic threat: severe environmental contamination, critical-material demand, and premature loss of potentially useful electronic equipment [1], [2]. In 2022, global e-waste generation reached 62 million tonnes, while only 22.3% was formally documented as collected and recycled [1]. A substantial proportion of retired electronic equipment may retain whole-device, module-level, or component-level value beyond administrative retirement, creating opportunities for reuse, repair, refurbishment, and controlled component recovery [7], [8], [11], [12]. In developing economies such as India, historical studies indicate that a substantial proportion of e-waste has been handled through informal channels, although estimates vary according to period and analytical boundary [31]. Inadequate collection and storage conditions can further reduce the fraction of equipment suitable for preparation for reuse [16]. Evidence from an empirical study of 61 collection points in Bavaria further indicates that collection conditions can affect the preservation of reuse potential: 86% of identifiable damage causes of WEEE in that investigated system were attributed to insufficient weatherproof roofing [16]. International evidence also demonstrates measurable functional potential in used equipment; approximately 81% of tested used electrical and electronic equipment entering Lagos was found to be functional [24], while a Delphi-based expert assessment estimated that 63% of imported UEEE was functioning and reused, refurbished, or resold [5]. These figures describe different populations and methodologies and are therefore used only as contextual evidence rather than as universal recovery rates. This paper proposes the S25 scenario as a bounded analytical framework in which 25% of technically eligible retired computing-equipment intake is assumed to achieve successful secondary use through qualified whole-device reuse or refurbishment, qualified module reuse, or qualified component reuse. S25 is therefore a study-specific scenario target and is not presented as an empirically established universal recovery rate or as a 25% whole-device reuse rate. The framework integrates environmental impact, component viability, reliability screening, institutional deployment, economic feasibility, behavioural participation, worker safeguards, and policy requirements. Life-cycle accounting principles are used to distinguish published environmental evidence from scenario assumptions and derived outputs [19]. For environmental quantification, the combined S25 recovery fraction is not treated as equivalent to whole-device displacement; instead, whole-device climate benefit is calculated from the Path-A fraction (PA), the whole-device displacement factor (dA), and the product-specific climate-impact reduction (IA). A separate normalized laptop illustration assumes 25% whole-device reuse with one-for-one functional displacement. Using the approximately 40% climate-change reduction reported for the assessed second-hand laptop case by André et al. [21], this hypothetical whole-device case gives an illustrative portfolio-level reduction of approximately 10%. This 10% value is a scenario illustration rather than the environmental outcome of the combined S25 framework. The proposed framework therefore provides a basis for field validation of whether protected collection, qualification, reuse, and component recovery can preserve functional value while reducing dependence on destructive end-of-life processing and supporting affordable secondary computing applications.

Introduction

Electronic waste (e-waste) is a growing global environmental and public-health concern because of increasing generation, inadequate formal collection, unsafe informal processing, and the premature loss of valuable equipment and components. In 2022, approximately 62 million tonnes of e-waste were generated globally, while only 22.3% was formally documented as collected and recycled. Significant quantities also move through uncontrolled transboundary and informal channels, particularly in low- and middle-income regions.

In countries such as India, informal e-waste processing has historically included manual dismantling, open burning, uncontrolled heating, acid leaching, and open dumping. These practices can expose workers and communities to hazardous substances and contaminate air, soil, and water. Poor collection and storage conditions can also damage equipment that might otherwise have been suitable for reuse or refurbishment. Therefore, proper collection, weather protection, storage, testing, and routing are important for both pollution prevention and preservation of residual product value.

A key argument of the study is that technical retirement does not necessarily mean the end of a product's useful life. Electronic equipment may be discarded because of administrative, economic, technological, or procurement decisions while still being functional. A computer, for example, may be suitable for secondary use after testing, while unsuitable whole devices may still contain reusable modules or individual components. However, published functionality estimates from different countries and methodologies cannot be directly treated as universal recovery rates.

The study therefore proposes a reuse-first approach in which retired computing equipment is assessed before destructive recycling. Four circular pathways are identified:

1. Whole-device reuse/refurbishment (Path A): Complete devices are tested and redeployed when they meet functional, security, safety, reliability, and workload requirements.

2. Module reuse (Path B): Devices unsuitable for complete reuse are selectively dismantled to recover usable modules.

3. Component recovery (Path C): Individual components are tested, qualified, and recovered from equipment unsuitable for whole-device or module reuse.

4. Material recovery (Path D): Non-reusable materials and residuals are sent to authorized recycling processes.

The proposed S25 scenario represents a 25% secondary-use recovery target among a defined pool of technically eligible retired computing equipment. Importantly, S25 is an analytical modelling scenario, not an established universal recovery rate. The 25% includes the combined outcomes of whole-device, module, and component recovery and therefore does not mean that 25% of all e-waste—or even 25% of the eligible equipment—will necessarily be reused as complete devices.

The study evaluates a broader 15–25% scenario band, with 25% designated as S25. This range is informed by published preparation-for-reuse evidence but is treated as an assumption that must be tested rather than as an empirical fact. The study also emphasizes that collection and storage conditions can influence whether equipment remains suitable for reuse; evidence from Bavaria, for example, showed substantial damage associated with inadequate weather protection at collection points, although this finding is specific to that investigated system.

