E-waste and Inequality: Who Pays the Price of Technological Progress?

The last time you replaced your phone, where did the old one go?

For most of us, the answer is simple: we don’t know. And that is precisely where the story of e-waste begins.

Introduction

In the second half of the 19th century, society experienced the widespread use of electricity. The development of household appliances, personal devices (such as mobile phones and computers), medical technologies and transportation systems has significantly shaped the way we socialize, learn, work and live (Global E-waste Statistics Partnership, 2024).

However, this process of electrification has transformed modern life. At the same time, it has contributed to a significant increase in global waste. Current recycling and disposal systems are not able to keep pace with this growth. 

Among these waste streams, electronic waste or e-waste, has become particularly significant. It refers to “electronic products including computers, printers, photocopy machines, television sets, mobile phones, and toys, which are made of sophisticated blends of plastics, metals, and other materials” (Sharma et al., 2012, p. 86).

This complex composition brings together valuable resources and hazardous substances. As a result, improper management poses serious risks to both human health and the environment (Gaidajis et al., 2010).

Defining E-waste: Scope and Classification

Electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) includes technological devices that are used in everyday life. However, not all electrically powered products are considered EEE. According to the Global E-waste Statistics Partnership (2024), items such as batteries, military equipment, and large-scale industrial or transport systems are typically excluded from this category.

This equipment is generally composed of approximately 40% metals, 30% plastics and 30% refractory oxides (Gramatyka et al., 2007, p. 536). Common toxic components include mercury, cadmium, lead, brominated flame retardants and beryllium oxide (Sharma et al., 2012).

According to the Global E-waste Statistics Partnership (2024), EEE can be classified into six categories:

• Temperature exchange equipment 

• Screens and monitors 

• Lamps 

• Large equipment 

• Small equipment 

• Small IT and telecommunication equipment

Environmental and Health Impacts of E-waste

That forgotten device, the one left in a drawer or discarded without a second thought, does not simply disappear. It enters a global system of waste.

62 million tonnes of e-waste were generated in 2022 (Global E-waste Statistics Partnership, 2024). This makes it one of the fastest-growing waste streams globally. In the same year, small devices such as video cameras, toys, microwaves and e-cigarettes accounted for 20 billion kilograms, almost one third of total global e-waste (Global E-waste Statistics Partnership, 2024). This reflects not only the scale of the problem, but also its rapid acceleration, driven by increasing consumption and shorter product utility.

E-waste poses significant environmental risks throughout its lifecycle. The extraction of raw materials already involves hazardous substances. However, some of the most critical impacts occur at the final stage of a device’s life.

The production of electronic devices relies heavily on mining activities, which contribute to air and water pollution, deforestation and land degradation. These materials are often difficult to extract and require large-scale operations. For instance, producing one kilogram of gold can require up to three million kilograms of ore (Global E-waste Statistics Partnership, 2024).

When e-waste is mismanaged, it releases toxic substances into the environment. In 2022 alone, improper handling generated approximately 145 billion kilograms of CO₂ emissions (Global E-waste Statistics Partnership, 2024). Additionally, hazardous components can leach into soil and water over time, contaminating ecosystems and affecting food production systems (Sharma et al., 2012).

These environmental impacts are closely linked to risks to human health. Exposure to toxic substances found in e-waste, such as heavy metals and persistent chemicals, has been associated with severe health outcomes, including cancer and damage to vital organs such as the kidneys, liver and thyroid.

E-waste Management: Practices and Limitations

E-waste is managed through different processes:

• Landfilling: Waste is buried under layers of soil. While this slows degradation, toxic leachates can contaminate soil and groundwater.

• Incineration: The controlled combustion of waste in designated facilities. This process can release hazardous air pollutants that pose risks to both human health and the environment. 

• Recycling: The separation and recovery of valuable materials from electronic devices. Although it offers economic benefits, it is not consistently regulated across countries, and unsafe practices can expose workers to serious health risks.

  
  

Alternative approaches such as bioremediation have also been explored. This refers to “all those processes and actions that take place in order to biotransform an environment, already altered by contaminants, to its original status” (Sharma et al., 2012, p. 91). However, its application in e-waste management remains limited and context-specific.

Despite the availability of these practices, a significant portion of global e-waste is still handled under inadequate conditions, revealing important gaps in infrastructure, regulation and global responsibility.

