Journal of Cleaner Production 7 (1999) 383–389

www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Short report
Take-back of discarded consumer electronic products from the
perspective of the producer
Conditions for success
a,b,*
A.L.N. Stevels , A.A.P. Ram a, E. Deckers b

a
Delft University of Technology, Faculty OCP, Department of Engineering Design, Jaffalaan 9, 2628 BX Delft, Netherlands
b
Philips Consumer Electronics, Environmental Competence Centre, Building SK6, PO Box 80002, 5600 JB Eindhoven, Netherlands

Received 15 April 1999; received in revised form 11 May 1999; accepted 15 May 1999

Abstract

Take-back and recycling costs of discarded television sets can be brought down substantially by a combination of design improve-
ments, technology improvements and by achieving economy of scale in the processing. Authorities can enhance the eco-efficiency
further by appropriate supporting policies. It is estimated that, compared with the present situation, the total environmental gain
over cost ratio can be pushed up by a factor 4 to 8. Prospects to improve end-of-life performance of smaller consumer electronic
products (audio, VCR, etc.) are much less. In view of the fact, however, that television sets make approximately 60% by weight
of the total waste stream, the improvement potential of the total stream is large.  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Recycling; Take-back costs; Ecoefficiency; Design for recycling

1. Introduction 앫 better conservation of resources and value (cascade

In a growing number of countries around the world,
laws are in preparation to make producers and importers
of electronic consumer products responsible for their
products at the end of life stage. Plans are being prepared
to oblige industry to take-back its products and set up an
end-of-life processing industry for consumer electronics.
The ultimate objective of this is to reduce the environ-
mental burden caused by discarded consumer electronic
products and to encourage industry to conserve
resources.
The aim of this article is to present the point of view
of Philips Consumer Electronics — Sound & Vision, on
how the take-back regulation and the end-of-life industry
of electronics should be built up in a gradual way, with-
out imposing an unnecessary financial burden on society.
All actors involved in the take-back of discarded elec-
tronic products agree upon the issue of taking back end-
of-life consumer equipment. In principle they all want:
* Corresponding author.
principle);
앫 more recycling/re-use;
앫 less waste;
앫 eco-design.
Up to now, the major points of debate about the organis-
ation and operation of take-back and recycling of these
products have been:
앫 who is responsible for which of the relevant issues?
앫 how should the take-back system be financed (waste
taxes, internalisation in prices of new products, etc.)?
앫 how should the take-back system be organised (public
or private, pool systems or individual brands)?
The debate between the actors is now so intense that it
tends to overshadow the common ground which is
already in place. Moreover, resolution of the differences
of opinion will take much time, while the final outcome
can be a situation in which our society pays too much
for a sub-optimal solution.
The present paper considers take-back primarily from
the perspective of product characteristics. It will be

0959-6526/99/$ - see front matter.  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 5 9 - 6 5 2 6 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 1 5 2 - 3
384 A.L.N. Stevels et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 7 (1999) 383–389

