sustainable e waste legislation and …s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/ advisory services in...

SUSTAINABLE E-WASTE LEGISLATION AND SOCIAL

RESPONSIBILITY IN INDIA:

OPPORTUNITIES AND LIMITATIONS

Master’s Thesis

submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements

for the degree of

Master of Arts (M.A.)

Awarded by the Philosophical Faculty of

Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg i.Br. (Germany)

and the

University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban (South Africa)

Submitted by

Sarah Marie Nischalke

from Hamburg (Germany)

Winter Semester 2007/08

Social Sciences

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project could not have taken place without the extraordinary engagement and helpfulness of

many people. First, I would like to express my gratitude to my three supervisors in India,

Germany and South Africa. My sincere thanks go to Ulrike Killguss of GTZ-ASEM India for

lending an ear to me at anytime, showing the willingness to solve any problem in order to support

a successful project. Furthermore, my gratitude extends to my supervisor in Germany, HD. Dr.

Christoph Dittrich, for keeping me grounded and motivated, as well as for encouraging my

methodological and academic skills during the period of writing. I would also like to thank Dr.

Harald Witt, South Africa, for awakening an old passion for environmental (theory) issues,

backing me up with his expertise in this regard. Both of them revived the existence of devoted

professors at university.

Furthermore, I would like to thank Ashish Chaturvedi of GTZ-ASEM for his inspiring intellectual

contributions to this project and Rachna Arora for her background information. Vinnie Mehta of

MAIT contributed with his eternal optimism and engagement and Satish Sinha, of Toxics Link,

with his exceptional perspective on environmentalism in India. Moreover, I want to thank Viraf

Mehta of PIC for his incredibly interesting narratives on the historical development of CSR in

India and Mr. Parthasarathy of E-Parisaraa, in tandem with Henning Schreiber of CIM and Mr.

Kumar of Ash Recyclers, for taking several hours and a lot of patience to show me around their

plants and explain technological recycling processes to a ‘social-scientific’ mind. All in all, I

thank GTZ-ASEM in Delhi for supporting me in financial and organizational terms and GTZ in

Bangalore for assisting my visits to the informal sector. Furthermore, I am grateful to Anna Mayr,

Ravi Baghel and Ingo Wagler for fruitful (societal) debates and input for my thesis as well as Eva

Helmeth for providing her ‘research expertise’ and advising me with regard to formalities.

Thanks also to Sonia Duhan, intern at GTZ, for accompanying me through all the ups and downs

of the project, providing chai and chole puri at any time to revitalize my energies and my special

thanks to Rebecca Sonchek for spending her nights proofreading this paper. Last but not least, I

thank all my interviewees who took the time and were committed to meeting me.

CONTENT

INTRODUCTION…..……..……………………………………….................. 7

I. ELECTRONIC WASTE…..…………………………………….................. 10

1. ‘Global’ electronics and the problem of e-waste..………..……..……… 10 2. Current ‘Northern’ solutions………….. ………………………………. 14 3. India as digital dumping ground……………………………………….. 29 4. Indian framework ………………………………………………..…….. 24

4.1. Political, societal and economic snapshot…………………………. 25 4.2. Indian environmental /e-waste regulations……………….……….. 26

II. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHODS…………................... 31

1. Methodological framework...…………………………………................. 31 2. Sampling……………………………..……………………….................. 31 3. Data collection………….....………………………………….................. 32

3.1. Participant observation…………………………….......................... 33 3.2. Questionnaires……………………………….……………………... 34 3.3. Structured and semi-structured interviews…………………………. 34 3.4. Secondary sources: literature and websites...………………………. 35

4. Analysis of collected data....…………………………………................... 35

III. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK………………………………................ 38

1. Ecological modernization…..…………………………………................ 38 2. Industrial ecology………......…………………………………................ 51 3. Environmental justice…….....…………………………………............... 53

IV. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF THE EMPIRICAL STUDY................. 58

1. Government bodies……..…..…………………………………................ 58 2. Industry associations………..…………………………………................ 63 3. Manufacturers and importers.…………………………………................ 69 4. NGOs and formal recyclers..…………………………………................. 75 5. Analysis……………………..…………………………………................ 82

CONCLUSION……………..…..……………………………………................. 93

REFERENCES……………..…..……………………………………................. 100

APPENDICES…………………..……………………………………................. 109

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Growth in the number of personal computers…..……..………….. 10

Figure 2: Categories of e-waste……………………………………………… 12

Figure 3: Composition of WEEE..…………………………………………… 14

Figure 4: The e-waste scenario in India………………..…………………….. 20

Figure 5: E-waste trade chain in India……...…………………..……………. 22

LIST OF APPENDICES

I. Key players in Indian e-waste activities.………………....……..…………. 109

II. Health and environmental impacts of e-waste processing.……..…………. 111

III. Questionnaire on e-waste management (industry)……...….…………….. 113

IV. Results of industry questionnaire on e-waste management...........………. 115

V. Group specific interview guidelines……………………...….……………. 119

VI. Visual Snapshot of e-waste in India........…………………..…………….. 123

VII. Greenpeace Green Electronics Guide….......….……...………..………… 124

GLOSSARY

AC Air Conditioner ARF Advanced Recycling Fee ASEM Advisory Services in Environmental Management ASK Association for Stimulating Know How BAN Basel Action Network BFR Brominated Flame Retardants BPO Business Process Outsourcing B2B Business to Business B2C Business to Consumer CDM Clean Development Mechanism CEAMA Consumer Electronics and Appliances Manufacturers Association CPCB Central Pollution Control Board CRT Cathode Ray Tube CSR Corporate Social Responsibility DIT Department of Information Technology DPCC Delhi Pollution Control Committee DU Delhi University DVD Digital Video Disc EC European Commission ELCINA Electronic Industries Association of India EMPA Eidgenoessische Materialpruefungs- und Forschungsanstalt EMS Electronics Manufacturing Services EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPCG Export Promotion Capital Goods EPR Extended Producer Responsibility EU European Union e-waste Electronic waste Exim Export-Import GTZ Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit HAWA Hazardous Waste Management HP Hewlett Packard ICT Information and Communications Technology IIT Indian Institute of Technology IMPEL Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law IPTS Institute for Prospective Technological Studies IT Information Technology JNU Jawaharlal Nehru University KSPCB Karnataka State Pollution Control Board LCA Life Cycle Analysis LDC Less Developed Countries LTD Limited Company MAIT Manufacturers’ Association for Information Technology MFA Material Flow Analysis MNC Multinational Corporation

MoEF Ministry of Environment and Forests MoIC Ministry of Information and Communications MRP Maximum Retail Price NGO Non-Governmental Organization NCR National Capital Region NIC Newly industrialized country NL The Netherlands ODMS Original Design Manufacturer OEMS Original Equipment Manufacturer OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon PC Personal Computer PCB Printed Circuit Board PR Public Relations PRO Producer Responsibility Organization PVC Polyvinylchlorid R&D Research & Development RoHS Restriction of certain Hazardous Substances SENS Stiftung Entsorgung Schweiz SME Small and Medium Enterprise SPCB State Pollution Control Board SWICO Schweizerischer Wirtschaftsverband der Informations-,

Kommunikations- und Organisationstechnik TEMA Telecom Equipment Manufacturing Association TERI The Energy and Resources Institute TV Television UK United Kingdom UNEP United Nations Development Program UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UPS Uninterruptible Power Supply/Source US The United States WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment

Introduction – Sustainable e-waste legislation and social responsibility in India 7

INTRODUCTION Setting the scene: If you walk into an electronic store of the shopping malls in Gurgaon, close to

New Delhi, you will find yourself confronted with a blinking world full of colourful high-

resolution pictures on 1.5 m plasma TV flat screens; vibrating bass sounds coming out of home

theatre systems accompanied by cool air from buzzing high tech weather management air

conditioning systems trying to cool down your excitement. Small brand signs are attached to the

products pointing out the ‘beauty of technology’, uniting ‘sense and simplicity’, representing a

‘global technology revolution’ while ‘committed to people, committed to the future’. Searching

for a fancy ‘laptop’ of the newest design? Of course it is playing DVDs and compatible with the

newest software systems as well as offering wireless access to the Internet in order to connect you

to the rest of the world. The choice is yours! Want to buy a new mobile, which is at the same time

MP3-player, camera and GPS? You will be benefiting from several decades of human

technological progress. This is the place for you! You go back home with the newest technology

in your bag, probably manufactured and assembled in different parts of the world. What do you

do with your old PC, mobile or camera? Where will it end up now that its end-of-life is close?

Changing the scene: same city – same product - different quarter - contrary picture! Walking

through the dark alleys of Mandoli at the North-Western periphery of New Delhi, you reach the

backyards of a residential area. Two small boys and one middle-aged woman are sitting in the

doorway of a ‘workshop’ in between tremendous piles of printed circuit boards and other

electronic components putting one after the other into an old metal pot with acid solution inside.

Afterwards, they manually heat them on a small-sized gas stove on the ground in order to be able

to remove components. The small amounts of precious metals they extract in this manner are

earning their livelihood of 50 to 150 Rupees (1-3 Euro) per day depending on the amount of

material. Because their occupational practices are very unhealthy, their average life expectancy is

around 40 years old (EMPA et al. 2007).

This Master thesis is examining high tech industries’ green and clean image in India and

elaborating on starting points to solve India’s e-waste problem. It is of high societal and

environmental relevance, as it is introducing the global problem of growing e-waste and

hazardous waste movements, especially into Asia (chapter I). Furthermore, it is discussing both

European and other foreign legislative and practical solutions to electronic waste recycling and


discussing in detail the Indian legislative, socio-political and cultural contexts of e-waste, along

with a regard towards constructive solutions for industry and government engagement in e-waste.