What happens to that discarded device depends largely on where it ends up, and who is responsible for processing it.

Formal and Informal Recycling: Inequalities in E-waste Management

E-waste recycling has become a growing industry and, in many contexts, a source of income for both urban and rural communities. In its formal form, this activity is carried out in regulated environments designed to minimize environmental and health risks. In contrast, a significant portion of e-waste is processed outside these systems, under informal and often unsafe conditions.

Although 81 countries have adopted e-waste regulations, only 36 have established specific recycling targets (Global E-waste Statistics Partnership, 2024). As a result, in 2022 only 22.3% of global e-waste was formally recycled, while the majority was handled through informal processes. This means that most e-waste is handled outside regulated systems. This gap highlights a disconnection between regulatory frameworks and their effective implementation. 

The expansion of informal recycling is driven by a combination of factors, including insufficient infrastructure, weak enforcement of regulations and the growing volume of discarded electronics. Informal actors are involved across multiple stages of the value chain, including collection, dismantling and processing (International Labour Organization, 2014). Unlike formal systems, these activities often take place without oversight, regulation or adequate infrastructure.

While the recovery of valuable materials can generate income, the economic benefits for informal workers are often limited and unstable. Earnings depend on the quantity and type of materials recovered, and workers frequently operate under precarious conditions. In many cases, the risks they assume outweigh the economic returns. In contrast to formal recycling systems, where processes are standardized and regulated, informal workers depend on fluctuating markets and inconsistent access to materials.

Informal recycling practices often involve rudimentary techniques, such as manual dismantling, open burning and acid leaching, without adequate protective measures. As a result, workers are directly exposed to hazardous substances (International Labour Organization, 2024). In contrast, formal recycling facilities rely on controlled processes and protective technologies designed to reduce exposure and environmental harm.

These risks are particularly severe for vulnerable populations. Children are frequently involved in informal e-waste activities, exposing them to toxic substances during critical stages of development , a situation that would not occur within regulated formal systems. According to the World Health Organization (2024), such exposure can affect the nervous, respiratory and immune systems, with long-term consequences for health and well-being.

Ultimately, the coexistence of formal and informal recycling systems reveals deep structural inequalities in the global management of e-waste. While formal systems are designed to protect both people and the environment, informal systems often shift these costs onto the most vulnerable communities.

These patterns are not accidental, they are embedded in the way the global e-waste system operates.

Conclusion

The rapid growth of e-waste reflects not only the expansion of technological innovation, but also the underlying dynamics of how we produce, consume and discard electronic devices.

As this article has shown, the environmental and health impacts of e-waste are widely recognized, yet unevenly addressed across countries and systems. The persistence of informal recycling reveals not only gaps in regulation, infrastructure and enforcement, but also deeper structural inequalities, particularly in contexts where economic necessity drives participation in high-risk activities.

Ultimately, the e-waste crisis is not solely a matter of waste management. It is a systemic challenge shaped by patterns of consumption, unequal global responsibilities and limited accountability. Addressing it requires rethinking not only how e-waste is managed, but how technology is designed, used and valued.

Without structural change, these environmental and health burdens will continue to fall on those least equipped to bear them. Because the answer to that question, where our devices go, reveals who ultimately pays the price.

References

Global E-waste Statistics Partnership. (2024). The Global E-waste Monitor 2024. International Telecommunication Union (ITU) & United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR).

Gaidajis, G., Angelakoglou, K., & Aktsoglou, D. (2010). E-waste: Environmental problems and current management. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Review, 3(1), 193–199.

Gramatyka, P., Nowosielski, R., & Sakiewicz, P. (2007). Recycling of waste electrical and electronic equipment. Journal of Achievements in Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, 20(1–2), 535–538.

International Labour Organization. (2014). The global impact of e-waste: Addressing the challenge.

Sharma, P., Fulekar, M. H., & Pathak, B. (2012). E-waste: A challenge for tomorrow. Research Journal of Recent Sciences, 1(3), 86–93.

Widmer, R., Oswald-Krapf, H., Sinha-Khetriwal, D., Schnellmann, M., & Böni, H. (2005). Global perspectives on e-waste. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(5), 436–458.

World Health Organization. (2024). Electronic waste (e-waste). https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/electronic-waste-%28e-waste%29