shown that the costs of take-back and recycling can be

lowered substantially and that the recycling performance
can still be substantially increased if technical, organis-
ational and regulatory conditions (‘the conditions for
success’) are fulfilled.
We first focus on the cost effectiveness of the end-of-
life treatment of consumer electronics. From this per-
spective a distinction is made between the take-back of
television sets, and the take-back of the remainder of the
consumer electronic products waste stream. The main
reason for this is the cost effectiveness of recycling and
Fig. 1. Take-back costs of television sets over time.
the level up to which this can be influenced. The cost
effectiveness of recycling can, for example, be influ-
enced by dismantling criteria and an acceptable econ- mately 2010, the recycling costs of television sets will
omic material content during recycling. have dropped to the level of current landfill/incineration
It is suggested that for products that contain picture costs (±NLG 0.25/kg).
tubes, dismantling leads to the most eco-efficient recyc- Fig. 1 also demonstrates that until approximately 2003
ling process. For products without picture tubes it is ple- hardly any cost reduction of end-of-life processing of
aded that integral mechanical processing leads to the television sets can be achieved. This is due to the fact
most eco-efficient recycling process. Eco-efficiency is that the television sets to be taken back in this period
defined herein as the environmental gain over cost ratio have been developed and manufactured in the pre-eco-
of the recycling process. design period and thus are not appropriate for efficient
Moreover, it will be shown that recycling of television recycling. Since the late 1980s, the first eco-design
sets can be improved and that a reduction in costs can activities in this field have been started. Together with
be achieved by means of improved design and an appro- an average lifetime of television sets of 15 years, this
priate organisational structure. The end-of-life aspects of leads to an expected improvement of recycling results
television sets are treated, but in principle the same mat- after approximately 2003. The difference in materials
ters apply to picture-tube-containing products in general composition and thus recycling potential will be
(e.g. computer monitors). For the remainder of the con- explained in Section 3.
sumer electronics waste stream, like VCRs, audio equip- At present, far less is known about the costs of take-
ment, and car stereo products, it will be shown that back of the remainder of the consumer electronics waste
improvement of the recycling efficiency of these pro- stream. Apparetour [1,2] showed that the present costs
ducts is much more difficult to achieve. Subsequently, are approximately 0.75–1 USD/kg. From research done
the conditions for success and the effect of these con- in this area so far [3], we believe that the change over
ditions on the recycling efficiency for both these categor- time in the take-back costs of these products should be
ies of electronic products will be presented. something like that presented in Fig. 2. The similarity
between Figs. 1 and 2 is that, also for this category of
products, it is expected that until 2003 hardly any change
2. Costs of take-back in costs can be achieved. The reasoning here is similar
to that used for television sets. The striking difference
Televisions and computer monitors form 55–60% of is that after 2003 the reduction of end-of-life costs will
the weight of the total waste stream of consumer elec- be smaller (see Section 4). It should be noted that the
tronic products. It is expected that this figure will shift cost axes in Figs. 1 and 2 are not on the same scale.
towards 60% or even higher in the future due to the
increasing part of monitors.
The costs of take-back of television sets over time are
shown in Fig. 1. The present recycling costs are approxi-
mately 10–15 USD per television set (0.35 USD/kg), as
found in the Dutch national pilot project concerning the
take-back and recycling of consumer electronic products,
Apparetour [1,2]. Logistic costs are assumed to be con-
stant. Costs of end-of-life processing of television sets
show a change over time. Fig. 1 shows clearly that a
large cost reduction in the take-back costs of television
sets can be achieved when the conditions for success are Fig. 2. Estimated take-back costs of the remainder of consumer elec-
fulfilled (see Section 3). It is expected that by approxi- tronics waste stream over time.
 A.L.N. Stevels et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 7 (1999) 383–389 385