Moreover, this thesis can be characterized as highly application-oriented as it is backed up by

empirical research addressing many involved stakeholders such as government, industry

associations, electronics manufacturers and importers as well as NGOs and formal/(informal)

recyclers. It is documenting and analyzing their divergent perceptions, suggestions and

apprehensions regarding electronic waste management in order to draw conclusions about future

perspectives in India.

Concerning the field of study, the empirical research focused mainly on New Delhi and

Bangalore. The former one is not only an informal e-waste hub but also the place where policies

are made and implemented and head offices of electronics industry, associations and NGOs are

located. While Bangalore offered, as the information technology (IT) metropolis, not only the

opportunity to interview further companies, it also enabled me an easier entrance for observing

both the informal sector and two out of three formal recyclers in India. Within the second chapter,

the methods used in order to grasp and analyze this knowledge are introduced in more detail.

Thus, the whole Master research project should be regarded as theory-governed as the topic is not

treated with isolation from theory but examined within the conceptual framework of ecological

modernization and confronted by the concept of environmental justice. Environmental politics

including concepts such as extended producer responsibility or live cycle assessment as well as

the whole field of corporate social responsibility are usually linked to post-industrial societies and

therefore need to be regarded carefully in the Indian context. Most activities concerning e-waste

are based on ideas originated in ecological modernization, which assumes compatibility of

economic growth and improvement of environmental performance in industrial countries; this

goes rather under-researched in developing countries (Fisher and Freudenburg 2001:704).

Therefore, this research project is attempting to contribute through the provision of further

research data; to define conditions and barriers to ecological modernization in India, in the case

of e-waste, via searching for support to proof or disprove the hypothesis: the impact of an e-waste

regulation/management system is very limited at this stage of India’s development and within its

current economic, social and cultural framework. At the same time upcoming policy initiatives

or voluntary activities are likely to have negative effects on the recyclers, whom represent one of


the poorest segments of society, whom also are loosing a livelihood, which makes this an issue of

environmental injustice on the micro level. Therefore, the third chapter is giving important

insights into ecological modernization discourse and the concepts of industrial ecology as well as

environmental justice. While it critically discusses various perspectives of proponents and

opponents of ecologically-modern strategies, it is trying to avoid black and white thinking.

Problem-orientation is last but not least one major objective of this paper. By uniting the

empirical data into the conceptual framework it is trying to tackle the problem of e-waste

management and focus as well in referring all chapters/subchapters to this one issue, while also

looking for constructive solutions and opportunities. Chapter four is presenting the detailed

results of the empirical research in accordance to the stakeholder-group and searching for

responses to questions such as what perceptions do all stakeholders have on the released e-waste

guidelines (in 2007 by the Ministry of environment and forests - MoEF) and in tackling the issue

in general? Is the industry willing to contribute by investing in organization, ‘take back’,

recycling and redesign, as well as education which would reflect its acceptance of its

responsibility? What are government’s objectives and concerns on the national and state level?

Hence what kind of activities are they into and planning; how do they attempt to enforce it and

control its implementation, and how do they plan to include the informal sector? Industry

associations and NGOs have served as communication channels of industry and civil society,

backing up and reshaping the argument by presenting their expertise in this topic. This enabled

me to observe the issue in a prismatic way. One question which was important to be asked to all

stakeholders was how they perceive their role and responsibility in e-waste management. All in

all, I want to give a future perspective for the e-waste scenario and present some examples of the

‘best practice’ towards an efficient e-waste management system. The conceptual framework is

helping in this regard as it helps in defining conditions and provides ideas on what could make an

ecologically-modern approach work in this context. Nevertheless, as this paper is concerned with

environmental issues, it addresses itself with the task of critically reflecting upon such an

approach which has major deficits. Environmental justice is just indicating one. The conclusion

will not only serve the purpose of critical reflection on the project as such and the topic in

particular, but also provides a future perspective along with a reflection on the issue in a global

context.

Chapter I: Electronic waste – 1. ‘Global’ electronics and the problem of e-waste 10

I. ELECTRONIC WASTE

As an introduction, the following chapters are elaborating on the global growth in electronics and

the corresponding problem of electronic waste. Furthermore, solutions of the ‘North’ are

presented and the Indian e-waste scenario is addressed in detail including a socio-political

snapshot and the legislative framework of India.

1. ‘Global’ electronics and the problem of e-waste

In the 21st Century electronics and other high tech devices became a symbol for progress and

modernity. They are an indicator to measure a country’s state of development and its inclusion

into globalization, as well as its capability to take part in the ‘clean’ international information

technology community. As Grossman (2006:4) puts it:

The information Age. Cyberspace. The images are clean and lean. They offer a vision of business streamlined by smart machines and high-speed telecommunications and suggest that the proliferation of e-commerce and dot-coms will make the belching smokestacks, filthy effluent, and slag heaps of the Industrial Revolution relics of the past. With this in mind communities everywhere have welcomed high technology under the banner of ‘clean industry’, and as an alternative to traditional manufacturing and traditional exploitation of natural resources.

How the world’s fastest and largest manufacturing industry is growing is shown in figure 1. The

left side compares PC growth per

capita within a period of seven years

in various countries. This is

interesting because all of these

countries are industrializing or

developing economies. Zimbabwe

and China are leading with more than

2000 percent, followed by Sri Lanka

and India, then the Russian

Federation and Kenya with more than

1000 percent. The growth rates of

Figure1: Growth in the Number of personal computers (Schwarzer 2005)

Chapter I: Electronic waste – 1. ‘Global’ electronics and the problem of e-waste

11

course are so tremendous because those countries started from a very small base. In contrast, the

right side of the table visualizes the comparison of numbers of PCs per 1000 habitants in the

OECD countries. While India accounts only for 22 per 1000 (MAIT 2007, not included in the

table), developed economies such as the US, Switzerland and Sweden as well as Singapore cross

600 followed by Luxembourg, Denmark, Australia, Korean Republic, Norway and Bermuda with

more than 500 and the other Scandinavian countries as well as Canada and the Netherlands

exceeding 400 per 1000 inhabitants in 2002. Hence, most of the electronics equipment still is

generated by developed countries but in the near future a lot of material will be used in

industrializing and developing countries also.

Technology advancement and a large reduction in production costs enabled this kind of growth

rates. In tandem with increased obsolescence rates, the number of PCs worldwide was close to a

billion in 2005, while it was around 100 million in 1990 (Macaulay et al. 2003). This is the dirty

side to the excessively celebrated ‘high gloss’ image and the ideal value of high tech. In our era

of information technology and within, what Castells (2000) calls, “network society”, not only are

time and space shrinking, due to growth in information technology and globalization; but in

tandem with growing demand and differentiated consumer choice, related to intensified

marketing, products are becoming obsolete incredibly fast. This is especially true for the

electronic industry. Once these electronics become obsolete they become waste at some point.

This kind of waste is called ‘electronic waste’, ‘e-waste’ or ‘Waste from Electrical and Electronic

Equipment’ (WEEE) which describes a “collective terminology for the entire stream of obsolete,

broken or irreparable electronic or electrical appliances” (Toxics Link 2003b:3). This includes

computers, entertainment electronics, mobile phones or refrigerators that have been discarded by

their original users. While a generally accepted definition of ‘electronic waste’ does not exist

(Widmer et. al. 2005:3) and its application as illustrated in figure 2 is rather wide, the term relates

in most cases to electronic products that were used for data processing, telecommunications, or

entertainment in individual households or public and private sector enterprises.


12

Categories of e-waste

• Large Household Appliances: Washing machines,

dryers, refrigerators, air conditioners, etc.

• Small Household Appliances: Vacuum cleaners, coffee machines, iron, toasters, etc.

• Office, Information and Communication equipment: PCs, laptops, mobiles, telephones, fax machines, copiers, printers etc.

• Lighting equipment: fluorescent tubes, sodium lamps etc. (exception (halogen) bulbs

• Electric and electronic tools: drills, electric saws, sewing machines, lawn mowers etc. (except large stationary tools/machines)

• Toys, Leisure, Sports and Recreational Equipment: Electrical train sets, coin slot machines, treadmills, etc.

• Medical Instruments and Equipment

• Surveillance and Control Equipment

• Automatic Issuing Machines Source: Directive 2002/96/EC of European Parliament and of the Council (2003)

Even though these electronic goods are classified as ‘waste’, they actually are secondary

resources due to their potential for being reused and become a source of livelihood for the rural or

urban poor in developing counties

(Toxics Link 2003b:3). Waste

material often is supplying a whole

informal industry branch with

material for retailing, repairing,

recycling or recovering. Electronic

products ranging from a tube light to

a refrigerator, a DVD player to a

mother board, chips or processors all

contain valuable material. However,

some wastes do contain more

valuable material than others. A

computer, for example, can contain

up to 60 percent valuable metals

such as steel, aluminum or copper as

well as silver, gold and palladium,

which make it an attractive business (Widmer et al. 2005:1).

The profitability of recycling this waste material, along with the high costs and the amount of

labor needed, in developed countries, to handle the waste appropriately, is resulting in a global

transboundary trade of e-waste. The report (2004) of the European Network for the

Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law (Impel) showed that 48 percent of waste

exports found in 17 European seaports were illegal. Often it is difficult for authorities to tell

during checks at a first glance what material is obsolete and what is reusable. German, Dutch and

British enforcement bodies found large quantities of monitors, cameras, cables or CRTs which

were obsolete and waiting for export.