Environmental significance

The reuse-first strategy is intended to complement, rather than replace, conventional recycling. Extending the life of functioning electronics can potentially:

• reduce demand for manufacturing replacement equipment;

• reduce the need for virgin material extraction;

• retain more of the original manufacturing and functional value;

• divert eligible equipment from destructive or unsafe processing;

• reduce some greenhouse-gas and other environmental impacts associated with manufacturing new devices; and

• support affordable second-life computing for educational, governmental, community, and institutional applications.

However, the study does not assume that a 25% reuse rate automatically produces a 25% reduction in environmental impacts. Environmental benefits depend on factors such as the type and condition of the equipment, remaining useful life, refurbishment requirements, transportation, functional equivalence, whether a new product is actually displaced, and the subsequent end-of-life pathway.

Evidence and analytical approach

The paper uses a critical evidence-synthesis approach rather than a formal systematic review. Evidence is drawn from research on:

• global e-waste generation and hazardous flows;

• preparation for reuse and product life extension;

• component and PCB recovery;

• environmental and life-cycle impacts;

• reliability, testing, and data security;

• economic and behavioural factors; and

• infrastructure and policy requirements.

Published measurements are kept separate from assumptions introduced specifically for the S25 model. Thus, values such as the 15–25% recovery range, S25 target, displacement assumptions, and selected economic parameters are treated as modelling assumptions rather than universal empirical values.

Conclusion

1) Increasing Generation of E-Waste: Global e-waste generation continues to increase, while environmentally unsound treatment and inadequate collection remain important concerns [1]-[3]. The increasing volume of discarded electrical and electronic equipment places additional pressure on collection, reuse, recycling, and environmentally sound treatment systems [1]. 2) Toxicological and Environmental Impacts of E-Waste Pollution: Uncontrolled processing of e-waste can expose workers and nearby communities to hazardous substances through activities such as open burning, uncontrolled dumping, and crude chemical treatment [2], [3]. Such practices can contribute to the release and dispersion of hazardous substances into surrounding environmental media and create occupational and community exposure pathways [2], [3]. These impacts provide an important environmental and health rationale for improving formal collection, controlled treatment, and reuse-oriented management of retired electronics. 3) Premature Retirement and Loss of Residual Functional Value: Electronic equipment may be removed from service before complete physical or functional failure because of technological replacement, institutional procurement cycles, software or compatibility requirements, cosmetic considerations, or changes in user requirements [6]-[8]. Consequently, administrative retirement does not necessarily indicate that all functional or recoverable value has been exhausted. This creates an opportunity for continued use through appropriate assessment, refurbishment, preparation for reuse, or qualified recovery of modules and components. 4) Preserving Recovery Potential: Evidence from preparation-for-reuse studies indicates that improvements in collection, storage, and treatment can increase the pool of equipment potentially suitable for preparation for reuse [16]. The finding that 86% of identifiable WEEE damage causes in the investigated Bavarian collection-point system were associated with insufficient weatherproof roofing provides a specific example of why condition preservation should be considered part of circular recovery [16]. The result is system-specific and should not be generalized to all WEEE streams. These observations support a hierarchy in which potentially reusable equipment is assessed before irreversible material-processing routes are selected. However, the proportion that can ultimately be reused depends on equipment type, condition, collection practices, qualification requirements, and programme design.