Following from Figs. 1 and 2, it is obvious from the potential to be upgraded to their original level of appli-
financial perspective that take-back obligation should cation. This is crucial for an optimal conservation of
start to be applied to television sets. Even here it can resources and value, and the only way to really achieve
be seen from Fig. 1 that costs of take-back can vary a high environmental gain/costs ratio. Disassembly of
substantially, depending on economies of scale, organis- products has to be done manually and is therefore rather
ational conditions, and legislation. Due to the little costly in Western Europe.
knowledge existing so far related to the take-back of the The most important criteria for applying disas-
remainder of the consumer electronic waste stream, it sembly are:
is suggested that take-back legislation regarding these
products should be implemented at a later time. 앫 To reduce the recycling costs, which can be achi-
It should be noted that low costs for taking back and eved by:
recycling of television sets can only be achieved in the 앫 disassembly of mono-material parts (parts of one
case that the responsibility for the various end-of-life kind of material, e.g. ABS) which leads to
stages (logistics, disassembly, mechanical processing, improvement of the recycling yield (criteria
reapplication of secondary materials) are attributed to described in Table 1);
those actors in the life cycle chain who can influence 앫 disassembly of parts made of materials containing
these costs. This means that society only gets a cost- ‘penalty elements’, which leads to a higher value
effective and ecologically efficient take-back system of the waste. Penalty elements are elements that
when the costs are based on the operational responsi- lead to (financial) penalties when the material frac-
bility (shared responsibility). The responsibility is thus tion containing those elements is sold to the metal
attributed to the actor that can achieve the best environ- refinery industry (e.g. Pb, Zn).
mental gain/cost ratio for the particular part, and is able 앫 To reach a certain efficiency in material re-use.
to close the material chain. At present, common govern-
mental policy however, puts the responsibility with the In Table 1, the approximate amounts of materials (in
actor that is responsible for product manufacture or even grams) that have to be disassembled per minute to bal-
only for product sales! From the analysis it is also shown ance the labour and reprocessing costs are shown. The
that both from an environmental, and a cost point of labour costs are based upon the current tariffs of a Dutch
view, the responsibility for take-back logistics should recycler, and amount to 7.0 NLG/min. The results are
stay where it is, i.e. with the local authorities. The main obtained by dividing the current average prices for virgin
reason for this is that currently local authorities already material by the labour costs, and multiplying this by a
collect other waste streams and have the necessary infra- factor (0.9) to include the processing costs. In this case,
structure. disassembly is aimed at regaining the materials.
For the main construction materials of television sets
(PS and ABS), this table leads to the conclusion that it
3. Recycling of materials in television sets is useful to disassemble those parts of PS and ABS
whose weight exceeds 800 g and 1000 g, respectively.
Recycling of television sets means recycling of the For Philips television sets, where PS is the main con-
materials present in a television set. Because of the rapid struction material, this means that the cabinet (weight
technical evolution, the re-use potential of components approximately 3 kg), the backcover (weight approxi-
or sub-assemblies is at present only very limited or non-
existent. On the other hand, a market driven by second-
hand products is already in place. In practice a large Table 1
number of old sets are simply discarded. The second- Approximate amounts of material that have to be disassembled per
minute to balance labour and processing costs with value of materials
hand use of television sets may diminish or delay the recovered
recycling problem, but as such is not at all a solution to
this problem. Moreover, from a life cycle perspective the Amount Plastics Amount
use of old (second-hand) television sets is no solution to (g) (g)
environmental problems either, due to the higher energy
Precious metals
use. The higher energy use of old television sets contrib- Gold 0.05 PPE 250
utes significantly to the higher integral environmental Silver 5.0 PC, POM 350
impact, as can be calculated using Life Cycle Assess- Palladium 0.14 ABS 800
ment [4,5]. PS 1000
In order to recover single materials, electronic pro- Metals PVC 4000
Copper 300
ducts need to be disassembled to reach a sufficient yield. Aluminium 700 Glass 6000
The main reason for doing so is to ensure that the quality Iron 50 000
of the materials obtained is such that they have the
386 A.L.N. Stevels et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 7 (1999) 383–389
mately 2.7 kg) and the speaker box (weight approxi-
mately 1 kg) are candidates for disassembly. Restrictions
are that no contamination of other materials (such as
metal inserts) and that no flame retardants are present.
Fig. 3 shows the recycling efficiency of old and new
television sets, recycled according to the current indus-
trial practice.
As can be seen, current Philips television sets already
have a higher recycling efficiency than older ones (55%
vs. 43%). Reasons for this are as follows.
앫 Design for assembly and design for serviceability
have been improved. This has automatically led to
fewer parts and thus to an improvement of the disas-
sembly of the television set as well.
앫 Environmentally relevant substances have been elim-
inated. This has led to less contamination in material
fractions, which make them more suitable for recyc-
ling (smelter specifications).
앫 Plastic encasing without flame retardants.
앫 Electronics have been reduced. This has led to a
smaller fraction with a complex material mix, and
therefore to a smaller waste fraction.
앫 Miniaturisation. Because of miniaturisation, the
weight of television sets has been reduced signifi-
cantly. Since less raw materials are used, less waste
is generated at the product’s end-of-life stage. This
automatically implies a better conservation of
resources and value.
Recycling of current television sets, however, can still
be improved. This can be achieved by a better eco-
design of these products and by fulfilment of some
additional conditions for success. The main deficits for
recycling of current television sets are as follows.
앫 The encasing is currently landfilled or incinerated
because it is made of plywood. New television sets
have a higher recycling potential with respect to this
Fig. 3. Material composition and recycling efficiency of old and new television sets.
matter since the encasing consists of plastics, pro-
vided that these do not contain flame retardants.
앫 Currently, picture tube glass is not recycled at equal
level of application. At best, apart from low level
applications in ceramics and road pavement, Philips
has shown that 70% of the picture tube glass can be
recycled into cone glass production. However, if suf-
ficiently large streams of materials are recovered, this
recycling capacity will no longer be sufficient and
new technology has to be developed to recycle
screen glass.
앫 From printed wiring boards (PWB), mainly copper
and precious metals are recovered (also iron and alu-
minium but these do not have a high value), which
leaves a considerable remaining fraction (laminate
and other elements) which are landfilled or inciner-
ated.
For efficient material recycling of the parts that can
be disassembled from television sets (at the original level
of application) therefore, complementary conditions
have to be fulfilled. These conditions for success are
listed in Table 2.
In Table 3, the current situation, and the expected situ-
ation until the year 2005–2010 when the conditions for
success are fulfilled, regarding end-of-life processing of
discarded television sets is presented. It is assumed that
the functionality, the imaging principle (CRT), the
materials applied and the end-of-life processing techno-
logies are comparable to the ones of today. Table 3 refers
to the average performance of recyclers in Western Eur-
ope. The current situation is represented in two columns,
current industrial practices, and the maximum level of
recycling without downgrading.
Clearly, it can be seen that the recycling efficiency is
projected to have increased by 2005–2010, with respect
to both material recovery, as well as cost effectiveness.
In Fig. 4 the material composition and the recycling
effectiveness that can be achieved in 2010 is presented.
 A.L.N. Stevels et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 7 (1999) 383–389 387