According to Schwarzer et al. (2005) the United States’ waste burden, for example, is comprised

of 500 million computers which became obsolete between 1997 and 2007 as well as 130 million

Figure 2: Categories of e-waste


13

mobiles which were discarded by 2005. Of the 2.6 Million tons of e-waste generated in the US

(2005), it is estimated that 50 to 80 percent of collected waste for recycling is exported. This

amount of exported waste is contributing to the estimated 80 percent of e-waste worldwide which

is transferred to Asia (BAN 2004:1). In the case of the US, who has not ratified the Basel

Convention (details in chapter I.4), exporting e-waste is not even illegal. However, waste is not

only coming from the US into India, China and Pakistan but also from Europe, Japan and

Australia via stretching legislation (see chapter I.3). The reason for the exports was indicated by

the environmental protection agency, which calculated that it is ten times cheaper to export the

waste from Western countries than to recycle it (Electronics Take Back Coalition 2005).

One problem is that a lot of material which is considered obsolete in industrialized countries can

still be used for a few years in developing countries (Schwarzer et al. 2005). For example the PC

model 4861 or older is still very common and useful in India, while is already an artifact in

industrialized countries (Toxics Link 2007:13). However, reuse of material means just postponing

its disposal, and in its final use adding to the existing waste stream in the respective country,

while developed economies are relieved of it’s waste burden. Recycling electronics does not

describe one single process, but comprises of many steps such as de-manufacturing, dismantling,

shredding and burning (or exporting). Thus, modern recycling facilities are able to recover around

80 percent of the material, while 15 percent can be burnt and five percent need to be land-filled

afterwards. However, there is not sufficient sophisticated technology in use in industrialized

countries as it is very cost-intensive (Schwarzer et al. 2005).

All in all, the global amount of e-waste generated per annum is estimated between 20 and 50

million tons (Williams 2005) and solely obsolete computers have contributed between 1994 and

2004, approximately 2.872.000 tons of plastic, 718.000 tons of lead, 1363 tons of cadmium and

287 tons of Mercury according to data of Puckett and Smith (2002:8) all adding to the

environmental burden.

1 The 486 is a CPU-generation developed by Intel in 1989, dominating the PC market between 1992 and 1995 (CPU World n.d.).

Chapter I: Electronic waste – 3. India as digital dumping ground 14

E-waste is not only composed of PCs or IT technology. As indicated in figure 3, it comprises 28

percent of domestic appliances,

including refrigerators, 22 percent

entertainment electronics, 14 percent

IT and telecommunication equipment,

seven percent small house-holds

appliances and tools, 20 percent

surveillance and control instruments,

six percent printing and calculation

devices and three percent medical

equipment (Bilitewski 2006:22). Figure 3: Composition of e-waste

As noted above, most electronic goods are composed of plastics, glass and valuable metals. Old

PCs, for example contain ca. four grammes of gold although never versions would only contain

one gramme. It is estimated that copper from one ton of e-waste can be sold for 500 Euro at

current world market prices. However, computers do not only contain valuable material, but,

according to Widmer et al. (2005) also comprise of more than 1000 different substances such as

lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, selenium, hexavalent chromium and flame retardants resulting

in hazardous emissions when processed inappropriately. Those emissions can cause brain

damage, cancer, allergic reactions and so on. While those heavy metals account for a high

percentage of contaminates in landfills in some western countries (e.g. 70 percent in the US), e-

waste is, according to Greenpeace surveys (2005) in India and China, not ending up in landfills

due to it’s value as a secondary source (Puckett et al. 2002:9). Instead it is contaminating soil,

water and air as well as posing a threat to the health of recyclers during rudimentary recycling

processes (EMPA 2006).

2. Current ‘Northern solutions’

All European e-waste management systems give inspiration about different ways and schemes to

handle the electronic waste issue and could be useful examples for realizing a sustainable e-waste

management system in India. Due to specific economic, social and cultural conditions, a 1-to-1

solution should be avoided as it needs to be adapted to the local context. For example, consumers

28%

22%14%

7%

20%

6% 3%

Domestic appliancesincl. fridges

entertainmentelectronics

IT andtelecommunicationequipment

Small householdappliances and tools

Surveilance andcontrol instruments

Printing and

calculation devicesSource: Bilitewski 2006

Chapter I: Electronic waste – 2. Current ‘Northern’ solutions

15

do pay for recycling in Europe, while Indian customers can still make money selling their

obsolete product to the recycler. Those features need to be taken into account in order to establish

an ‘e-waste management system’ or ‘clean e-waste channel’. Therefore actors of the Indo-

German-Swiss e-waste initiative in cooperation with the NGO Toxics Link and the industry

association MAIT have developed one joint concept on the basis of European examples which is

describing an e-waste trade chain of formalized actors regulated in accordance to occupational

health and environmental standards.

While Switzerland is representing the pioneer in the field of e-waste recycling, since it has

legislation and a functioning e-waste scheme since 1993 (initiated by the IT industry), as well as

an institutionalized advanced recycling fee (ARF) (see also I.2:20), the EU-member states, are

still in progress of installing new recycling models in order to comply with the ‘Directive on the

restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment’

(RoHS) and the ‘Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment’ (WEEE) (European

law since 2003). Both of which aim at setting collection, recycling and recovery targets for all

types of electrical goods as well as making sure that product lines or components containing

chemicals like mercury, cadmium, chromium, lead are prohibited on the European market and

already eliminated during production processes (Directive 2002/95/EC and Directive

2002/96/EC). Hence, all EU countries have passed or are in process of passing regulations, so

that products produced in India or other industrializing countries for the European market have to

comply with these standards too. The first mentioned Directive is following an end-of-pipe

approach while the second one relates to production processes. Widmer (in ELCINA annual

report 2006:I.5) is arguing that “because of the significance of the European market for the

electrical and electronics industry, the Directive has achieved global significance and can be said

to have established a new global standard to the phase-out of toxic substances and recyclability of

WEEE” and serves therefore as an incentive to producers to consider redesign and general end-

of-life issues. The IPTS-Report (2006:6) published by the European Commission (author M.

Savage) states that the

Key aims of the WEEE Directive are thus to: Reduce WEEE disposal to landfill; provide for a free producer take-back scheme for consumers of end-of-life equipment; improve product design with a view to both preventing WEEE and to increase its recoverability, reusability and/or recyclability; achieve targets for recovery, reuse and recycling of different classes of WEEE; provide for the


16

establishment of collection facilities and separate collection systems of WEEE from private households as well as provide for the establishment and financing of systems for the recovery and treatment of WEEE, by producers including provisions for placing financial guarantees on new products placed on the market.

Since 2005 there is also a further ‘Directive for the setting of Eco-design Requirements for

Energy Using Products’ which is supposed to have the effect of minimising life-cycle impacts of

electronic waste (Directive 2005/32/EC). The decisions on measures of a product-to-product base

are still in process. Even though it is mainly concerned with energy performance and potential

labeling of products, the whole Directive is giving priority towards voluntarily imposed measures

of industry to regulation if more efficient.

Hence, most countries are transferring the responsibility to the manufacturers as well as

importers. Switzerland, for example, has two Producer Responsibility Organizations (SWICO

and SENS) responsible for different categories of generators, namely households or companies.

The PRO is also responsible for financing the non-profitable part of electronic waste and

management of recycling. Moreover, the corresponding legislative document also supports

consumer’s awareness by stating that consumers do have to return the products after end-of-life

to the producers and retailers who need to comply with this take-back policy. Nevertheless, the

producer is in the end responsible for proper disposal (Sinha et al. 2005:3).

All in all, there are some interesting common features of the e-waste management systems in the

European Union. Some pioneer countries such as the Netherlands or Sweden already introduced

systems before the Directives came into place (Savage 2006:IV). Almost all schemes are run by

non-profit Producer Responsibility Organizations (PRO), usually owned by one or more industry

associations. There are three main channels of e-waste collection, namely municipal sites,

producer ‘take back’ and retail ‘take back’ (Savage 2006:VIII). A combination of local

authorities’ facilities for private disposal and new-for-old-trade at purchase is the common

practice but retailer participation normally does not exceed 30 percent of the volume. Rather ‘take

back’2 of producers applies for large scale commercial waste and either operates on a new-for-old

2 At purchase of new office equipment retailer or producer organize collection and recycling of the obsolete material or assign the PRO to do so. Individual customers can either take a product back to the retailer at purchase of a new one or take it to collection points of the municipalities.


17

basis, or can also be collected by the PRO for a fee, or individually/collectively delivered to third

parties in order to be recycled. Not only recycling, but also treatment and transport are usually

outsourced to multiple contractors to prevent monopolistic structures. Those who went through

tendering, by picking recyclers and transport firms often managed to reduce costs. Concerning a

fee there are several models practiced within the EU (MacGibbon and Zwimpfer 2006:54ff.). The

visible fee, for example, collects a fee from producers, which includes orphan3, historic and

future waste in accordance to the number of products put in the market. The fee is imposed on the

consumer at purchase and covers recycling of the individual product as well as recycling of

historic, orphan or future waste, by feeding a reserve fund which covers liabilities. While this

management system is used by the Netherlands4, Belgium and Norway, Switzerland is using the

mentioned ARF, which only covers costs of the current system (Savage 2006:VII).