References

[1] Baldé, C. P., Kuehr, R., Yamamoto, T., McDonald, R., D’Angelo, E., Althaf, S., et al. (2024). The Global E-waste Monitor 2024. Geneva/Bonn: ITU and UNITAR. [2] World Health Organization. (2021). Children and Digital Dumpsites: E-waste Exposure and Child Health. Geneva: WHO. [3] Kiddee, P., Naidu, R., & Wong, M. H. (2013). Electronic waste management approaches: An overview. Waste Management, 33(5), 1237-1250. DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2013.01.006. [4] Robinson, B. H. (2009). E-waste: an assessment of global production and environmental impacts. Science of the Total Environment, 408(2), 183-191. [5] Thapa, K., Vermeulen, W. J. V., Deutz, P., & Olayide, O. (2023). Ultimate producer responsibility for e-waste management - A proposal for just transition in the circular economy based on the case of used European electronic equipment exported to Nigeria. Business Strategy & Development, 6(1), 33-52. DOI: 10.1002/bsd2.222. [6] Cooper, T. (Ed.). (2010). Longer Lasting Products: Alternatives to the Throwaway Society. Farnham: Gower. [7] Wieser, H., & Tröger, N. (2018). Exploring the inner loops of the circular economy: Replacement, repair, and reuse of mobile phones in Austria. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 3042-3055. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.106. [8] Bakker, C., Wang, F., Huisman, J., & den Hollander, M. (2014). Products that go round: exploring product life extension through design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 69, 10-16. [9] European Environment Agency (2018), Waste prevention in Europe: policies, status and trends in reuse in 2017, EEA Report 4/2018. [10] Huisman, J., et al. (2015). Countering WEEE Illegal Trade (CWIT) Summary Report. INTERPOL, EUROPOL, and WEEE Forum. [11] Reuter, M. A., & van Schaik, A. (2015). Metallurgy of Recycling: Complexity of E-Waste and Printed Circuit Board Design. CRC Press. [12] Tesfaye, F., Lindberg, D., Taskinen, P., & Hämäläinen, M. (2017). Recovery of materials from complex electronic waste: A review. Minerals Engineering, 107, 55-67. [13] Freitag, C., Berners-Lee, M., Widdicks, K., Knowles, B., Blair, G. S., & Friday, A. (2021). The real climate and transformational potential of ICT: A critique of estimates, trends, and regulations. Patterns, 2(9), 100340. [14] International Telecommunication Union (ITU). (2023). Measuring Digital Development: Facts and Figures 2023. Geneva: ITU. [15] Kumar, A., Holuszko, M., & Espinosa, D. C. R. (2017). E-waste: An overview on generation, collection, legislation and recycling practices. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 122, 32-42. [16] Messmann, L., Boldoczki, S., Thorenz, A., Tuma, A. (2019). Potentials of preparation for reuse: A case study at collection points in the German state of Bavaria. Journal of Cleaner Production, 211, 1534-1546. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.264. [17] International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). (2024). IEC 62309:2024 - Dependability of new products containing reused parts and life-extended products. Geneva: IEC. [18] European Committee for Standardization (CEN). (2020). EN 45554:2020 - General methods for the assessment of the ability to repair, reuse and upgrade energy-related products. Brussels: CEN. [19] International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2006). ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework. Geneva: ISO. [20] Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. (2022). E-Waste (Management) Rules, 2022. Government of India, New Delhi. [21] André, H., Ljunggren Söderman, M., & Nordelöf, A. (2019). Resource and environmental impacts of using second-hand laptop computers: A case study of commercial reuse. Waste Management, 88, 268-279. DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.03.050. [22] Computadores para Educar. (2017). Servicios de Computadores para Educar. Government of Colombia. [23] NITI Aayog. (2026). Advancing Circular Economy of Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment (E-waste) and Lithium-Ion Batteries in India. Government of India, New Delhi. [24] Odeyingbo, A. O., Nnorom, I. C., & Deubzer, O. K. (2019). Used and waste electronics flows into Nigeria: Assessment of the quantities, types, sources, and functionality status. Science of the Total Environment, 666, 103-113. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.102. [25] Jiang, Y., Zhao, M., Zhao, L., Chen, Q., Huang, Q., Song, X., Zhang, C., & Wang, J. (2023). Research on the Disassembly Process and Model of Waste Mobile Phone Circuit Board Components. Processes, 11(7), 2052. [26] Das, P., Leonardi, A., Yan, Q., Peier, K., & Gabriel, J.-C. P. (2026). Techno-economic evaluation of electronic component recovery for reuse from waste PCBs: advancing circular economy practices in automotive electronics. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 30, 405-419. [27] Teehan, P., & Kandlikar, M. (2013). Comparing embodied greenhouse gas emissions of modern computing and electronics products. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(9), 3997-4003. [28] Forti, V., Baldé, C. P., Kuehr, R., & Bel, G. (2020). The Global E-waste Monitor 2020: Quantities, flows and the circular economy potential. United Nations University (UNU), International Telecommunication Union (ITU) & International Solid Waste Association (ISWA). [29] Bhagat-Ganguly, V. (2021). E-Waste Management: Challenges and Opportunities in India. Routledge India. [30] Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). (2023). Annual Report 2022-23. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, New Delhi. [31] Dutta, D., & Goel, S. (2021). Understanding the gap between formal and informal e-waste recycling facilities in India. Waste Management, 125, 163-171. [32] NITI Aayog. (2019). Strategy for Secondary Materials Management for Promoting Resource Efficiency (RE) and Circular Economy (CE) in Electrical and Electronic Equipment Sector. Draft for Comments. Government of India, New Delhi. [33] International Telecommunication Union. (2017). Strategies and Policies for the Proper Disposal or Reuse of Telecommunication/ICT Waste Material: Final Report (Question 8/2). Geneva: ITU. [34] Stern, P. C. (2000). New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424. DOI: 10.1111/0022-4537.00175. [35] Dhir, A., Koshta, N., Goyal, R. K., Sakashita, M., & Almotairi, M. (2021). Behavioral reasoning theory (BRT) perspectives on e-waste recycling and management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 280, 124269. [36] CENELEC. (2014). EN 50625-1:2014. Collection, logistics & Treatment requirements for WEEE - Part 1: General treatment requirements. Brussels: European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization. [37] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). (2025). NIST Special Publication 800-88 Revision 2: Guidelines for Media Sanitization. U.S. Department of Commerce. [38] IEEE. (2022). IEEE 2883-2022: IEEE Standard for Sanitizing Storage. IEEE Standards Association.

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Arushi Guleria, Ravinder Guleria. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.