Table 2
Conditions for success to improve the recycling efficiency of television sets

TV component/fraction Technological condition Economical condition Organisational condition

Housing — plastics No flame retardants Economy of scale, 5000 t/year Consuming market needed (no
(300 000 television sets/year) television set production in NL)
Identification of different types of
plastics
Picture tube — glass Separation of screen and cone Economy of scale Consuming market needed (no
glass production in NL)
Electronics (PWB) — Cu, plastics Reduce penalty elements Economy of scale (easy to achieve Consuming market needed
by integrating electronic waste (currently existing, but efficiency
fraction in existing Cu waste can be better)
stream)
Recycling of plastic mixtures
Recycling of main other elements
as well (Fe, Al,...)
Metal — Fe, Al Treatment of surface coatings (e.g. Prices secondary materials vs. NA
zinc) virgin materials
Rest — waste landfill Specification of waste Fair tariffs Landfill still possible

Table 3
Current and expected situation in television set recycling

Item Current industrial practice Maximum level Year 2005–2010

Logistics Present municipal systems Present municipal systems Present municipal systems
Average disassembly time 15 min 20 min 5–7 min
Recycling on equal level 15% 50% 85%
Downgrading (rec./inc.) 70% 35% 8%
Waste (landfill) 15% 15% 7%
Economy of scale NA 100 000 sets/year 250 000–400 000 sets/year
Costs/set ±20 ecu ±35 ecu ±10 ecu
Env. gain/costs ratioa 1 1.5 8.5–4

a
The environmental gain/cost ratio is defined here as the amount of material re-used in its original application divided by the end-of-life costs.

3.1. Roadmap EcoDesign

Activity Responsible
actor
Weight reduction (min. 10%)
Producer
Miniaturisation of electronics Producer
Elimination of flame retardants Producer
Standardisation of glass compositions Producer
Reduction of environmentally relevant Producer
substances
Design for recycling (disassembly/non- Producer
disassembly)
Fig. 4. Expected recycling efficiency of television sets in 2010.
Application of secondary materials Producer

In order to fulfil the conditions for success, much has

to be done by all the actors. Below, roadmaps are
presented for the four main categories of activities.
388 A.L.N. Stevels et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 7 (1999) 383–389

3.2. Roadmap for the development of end-of-life

processing technology

Activity Responsible
actor
Recycling technology for plastics Producer,
recycler
Improvement of separation technologies Recycler,
scientists
Picture tube glass recycling technology Recycler
Optimisation of disassembly Recycler, Fig. 5. Average material composition and recycling efficiency of a
scientists VCR.

3.3. Roadmap for the development of an economy of

scale 앫 The weight and size of these products is such that
they do not fulfil the disassembly criteria presented
Activity Responsible in Table 1.
actor 앫 The use of monomaterial for the heaviest and/or
Certification of recyclers (technical Authorities, biggest parts is much more difficult because of func-
performance) producer tionality requirements. The front cover of e.g. a mini-
Supranational approach (e.g. adaptation Authorities set or soundmachine incorporates far more functions
of Basel convention) than e.g. the front cover of a television set. Conse-
Environmental validation Producer, quently, at the back of the front cover several different
authorities engineering plastics and metal parts are present. This
means that even in the bigger parts, many different
3.4. Roadmap for the development of supporting materials are present.
policies
The above considerations have led to the conclusion that
Activity Responsible the end-of-life processing for these types of products for
actor the time being basically should consist of an integral
Handling pre-eco-design products Authorities recycling process.
Differentiated fee system Authorities In Figs. 5–7, the average material’s composition and
Supporting legislation/regulation Authorities the recycling efficiency of respectively a VCR, a midset
Monitoring and control Authorities (audio), and a soundmachine (portable audio) are given.
These figures show that the recycling efficiency of these
This list obviously shows that much still has to be done. products presently varies from moderate to very low.
From this list it follows that: The main material that can be recycled is the iron frac-
tion from the housing parts. Although this fraction may
앫 the authorities need to support research and develop- maximally be approximately 50 weight percent of the
ment activities in this field to overcome the gap product (VCR, see Fig. 5), its intrinsic value is very low,
between current practice and what is needed in 2010; which makes the recycling of these products cost-inef-
앫 recyclers should be certified according to their recyc-
ling achievements in order to create an economy of
scale;
앫 the authorities must stay involved as an actor in the
consumer electronics’ recycling and act on a trans-
national level (economy of scale).