MacGibbon and Zwimpfer (2006:54ff.) are emphasizing that the ARF is also considered a visible

fee, charged of the producer and imposed on the consumer at purchase. Surpluses are returned

and fee levels adapted to actual levels of amount of recyclable material. Sweden is using two

systems for different groups of products. One is an invisible fee charged from producers and

absorbed into the product price. This system is also covering current waste only. The second part

of the operating system is covering the ICT sector and uses the current market share/actual costs

as base. Costs of certain product recycling are calculated and fees, according to the market share,

apportioned. Costs are also absorbed by the product price (MacGibbon and Zwimpfer

2006:54ff.). Savage (2006:IX) is also illustrating that there are differences between the ‘brown’

and ‘white’ goods5 sector and ICT sector depending on whether they are facing the challenge of

huge amounts of historic waste and orphan waste. Hence, especially the ‘white’ goods sector is in

favour of visible fee solutions as in Belgium (Recupel) and the Netherlands (NVMP). In contrast

the ICT sector favours market share solutions. El Retur (Norway) and El Kretsen (Sweden) have,

as mentioned, a split system to accommodate both sides.

3 ‘Orphan waste’ means waste produced by producers who are not participating in the waste management schemes. 4 The Netherlands are also using two systems by different providers: NVMP is a visible fee scheme including historical waste while ICT Mileu is based on market share calculations. 5 Brown goods are classically referred to as small household electrical entertainment appliances such as TVs, camcorders, telephones etc., while white goods are major household appliances such as air conditioners, dishwashers, refrigerators, stoves, etc.


18

Since the introduction of the Directives in Europe, as well as policy attempts in Japan, Taiwan or

certain states in the US, such as California or Maine, the countries/states have to manage and

organize not only the collection and recycling systems but also the control and the waste

treatment-logistics. Meanwhile producers or manufacturers, sellers and resellers of own-brand

equipment, and importers and exporters finance jointly; collection, treatment, recovery and

environmentally sound disposal processes of WEEE (ELCINA annual report 2006). Therefore,

the producers are registered and install a collective or individual return-collection scheme.

Furthermore, retailers and distributors provide free ‘take back’ facilities for private customers and

are obliged to deliver collected e-waste to designated facilities free of charge. The systems differ

with diverse responsibilities of local authorities. Even though some do provide collection

(points); problems of collection targets, product exemptions and wide variations in penalty

clauses are not tackled yet. Most systems are still very young and not yet matured. Furthermore,

the standards and definition vary a lot so that comparisons become difficult. The collection

targets of four kg/per capita set by the Directive are not in all countries met by the collection

performance (Savage 2006).

In general the payment of a fee at purchase within one European country is problematic as the

disposal can take place in another member state. Furthermore, the jurisdiction in the case of

second hand goods trade is not clear yet. If products are exported to developing countries which

do not have appropriate facilities the issue becomes even more serious (Federal Ministry for

Economic Cooperation and Development et al. 2007).

Looking into systems outside of Europe, for example, like Japan, other approaches appear. Its

WEEE law exists since 1998 and obliges industry to establish recovery and recycling schemes for

used products. While end-user fees are allowed to finance the system, collection is mostly done

by municipalities and retailers. In contrast, transport is outsourced. Furthermore, a system of new-

for-old is practiced in Japan, which means that the retailer needs to take a similar or formerly sold

product back at purchase. In contrast to the European systems front-end-fees are not used but

end-of-life fees are used to cover the treatment and disposal. The retailer charges this fee and

transfers the money to one of two industry consortia which are also running operating treatment


19

centres. The Japanese fees are slightly more expensive than the European ones (Savage

2006:16ff.).

3. India as digital dumping ground

The growing IT/consumer electronics sector is one of India’s trademarks with growth rates of 42

percent between 1995 and 2000 (Toxics Link 2003) and the market is still not saturated.6 While

the world average growth of PC users between 1993 and 2000 was 181 percent, in India it was

604 percent (LRD 2005). According to MAIT (2007) the penetration rate is more than 22 PCs per

1.000 people in 2007 compared to 6.3 in 2001 or 0.7 in 1996. The obsolescence rate of PCs is

now one in every two or three years and the overall number of obsolete computers coming from

the public and private sector as well as households amount to 1.38 million per year.

Manufacturers and assemblers are adding to that by producing around 1.050 t of electronic scrap

per year (Toxics Link 2003a:5). Large amounts of e-waste are entering India via Chennai and

Mumbai ports making its way to Delhi from there. The e-waste ending up in Delhi accounts for

10.000 to 12.000 metric tonnes per year and could increase to 20.000 by 2012. New Delhi’s

recycling sector alone employs 25.000 people (Jain 2006) and is growing in tandem with the

amounts of obsolete material. It is not only in New Delhi that e-waste is recycled as figure 4

indicates. Other hubs exist, in particular in Mumbai, where estimates vary between 12.000 and

16.000 tons per annum; followed by Chennai, Bangalore and Kolkata which account for at least

4.000 to 5.000 tons. Some organizations even estimate around 9.000 (Toxics Link 2008).

Ahmadabad receives and generates close to 4.000 tons, while smaller hubs as Hyderabad and

Pune account for 2.000 to 3.000 and Surat and Nagpur 1.500 to 2.000 tons (Jain 2006). The map

shows that e-waste is spread and generated all over India and large amounts are coming into India

via the ports of Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata, especially from the US and Europe, but also from

Australia and Japan. Singapore and Dubai serve as ports of transhipment. Toxics Link (2003b:14)

was undertaking some research on imports into Chennai and could trace back e-waste coming

from the US, Malaysia, Singapore and the Middle East as well as one container coming from

Belgium within the period of one year. Customs records proofed that between January 2003 and

July 2004 at least five imports came from the US, accounting for 65.500 metric tones; one from

6 In accordance to the association of consumer electronics (CEAMA), their growth rate is only 13-15 percent (Interview CEAMA 2007).

Chapter I: Electronic waste – 3. India as digital dumping ground 20

Figure 4: The E-waste Scenario in India

Chapter I: Electronic waste – 3. India as digital dumping ground

21

Belgium, accounting for 45.500 metric tones; while the other seven of 79.800 metric tones were

non-traceable (Toxics Link 2003b:6). Only five to ten percent of material fit with what was

quoted, in the other cases legislative loopholes were tried to be used. Which means e-waste is

entering India as ‘donations’ to non profit organizations, as ‘second hand electronic equipment’

which must be younger than ten years (actually requiring a license) or ‘mixed metal scrap’ as

well as ‘mixed cable scrap’. In accordance to India’s foreign trade policy (Directorate General of

Foreign Trade 2002):

Second hand personal computers (PCs)/laptops are not permitted for imports under EPCG scheme under the provisions of para 5.1 of the Exim Policy, even for service providers. Second-hand photocopier machines, air conditioners, diesel generating sets, et cetera can also not be imported under EPCG Scheme under the provisions of Para 5.1 of Exim Policy even if these are less than ten years old.

However, most junk computers are imported under the 74th chapter (‘Lead-in wire’) or the 85th

(‘insulators, actuators and contacts’) chapter of the Indian Custom Tariff Act 1975 (Toxics Link

2004:11).

The quantity of indigenous e-waste in developing or transition countries is still comparably small

(below 1 kg per head per year). But populous countries such as China or India are producing

more and more e-waste (Streicher-Porte et al. 2005). Around 146000 tons of WEEE annually are

generated in India alone (Jain 2006, see also Toxics Link 2007:5). Government institutions and

the public and private sector are the major contributors of approximately 70 percent of the

amount. Manufacturers of components and assemblers and individual households are additional

major sources of e-waste generation, though it is difficult to capture exact amounts and numbers

of these contributors (EMPA et al. 2007). Most generators do not control the processing of their

waste as it is in the hand of the collectors, while municipalities are lacking specific fundamental

law and implementing bodies as well as measures to channel e-waste recycling (Toxics Link

2008). However, illegal imports of e-waste still account for most of the material processed in

India. For example, Toxics Link revealed that around 70 percent of e-waste ending up in New

Delhi’s recycling sector is comprised of exported or dumped waste by developed countries

(Wankhade 2004) which are making use of legislative loopholes discussed in more detail in

chapter I.4.


22

The large amount of imported e-waste as well as domestically generated material is piling up in

the periphery of large cities in indus- Figure 5: E-waste trade chain in India

trializing countries like India, which

have on the one side a capacious

cheap labour potential within the

‘informal sector’; as well as lax

legislation and implementation of

import restrictions and controls, or

occupational health and environ-

mental standards. However, the

recycling process itself requires

established safety standards and

sophisticated technology (Haldar

and Madari 2005:3).

The whole system is following patterns of logic others than those of e-waste management in the

‘North’. While consumers in Switzerland or Japan pay fees for the recycling of obsolete

electronics and appliances, in India you still get paid an amount of money for your resource. As

indicated in figure 5, kabadiwallas (small scale collectors) as well as large scale collectors sort

the material and sell it to second hand dealers/scrap dealers who either sell the good further to

customers, or transfer it into the recycling sector.7

In this context it needs to be emphasized that there exists a unique functioning recycling scheme

in India with a long tradition which is encouraged by nothing else than profit instead of

environmental or social features. There exists a crucial opportunity for business in the

‘unorganized’ sector taking place mainly in backyard workshops, although. as indicated in figure

5 they are intrinsically tied into what is usually referred to as the formal sector (Toxics Link

7 The kabadiwallas also sell directly to the recycling sector or the recyclers/dismantlers sell back to the scrap dealer/second-hand dealer.

Source: Jain (2006), design: Sarah Nischalke


23

2003a:5). Hence, a sophisticated network of collectors, traders and recyclers is adding value and

creating jobs at every step (Haldar/Madari 2005:4). Due to the high volume of waste, it exists as

separate recycling industry. Often small entrepreneurs are specialized in e-waste dismantling or

metal recovery, and run workshops where employees are employed to recycle materials such as

glass or plastics, or even recover precious metals, namely gold or copper, which is often fed back

into the industry and used again as a resource by end users (Jain 2006).

A major problem in the case of electronics is that the recycling methods are extremely

rudimentary as well as resource inefficient. During the recycling processes toxic substances are

likely to come out contaminating the environment and harming the health of recycling workers.

Material recovery operations are taking place in a clandestine manner in small clusters for each

step of the recycling chain. The German technical cooperation, GTZ (2007), has undertaken

studies supported by EMPA, MAIT et al. and is presenting the recycling processes in a somewhat

detailed manner. For the purpose of getting an idea about the circumstances, in the following,

some examples are described:

The storage, which is not appropriate, are facilities of open air backyards, limited in space, where

all the material is laying around. Most dismantling and recycling procedures are done with bare

hands or simple tools, such as screw drivers or hammers to dismantle, for example computer

monitors. During this process of ‘regunning’ and breaking Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTS) hazardous

dust is released and a risk of implosion is endangering health of the workers. They are exposed to

highly toxic substances because the usage of protective gears remains rare. For example,

recovering metals such as copper or aluminium is happening through open burning of PVC wires

which releases brominated and chlorinated dioxins as well as carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAHs) into the work area (soil, water and air) GTZ (2007). Furthermore, printed

circuit boards (PCBs) are de-soldered and chips removed and afterwards burned and/or put into

acid baths to remove gold (contained in plug-ins) or other precious metals resulting possibly in

tin and lead inhalation as well as inhalation of brominated dioxin, beryllium cadmium and

mercury toxicity to workers and residents. Moreover can fumes of acids, chlorine and sulphur

dioxin gases lead to respiratory problems such as pulmonary diseases, respiratory failure, and

Chapter I: Electronic waste – 4. Indian legislation and framework 24

death. Not to forget that workers are earning a bare minimum for their risky work. Only the ash

ends up at landfills because almost all other materials are repaired, resold or recycled (Toxics

Link 2003b:11).8 Even though the fraction of metals in e-waste is up to 60 percent and pollutants

only account for 2.7 percent health and environmental impacts are devastating (Widmer et al.

2005).

Negative consequences of the recycling processes are not only toxics; which are contaminating

air, water and soil (see Greenpeace International 2005), and exploitation of workers, but also the

low recovery rates of material implying a loss of resources. ‘Cherry-picking is also one important

factor of this scenario because only ‘valuable’ waste is taken care of. The rest is likely to be

dumped and poisoning soil, air and water respectively (EMPA et al. 2007).

However, the Karnataka Pollution Control Board has authorized two recyclers in Bangalore,

namely Ash Recyclers and E-Parisaraa Pvt. Ltd. which are noteworthy. E-Parisaraa, a recycling

unit at the periphery of Bangalore is the first scientific e-waste recycling plant and recovers

materials in an eco-friendly manner. The objective is to reduce the amount of waste generated as

well as designing new products. Due to the fact that the costs are higher respectively, and that the

payment for resources to consumers is lower, E-Parisaraa is rarely used by private consumers and

has general problems of receiving enough material (E-Parisaraa Homepage). Major companies,

manufacturers as well as other users of electronic equipment have contracts with those two

recyclers and Trishiraya Recycling India Pvt.Ltd. in Mumbai (Byrde 2006). More facilities will

be needed to implement a coherent scheme and avoid environmental compromises in other areas

(energy usage due to transporting waste to the South etc.). Especially in the Delhi region, as a

major hub of e-waste, due to its porous borders with neighbouring states and its recycling

tradition, facilities are needed (in discussion by the DPCC and Ash Recyclers)

4. Indian legislation and framework

In the following a very brief snapshot on political, societal and economic preconditions for

environmental politics is given. Furthermore, existing environmental law in India is introduced.

8 For further details on processes and health impacts of e-waste recycling see appendix II.

Chapter I: Electronic waste – 4. Indian legislation and framework

25

4.1 Political, societal and economic snapshot

To make conclusions about an e-waste policy and social responsibility, as well as how to tackle

the e-waste problem, it is crucial to get an overview of the preconditions of Indian politics,

society and economy concerning environmental politics. Therefore, I pick a few aspects and basic

facts to elaborate on which are important with regard to environmental politics and can explain

certain behavior or mentalities. India with its 1.09 billion population is facing an ongoing

population growth (or even explosion) of 1.4 percent which means 15.000.000 people per year.

Going hand in hand with urbanization (grade of around 30 percent), is a strong focus on

industrialization (Mann 2005:312ff.). All these factors put large pressure on infrastructure and

natural resources resulting in soil erosion, deforestation, water pollution and land degradation.

The high energy demand seems to become a threat, especially when wealth and prosperity are

growing. In metropolises municipal services are at their limits.

With the Environment Protection Act of 1986 (reaction to Bhopal disaster), the MoEF got created

and India’s involvement with environmental issues increased. However, public health, forests and

wildlife are continuously threatened by the priority of development and economic progress in the

last 20 years (Energy information administration 2007). With alphabetization rates of 60 percent

and a high quality (private) health system which is mostly accessible for the rich, life expectancy

in 2005 was rated at 60.8 for males and 63.1 for females (Statistisches Bundesamt 2006).

Furthermore, policy attempts often get stuck because enforcement and control mechanisms are

missing, or corruption is prevalent in the purchasing of licenses in order to avoid penalties

(Interview with one environmental license holder 2007). In accordance to transparency

international’s CPI (2007), India is sharing its rank, 72 (out of 179), with an average value of 3.5,

which is the same for China, Brazil and Mexico respectively, which shows that corruption is a

matter within institutions and structures in India.

As large segments of society are still affected by poverty, environmental considerations in

politics and private life often play an inferior role. Instead, ecological change/crisis in such a vast

country with its large population is, in accordance to Gadgil and Guha (1995:2), translated into

social conflict often with regard to control and use of natural recourses. Different groups are

competing for dwindling resources. Even though, those conflicts might take place on divergent


26

levels, only conflicts of large dimension in number of people and extension, become public; for

example, the displacement of villages in order to create space for the Narmada river dam in

central India.

Moreover, the thinking is prevalent that the state should become or should (be forced to) become

active and responsible (Interview Toxics Link 2007). One reason might be that Indian economic

policy was bearing some socialist characteristics for several decades (centrally planned economy,

bundling of national resources, public distribution of staple foods etc.). Therefore, the perception

that resources are free and public goods is still very common and difficult to break (Zingel 2007).

Environment and resources often are seen as sources either to earn or to survive. Moreover, the

belief in technological progress and technologies is very strong and linked to development

(activities and improvements) and the thinking that it will solve environmental problems over

time is widespread. To many people, it apparently represents a way out of poverty which would

keep them at the same time innovative and economical as Varma (2005:74) describes it:

A machine is seen as a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is looked at in terms of the uses it can be put to, and not ‘underutilized’ by restricting its functions to the manufacturer’s manual. […] A scarcity economy and shortage of capital have made Indians inventive about improvising on inputs and reducing costs. […] Indians do not take easily to the Western culture of throwing things away. They are uncomfortable with disposables, because they instinctively see things in terms of possible use, not fixed periods of usage.

While the economic growth is located around seven percent per annum (2006 and 2007), the

average income is still low. The estimated average income in 2002, for example, was 1150 R per

month, which equals around 20 Euro. Furthermore, ‘unemployment’ rates rank high and are

difficult to measure as 90 percent of the workforce is still employed in the informal sector which

is characterized by high insecurity (Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland 2006). Hence a lot of

people rely to a large extent on strong community ties within families or/and cultural entities in

order to make a living.

4.2 Indian environmental/e-waste legislation

Most developing and industrializing countries do not have any legislations or systems concerning

e-waste. The penetration of electronic waste for the future will be one of the challenges (besides

many others) of the 21st century as Williams (2005) emphasized. Combined with high population


27

pressure, growing prosperity, increased obsolescence, as well as technological progress; the

amount of waste becomes a threat and the need for regulation and management is inescapable.

Actually, India already has a very extensive environmental legislation. For example, the

‘Pollution Control Acts, Rules and Notifications’ (ed. 2006, into force 1989), contains a

voluminous section on ‘Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling)’, which was notified by

MoEF 1989, under the provisions of the ‘Environment Protection Act’ 1986, and amended in

2000 and 2003 - but the catch is its failing implementation. E-waste for which no legislative

definition exists, falls under the hazardous waste rules.

Furthermore, India has signed up to the Basel Convention in 1990 (entered into force 1992),

which is an international agreement designed to regulate and eliminate movements of hazardous

waste especially from industrialized to industrializing countries (Basel Convention 1989). It aims

to “protect human health and the environment against the adverse effects resulting from the

generation, management, trans-boundary movements and disposal of hazardous and other wastes”

(UNEP 2006). Under the auspices of the UNEP, the agreement was initiated after several

scandals of hazardous waste exports in the late 1980s; it has been ratified by all parties besides

the US, Afghanistan and Haiti. The Convention is based on two principles. Firstly, it uses the idea

of ‘prior informed consent’ which enables its declaration; meaning that shipments without

agreement are illegal as well as shipments to non-parties. All parties should introduce appropriate

national legislation to prevent and punish illegal movements and trade of (hazardous) wastes.