4. Recycling materials in VCRs, and audio and car

stereo products

Based upon the present technology, the recycling of

all other consumer electronic wastes is less favorable
than the situation for television sets. The two main Fig. 6. Average material composition and recycling efficiency of a
reasons for this are as follows. miniset.
 A.L.N. Stevels et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 7 (1999) 383–389
Fig. 7. Average material composition and recycling efficiency of a
soundmachine.
ficient. Moreover, the waste fraction of the product con-
sists of a considerable proportion of mixed plastics,
which are difficult to recycle.
At this moment far less is known about the problems
related to end-of-life processing of these products, com-
pared with the knowledge related to the take-back of pic-
ture-tube-containing products. The main problems are
as follows.
앫 Mainly the ferro materials are regained. This is not
a valuable fraction (0.05 USD/kg), which makes the
recycling of these products very cost-ineffective
because the material benefits do not equal the pro-
cessing costs.
앫 Substantial waste fraction (mixed plastics).
앫 More contamination in useable material fractions (low
grade application only).
In principle the conditions for success for television
sets recycling also apply to the remainder of the con-
sumer electronics waste stream (with the obvious excep-
tion of picture tube glass). An additional condition is
given below.
앫 Combination of these products with the television set
material fraction that shows the largest similarity in
composition. This is most probably the electronic
fraction. For the products that have a high plastic con-
tent (e.g. soundmachine, walkmans, minisets, etc.)
this means that an additional separation technique has
to be used to prevent contamination of the valuable
television set fractions with the plastics from the
remainder of the electronic waste stream. When it is
not possible to carry out the above-mentioned con-
dition, incineration should be considered as the best
eco-efficient solution for the recycling of these pro-
ducts.
At the moment, it is difficult to predict the improve-
ment of the recycling efficiency and end-of-life costs
when the conditions for success are fulfilled. Before
including audio, VCR, and car stereo products in take-
389
back legislation, the following issues should be investi-
gated.
앫 A well-operating take-back and recycling system for
television sets. The other products can be added to
this system at a later stage.
앫 An in-depth technological and design programme,
tailored to these types of products.
앫 A cost effective incineration capacity for the (large)
material fraction which cannot be recycled at equal
level of application (not even after carrying out the
above programme) or for the products as a whole.
5. Conclusions
The present outstanding issues about take-back and
recycling of consumer electronic products, like producer
responsibility, financing, and system organisation, can
only be achieved if all actors involved (producers, recy-
clers, local/national European authorities) work together
on the basis of a common agenda and of shared responsi-
bility.
For take-back and recycling of discarded television
sets, impressive environmental and economic gains are
expected to be achieved, if the conditions for success
elaborated in this paper are met.
The very nature of other consumer electronic products
(audio, VCR, car stereo) makes it much more difficult
to get similar results as for television sets, but, again,
when compared with the current situation, progress can
be made.
In all cases, conditions for success include:
앫 a technological programme;
앫 appropriate organisation and certification of the end-
of-life industry;
앫 legislation and supporting measures, including con-
tinuous involvement in this matter by authorities.
References
[1] Ploos van Amstel JJ, a.o. Back to the beginning. National pilot
take back project. Reprint available from Tel 31 402 461 464; fax
31 402 439 901.
[2] Ram A, Kersten F. Apparetour Deelrapport Technologie
(Apparetour Technology report). Eindhoven, July 1997.
[3] Deckers J, Ram A. Recyclability of high volume electronics —
design for non-disassembly. Internal Philips report, CTR598-98-
0011, Eindhoven, January 1998.
[4] Heijungs R, Guinée JB, Huppes G, Lankreijer RM, Ansems AMM,
Eggels PG et al. Environmental life cycle assessment of products:
guide and backgrounds. Leiden (Netherlands): CML Leiden Uni-
versity, 1992.
[5] Goedkoop M. The eco indicator 95. Final Report, National Reuse
of Waste Research Programme. Report 9523. Amersfoort
(Netherlands), 1995.