Secondly, it obliges to manage and dispose of (hazardous) wastes in an environmentally-friendly

manner within the countries. This includes, processing waste as close to its generation location as

possible and preventing, as well as minimizing its generation at the source. Furthermore, it

requires a strong implementation and control of the whole chain including generation, transport,

treatment, storage and recovery, reuse, recycling and final disposal (UNEP 2006). In 1995 an

amendment was created, named the Basel Ban, which strives in particular, to ban hazardous

waste exports from industrial to industrializing or developing nations; but it has not entered into

force yet, and the problematic issue remains its implementation.

However, India is obliged to follow the Basel Convention regulations, but still is facing large

amount of harmful e-waste entering the country due to legislative loopholes, such as ‘metal scrap’


28

or ‘second hand’/’end-of-life’ goods which come as donations for hospitals or educational

institutions (Puckett et al. 2002). Even strictly regulated European countries are as mentioned

before regularly accused of scandalous examples which have been documented by media and

environmental organizations. Like, for example, Deutsche Umwelthilfe (2007), which discovered

e-waste waiting for illegal export in the harbour of Hamburg, Germany. Hence, a national

legislation could help to promote ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ (CSR) and ‘Extended

Producer Responsibility’ among the high tech industry and enforce responsibility for the whole

life cycle of its products. Nevertheless, it requires strong enforcement mechanisms to encourage

producers to install recycling schemes as well as to redesign products in an environmentally

sound manner to reduce costs.

However, the existing law, was already amended by ‘Bio-medical waste (Management &

Handling)’ in 1998 and the Batteries (Management and Handling) Rules in 2000/2001. The

medical waste regulations, which regulate disposal and procedures of collection and treatment,

oblige health care facilities to segregate waste at its source, and to ensure secure collection and

transport by setting-up a waste management system (Toxics Link 2002:2). The Bio-medical waste

regulation was celebrated as success while the Batteries Rules were perceived as failure. For the

Bio-medical waste, facilities for treatment and disposal are being slowly set up, for example in

New Delhi (Okhla), one has been in operation since 2006 (The Hindu 2008). The advantage of

medical waste collection is that collection points at hospitals, installed with central treatment and

disposal facilities, are supposed to perform the task of complying with rules of labeling, storage

and segregation (DPCC). Most hospitals and dispensaries in New Delhi are authorized by the

state pollution control committee by now. In contrast, the Batteries Rules which regulate

mandatory return of used lead-acid batteries (Chakrabarti 2006), turned out to have low

compliance; as they get indeed collected by authorized battery collectors, and still end up in the

informal sector afterwards, because the recycling chain was not entirely covered or the batteries

were not taken back at all (Toxics Link 2004b:3).

These two examples always appear during a discussion of e-waste legislation as they represent

examples of success or failure. The Batteries Rules are the reason why the MoEF is rejecting

separate e-waste regulations, but favors an amendment as they argue that industry will be


29

overstrained otherwise, in distinguishing what regulation covers which material and/or product

(Interview L. Raghupati 2007). However, a separate legislation appears more satisfying, because

the electronic products are so complex and compiled of so many materials and substances.

Furthermore, the current legislation concerning e-waste is very fragmented and apparently not

transparent for the industry. Waste generated by the electronics industry is covered by the

Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Amended Rules 2003, and defined as hazardous

waste (Schedule 1 - 31, P.662) which is:

Any waste which by reason of any of its physical, chemical, reactive, toxic, flammable, explosive or corrosive characteristics causes danger, or is likely to cause danger, to healthy or environment, whether alone or when contact with other wastes or substances (Hazardous Waste Management and Handling Rules 2006:3.14).

Column 3 of Schedule 1 (List of Hazardous Wastes 2003:662) is listing different kinds of e-

waste; among which is electrical and electronic assemblies as well as scrap, containing

accumulators and batteries, which are considered hazardous, whatever concentration limits they

have. The above mentioned electronics consists of waste substances generated in 36 processes,

for example the “production and/or use of cadmium and arsenic plus their compounds”.

Nevertheless, one of those processes is simply named “electronic industry”. Furthermore, they

include waste components consisting of substances from five risks groups (Schedule 2), which

correspond to specific thresholds as for example concentration limits below 50 mg/kg for

mercury plus compounds or below 5,000 mg/kg for lead or nickel plus compounds. As the text

lists these include: “mercury switches, glass from CRTs, as well as other activated glass, PCB

capacitors, or contaminated with Schedule 2 constituents (e.g. cadmium, mercury or lead), to an

extent that they exhibit hazardous characteristics” (HWMR 2003:674-675).

The third Schedule is covering waste for export/import too, as parts are allowed for recycling and

reuse as raw materials only (e.g. glass from CRTs). According to the Basel convention waste

classified as hazardous needs permission to be imported, but so far no licenses were reported. The

recently released e-waste guidelines by CPCB (Draft guidelines for environmentally sound

management of electronic waste 2007), promoted as a first step towards a regulation; are not

living up to their promising name as there is no ‘guidance’ in this report containing a detailed

description of the Indian e-waste scenario.


30

The guidelines, in particular cover three areas concerning e-waste. Firstly the ‘classification of e-

waste’ is dealing with components and composition of WEEE (including hazardous content in

certain products), law paragraphs and thresholds, as well as descriptions of recycling practices in

India. Secondly, they elaborate on definitions of e-waste (EU, Basel, OECD) and propose one for

India. Furthermore, the Waste Management Rules (solid and hazardous) are introduced. The third

part is dealing with environmentally sound technologies for e-waste and with the recycling

potential of electronic waste, treatment options and foreign best technology options. A conclusive

comparison of requirements for EU facilities with Indian guidelines resulted in the following

statement:

[…] (the comparison) shows that existing Indian guidelines/ best practices/ requirements for establishment and operation of storage, treatment and disposal facilities may be adequate for establishing and operating proposed E-waste treatment facility (1st and 2nd level). This will minimize interventions in existing regulatory institutional mechanism related to pollution prevention, abatement and control (CPCB 2007).

The very last chapter of the guidelines is then giving some recommendations for further

proceeding; focusing on specific treatment processes and facilities. It excludes the whole

institutional framework of e-waste management or EPR, collection, authorization, PRO,

implementation, and perspectives for the informal sector. Hence, instead of guidance to

companies and recyclers, the national guidelines presents examples form other countries.

Chapter II: Research methodology and methods – 1. Methodological framework/2. Sampling 31

II. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHODS

Having used a diverse set of methods for the empirical component of this paper, my methodology

is presented in a somewhat detailed manner in the following, in order to contribute to the

credibility of the research outcome.

1. Methodological framework

Concerning my research, I was looking for both, views and thoughts as well as organisational

structures, in order to grasp differing perceptions of an e-waste policy, its implementation and its

impacts in India. I was guided through my project by the theory of critical realism, which

declares that knowledge about social structures can be gained through adequate methods. Taking

the complexity of social reality into account, I employed ‘critical methodological pluralism’ and

combined qualitative research with a quantitative component (Danermark et al. 2002). Such

approach is also called ‘pragmatic approach’, as the research question determines the methods

irrespectively of their paradigmatic relationship (Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998).

For the purpose of finding an answer to my research question I collected and analysed primary

data as well as secondary data within the methodological framework of ‘grounded theory’

(Burawoy 1991:274, see also Danermark et al. 2002); which implies the practice of inducing

theory from data that is empirically gathered by observation, conversation and interviews.

According to Corbin and Strauss (1990a:23), grounded theory embraces “systematic data

collection and analysis” through supplementary steps such as sampling, coding and literature

comparison. Bernard (2002:473) is adding in this context that “data do not speak for themselves”.

Thus, coding is a crucial part of this approach, as it gives the opportunity to the researcher to

relate components of phenomena to each other by assigning ‘conceptual labels’ to them (Corbin

and Strauss 1990b:7). Therefore, it contributes to the research’s validity and reliability. The

coding procedure is being discussed in more detail in chapter II.4.

2. Sampling

In terms of sampling, I relied on multiple data sources in order to enhance the research’s validity

and reliability and thereafter approached representatives of the involved government bodies,

Chapter II: Research methodology and methods – 3. Data collection 32

industry associations, manufacturers and importers of electronic goods and devices, as well as

representatives of the civil society such as NGOs and research institutes all concerned with e-

waste or CSR in India. Additionally, I got the opportunity to look into the practice of recycling

through visits to formal and informal recyclers in Bangalore and New Delhi. Moreover, I

consulted secondary sources, namely literature and web-sites.

Due to the limited time available - the research period was around three months - and the specific

research field, namely policy level instead of household level, I could not “immerse myself in the

culture” as it would be the practice for ethnographies. Therefore, I relied on a ‘convenience

sampling method’ (Bernard 2002:183 and 234) which is defined by Bernard (2002:183) as

“grabbing whoever is available”. Corbin and Strauss (1990a:192) add correctly that “specific

sampling decisions evolve during the research process itself”. Hence, I contacted whoever I

detected as involved in e-waste and whose contact details I could get hold of; along with getting

the help of GTZ.

Furthermore, I drew on what Bernard (2002:185) calls ‘snowball sampling’ to select my

participants, who as approached introduced me to further interviewees. Of course, I could only

receive information or arrange interviews with companies who were cooperative and willing to be

interviewed. All in all, I was very much interested in individual perspectives, inspired by

Burawoy’s (1991:276) objective to gather “explanation in the way in which participants define,

interpret, and meet the situations at their respective points”. Consequently I was looking for

industry, government and NGO employees who were willing to share with me their perceptions,

concerns and suggestions related to the main themes of my study, who would respond to a large

range of open-ended questions and a questionnaire for the industry. In order to obtain a diverse

picture, I focused on finding, in particular, manufacturers from a broad spectrum, based namely

on size, products or market activity.

3. Data Collection

As a result I identified in total 35 participants comprising of five government bodies, among them

were the two ministries MoEF and MoIC, CPCB (as the technical body of MoEF) and the

Pollution Control Committee of New Delhi and Karnataka, four heads of electronic industry

associations of IT, telecommunications, consumer electronics and electronic components, 15

Chapter II: Research methodology and methods – 3. Data collection

33

manufacturing or importing companies of electronics, eight NGOs (for example: Toxics Link,

Greenpeace, TERI, D.A.) and two formal (Ash Recyclers and E-Parisaraa) as well as two

informal recyclers/dismantlers. I met with most of them at their company office, or work

locations, as well as during several workshops, in order to conduct semi-structured interviews and

get responses for the questionnaires. Yet, I stopped the data collection after finding that I obtained

similar information over and over again. According to Glaser and Strauss (1967:65) a ‘theoretical

saturation’ occurs when sufficient data is obtained for each category that has been formulated

before the empirical accumulation.

3.1 Limited Participant observation

According to Bernard (2002:324), participant observation “turns fieldworkers into instruments of

data collection and data analysis”. As opposed to unobtrusive observation, participant observation

meant, in my context, that I participated in the dynamics and activities of the e-waste Initiative as

a participant of workshops, as an indirect observer in conversations and dialogues and during

visits to the recycling plants, during which I did not disclose my identity as student and my

concern. The advantage of participant observation is that new doors open up and make it possible

for the researcher to collect data, which is not accessible by unobtrusive observation or

questionnaires.

Moreover, participant observation “provides opportunities for conducting interviews” (Briggs

1986:7) as it has the potential of locating new interviewees during participation of the researcher.

Atkins et al. (2003:116) argue correctly that there are disparities between what people say and

what they do. Hence, observation has a complementary function to interviewing. Comparing how

people act and what information they give in public (for example at workshops) or in personal

interviews was quite different. Furthermore, observing behaviour or examining content of

information and formulations to sensitive questions, reveals a lot more than the information itself.

According to Bernard (2002:329), real participant observation can only be conducted after

staying in the field for quite some time. As I was not up to perform an ideal ethnographic research

due to my focus, the field of research and time constraints, led to the limitations of this

methodology. As Bruyn (1966) formulated, participation should be ideally real; however,

participating in workshops, visiting NGO and government offices, companies and recycling sites

Chapter II: Research methodology and methods – 3. Data collection

34

did not turn me into a member of the ‘community’. I definitely remained an outsider, so that I still

relied highly on my personal opinion when interpreting the data. However, for the situation, I

used so called ‘rapid assessment procedures’ (Bernard 2002:331), which is specified by

Handwerker (2001) as high-quality ‘quick ethnography’, whose recommendation is the

formulation of five key variables only. Consequently, I formulated four interview guidelines

around group specific key topics, enabling me to collect data under time pressure and to compare

the results (see guidelines, appendix V).

3.2 Questionnaires

Because I was tying up to a GTZ-project on industry dialogue, I used their questionnaire as

quantitative component of my research, and as a complement to qualitative interviews, which I

developed myself. A questionnaire is the central tool of quantitative research and investigates a

sample in a specific setting at a specific point of time. I used it to find out specifications of the

industry on an e-waste management system (see questionnaire, appendix III). As they are the

generators of electronics waste and likely to bear most of the responsibility in the end, their

perspective in this regard was of crucial interest to the project. The questionnaire design is

crucial, as the type of questions influences the outcome. Therefore, multiple choice and text open

end questions were used (see appendix III). The questionnaires are formulated in English,

limiting my research to English-speaking participants.

3.3 Semi-structured Interviews

As preparation for the interview guidelines, I consulted sources from the GTZ library, the Centre

for Science and Environment and websites as well as staff members who were involved in e-

waste projects. I knew that I would not get the time to interview a person more than once, that

semi-structured interviews seemed most convenient for me. Along identified e-waste (policy) and

CSR issues I formulated four different guidelines (government, industry, associations and

NGOs)9 with group-specific aspects, including legislative impacts, implementation strategies and

CSR in the Indian context. Such guidelines enabled me to obtain comparable qualitative data.

However, I always encouraged open-ended responses in order to learn how my interviewees

reflected upon the e-waste problem, and what they regarded to be the core topic (Hall 2003).

9 During the research process I added one for formal/informal recyclers as I did not know in advance that I would get the opportunity to interview this group as well.

Chapter II: Research methodology and methods – 4. Analysis of collected data 35

Hall (2003) elaborates on the advantage of interviews combined with participant observation as

the latter one lends information about social action, and allows the interviews a chance to provide

for learning how people reflect directly on behaviour, circumstances or developments. Hence, I

could collect data about various points of view concerning the key factors. Moreover, formal

semi-structured interviewing certainly had its advantages to informal conversations during

roundtable conferences or other meetings with industry, because I could take notes on the spot

and/or record the conversation so that I did not risk loosing valuable information by having to

write it down at a later point of time.

3.4 Secondary sources: literature and websites

Not only for the theoretical framework, but also for the purpose of obtaining supplementary

information on the e-waste situation in Delhi and India, I referred to secondary sources, such as

books and e-journals. I also used existing research that was undertaken by Toxics Link,

Greenpeace and others. On official websites of those organizations, I found valuable information

on their approach to tackle the e-waste problem, and concerning legislative attempts. Corbin and

Strauss (1990a:52) support this approach and state:

The literature can be used as secondary sources of data. Research publications often include quoted materials from interviews and field notes and these quotations can be used as secondary sources of data for your own purposes. The publications may also include descriptive materials concerning events, actions, settings, and actors' perspectives, that can be used as data using the methods described.

4. Analysis of collected data

Concerning my questionnaires, I followed an empirical, ‘nomothetic analysis’ in order to trace

patterns of relationships between identified variables (Rudra 2000). Right from the beginning it

was clear to me to include a quantitative component, via questionnaires with the industry, to

obtain a broader, more representative picture of the problem-solutions experienced by them. Once

I had collected the responses, I prepared the data for analysis. The first step towards this was also

to code my data. For multiple choice questions I put a number for each possible answer. The

specifying open ended questions on strengths and weaknesses proved to be more complicated. I

used Microsoft Access databases to find out correlations, by laying out several sequences of data

and diverse combinations. Furthermore, I used Microsoft Excel to visualize certain facts and

features through diagrams in order to increase understanding and clarity (see results, appendix

IV).

Chapter II: Research methodology and methods – 4. Analysis of collected data

36

In order to analyse the data, the interview guidelines, which dealt with group specific aspects,

helped me to code the results according to the key topics. This process is also called ’selective

coding’ which is defined by Corbin and Strauss (1990a:57) as “operations by which data are

broken down, conceptualised, and put back together in new ways”. It is ‘selective; because I use

specific categories that I developed in accordance to my conceptual framework. Moreover, it is

crucial for my research, because it enables me to compare the results and answer the

initial/arising questions of my study. Secondary sources are used to support or to redesign my

argument.

Bernard (2002:463) describes ‘grounded theory’ as an “iterative process by which you, the

analyst, become more and more grounded in the data”, so I decided to rely on ‘memoing’ in order

to keep track of coding options and possible hypotheses, as well as changes of directions, during

my research. While grounded theory is traditionally linked to ‘inductive coding’, which is

characterized by a strong focus on the ongoing discovery process during fieldwork and analysis, I

decided to stick with Miles and Hubermann (1994), who simply describe it as ”coding is

analysis” (quoted in Bernard 2002:465). They suggest starting with very general topics after

going through the literature, while additionally noting down more and more subthemes and

hypotheses during the research process. Bernard (2002:464) is placing such approach somewhere

in between inductive and deductive as subordinated themes and ideas are known already but there

is still space provided for new emerging thoughts and issues, this he calls “discovery mode”.

During the conduction of my interviews, I encouraged open-ended responses, which often makes

comparison difficult. Furthermore, I relied on ‘narrative analysis’, introduced by Berger and

Luckman (1997) who are emphasizing within their theory of ‘social construction’ that

participants are not describing phenomena ‘as they are’; instead their perceptions of the e-waste

problem and towards a legislation are influenced by their professional affiliation (approaches and

objectives) and their cultural background. Conclusively, by drawing on ‘reflexive analysis’

(Berger and Luckman 1997), I also acknowledge my personal influence on the data as I interacted

and spoke with the participants myself.

Chapter III: Conceptual framework – 1. Ecological modernization 37

III. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The conceptual framework consists of three segments I considered useful in the context of e-

waste. The major concept, which is, in the first place, applied in a descriptive and analytical way,

is ‘ecological modernization’. This framework is briefly complemented by the concept of

‘industrial ecology’ and confronted by the ‘environmental justice’ discourse.

1. Ecological modernization

In terms of a substantial conceptual framework related to the topic of e-waste in India one needs

to deal with ‘ecological modernization’ which serves as a base for most problem-solving

strategies and in particular for the activities of the Indo-German-Swiss e-waste initiative. By

using this concept, I am aiming at investigating various conditions and providing some empirical

data for the application of a rather post-industrial approach to the Indian e-waste context (see also

chapter IV.5).

Joseph Huber (1985), a German sociologist, was the first to introduce the concept of ecological

modernization in 1985. Several social scientists were following Huber and coming up with

further contributions in Germany, the Netherlands and UK in the late 1980s and early 1990s (for

example U. Simonis, M. Jänicke [G] G. Spaargaren, M. Hajer, and A. Mol[NL], A. Weale and M.

Cohen [UK]) (Mol and Sonnenfeld 2000:2).

The theory is dealing with post-industrial society and assuming that industrial development, with

its technology advances, will solve the ecological problems/crises of the developed world

(Spaargaren 1997). In contrast to critical systemic theories, which trace back ecological

improvements to cutbacks in or transformations of the capitalist system, ecological modernization

promotes systemic advantages such as industrialization and technological progress as solutions

(see O’Connor 1994, Foster 2002a).

According to Fisher and Freudenburg (2001:2), ecological problems are within the framework of

ecological modernization becoming “economically and politically feasible” […] as

“entrepreneurial agents and economic/market dynamics are seen as playing leading roles in

bringing about needed ecological changes”. Hence, it provides new space for political actors to

Chapter III: Conceptual framework – 1. Ecological modernization

38

build coalitions in order to realize environmental protection, and represents, with accordance to

O’Neill (2006:160ff.), an innovative method that can be used to understand national

environmental policy embedded in a changing international context.

Moreover, if economic activity is perceived as systematically producing environmental damage,

and if society encourages and is open to environmental regulations and ecological controls a shift

from cure to prevention becomes a realistic option and the first step towards regulatory practices

and policy sets has been taken (Harvey 1998:337).

However, ecological modernization perceives the ecological crises as a structural outcome of

capitalist society, which needs to be formed and practiced in a more environmentally-friendly

manner. Not only is the overthrow of capitalism rejected, but a fundamental restructuring of the

market economy is not required (or desirable) as reforming the existing structures and institutions

will serve its purpose (Carter 2003:209). What Carter (2003:209) calls ‘greener industrialization’

goes hand in hand with green consumerism and CSR-policies which are dealt with later on in this

chapter.

As the core of ecological modernization is social and institutional changes, Mol and Sonnenfeld

(2000:6) identify five clusters of possible transformation. First, they emphasize the changing role

of technology, to cure and prevent environmental problems instead of creating them, so that

environmental considerations take place from the design stage on. Second, new players come to

the fore such as market dynamics or economic agents; for example, manufacturers, consumers or

credit institutions, who could all take part in ‘distributing’ ecological ideas and practices (Carter

2003:210). Hajer (1995:26) is emphasizing, in this context, that an internalization of external

costs is essential in this case. Furthermore, Carter (2003:210) is suggesting, that the

implementation needs to include market-oriented instruments such as eco-taxes and tradable

permits related to the polluter-pays-principle. Third, ecological modernization will encourage

political modernization as the system becomes more flexible and decentralized via new forms of

governance (Jaenicke 1993). Examples include cooperation between industry, the scientific

community and social movements (Carter 2003:211), as well as non-state actors who take over

activities, such as administration, regulation or management. Hence, fourthly, over time, the

position and ideology of many social movements has changed to a rather moderate thread of


39

thought and cooperative action, as they got more and more involved in decision-making

processes in the private or public realm. As the last point, not only in accordance with Mol and

Sonnenfeld (2000), but also with Hajer, 1995 the discourse and ideology changed in accordance

to inter-generative justice ideas, breaking the old bias between environmental and economic

objectives.

In this context, Hajer (1995:26) is arguing that it constitutes a ‘positive-sum game’ as “decreased

costs, new advanced product lines and ‘niche’ markets will result in jobs, wealth and progress in

environmental terms”. Carter (2003:212) supports his argument by emphasizing that “by offering

a utilitarian incentive to industry to build environmental considerations into the profit calculus,

ecological modernization anticipates that the belief systems of business elites will change so that

they see the instrumental advantages of better environmental protection”.

Even though ecological modernization addresses industry directly as one of the largest

contributors to environmental problems, it appeals to businesses because it utilizes the language

of profit-making and revenues instead of making it an issue of morality or social responsibility

(Carter 2003:212). The case of e-waste is interesting in this regard as the whole engagement is

based on the assumption that industry will recognize economic advantages from managing e-

waste, and support the installation of legislation. How feasible such an approach is in the Indian

(entrepreneurial and legislative) context will be elaborated on in chapter IV.4.

Potential elements of ecological modernization are, for example precautionary principle, polluter

pays principle or integrated pollution control. Instruments such as life-cycle assessment, add to

the investigation of environmental implications of products from ‘cradle to grave’, this includes

factors such as water or air pollution, energy and raw material consumption, and waste

management. (Carter 2003:214). However, this kind of concepts is lacking the ability to take

social or environmental justice issues into account.

Nevertheless, according to Carter, the concept has a rather utilitarian and positive approach,

because of its application of the above mentioned principles and instruments used in order to

reduce industry’s costs while introducing clean technologies. What Hajer (1995:101) is calling an

“efficiency oriented approach to the environment”, is, according to Harvey (1998:338), not only

contributing to efficiency and productivity at lower costs but also conserving and preserving the


40

resource base for profit-making itself. Moreover, ecological modernization is not only appealing

from a micro-economic perspective but also from a macro-economic one, because nature is not

anticipated as free anymore, and an end is put to the externalization of costs. Nature becomes

acknowledged as public good and as a resource (Hajer 1995:28). Changing manufacturing

processes, and reducing waste or energy consumption, can all serve the purpose of reducing costs

and increasing care for the environment. This can also be seen in context with the electronics

industry, as the underlying objective is that ‘dirty’ industry is phased out after some time. This

goes hand in hand with the increased demand of environmentally-friendly technology (e.g.

alternative energy) and/or green consumerism. The latter demands not only ‘clean’ production

processes (namely usage of recycled materials, avoidance of packaging or chemicals in

computers), but is aiming as much as possible, at a reduction of negative environmental and

health impacts after purchase (Carter 2003:210).

In contrast to an end-to-pipe approach, ecological modernization attempts to think in circulations

that represent the complexity of environmental issues which need to be addressed at their source

(Weale 1992, quoted in Carter 2003:210). Conceptions such as ‘multiple stress’ or ‘critical load’

reflect this shift in science of ecology from a reductionist towards an integrative approach. The

first concept is focusing on using nature as a starting point, the second one, originated in health

policy, is defining critical levels related to capacities of ecosystems (Hajer 1995:26ff.).

In this context, Foster (2002b:26) makes a valuable critical point by emphasizing that ecological

modernization, as part of the current environmental discourse, transforms nature into a

commodity of the capitalist market system, by attempting to value and analyze it. Therefore, it is

incorporated into the neoclassical economic framework. Nevertheless, there are features such as

certain kinds of pollution and safety which cannot be traded at markets and are therefore in

danger of being ignored.

Even though, this whole line of thought is still very young, there are different stages to be

distinguished. At the beginning, its founder Huber (1985) was still concentrating on the role of

technological advancement in industrial production processes and using a ‘systems-theoretical

perspective’. He remained on nation-state level for his analysis and applied a critical view

towards the state and its bureaucracy structures and its practices that collided with a potential


41

positive contribution by market actors and dynamics to environmental reforms (Mol and

Sonnenfeld 2000:3ff.).

During the, second stage ranging from late 1980s to mid 1990s there was a stronger focus on

institutional and cultural dynamics of ecological modernization (e.g. Weale 1992, Jaenicke 1993,

Hajer 1995). The role allocation between state and market became more balanced during this

period. Nevertheless, at the centre of all analysis, only studies of OECD countries were found

(Mol and Sonnenfeld 2000:4).

The last stage from the mid-1990s on, can be characterized by an open discourse which attempted

to incorporate NICs, LDCs and Eastern Europe as well as the US and Canada. Furthermore,

ecological transformation of consumption, somehow became acknowledged in the literature (Mol

and Sonnenfeld 2000:4).

In this context, it is important to emphasize as mentioned above, that the core environmental

movement had changed from a rather radical philosophy to a moderate approach in the late 1970s

as a result of economic stagnation and issues such as mass unemployment and inflation. The

movement was in ‘need’ of proofing its credibility, as pointed out by Hajer (1995:94): “In order

to maintain its social credibility, environmental discourse had to find ways to reconcile economic

restructuring with environmental care”. So, that the activists became more ‘professional’ and

strategic, in contrast to their former confronting course. Furthermore, Hajer (1995) also points out

how difficult it became for radical groups to argue for “reflexive ecological modernization” as

coalitions of the stakeholders of such organizations had agreed on pragmatic terms in order to

fight the ecological crisis.

Additionally, there were a lot of environmental problems occurring which could not be directly

traced back to politics; such as the damages in the ozone layer or acid rains. Therefore the

environmental movement was called upon, after a threat was perceived coming from industry and

its production, towards society and the environment. For the purpose of underlining their

expertise and argument, they increasingly entered scientific spheres and institutions at the policy

level. Because of this new pragmatism and kind of a repositioning within the environmental

discourse, which started in the late 1970s and early 1980s, coalition-building between former

radical and activist environmental organizations and state institutions became common practice


42

(Hajer 1995:95). This development manifested in what Hajer (1990:102) describes as “discursive

paradox of the new environmentalism”; as the disillusioned movement needed to get away from

its ‘romantic’ image and therefore tried to work towards terms of the government. In this regard,

Harvey (1998:338) is arguing that “ecological modernization provides a common discursive basis

for a contested rapprochement between them [the environmentalists] and dominant forms of

political-economic power”. Hence, at the same time, they were setting new limits to what they

could say and do, as Hajer is pointing out: “By the mere choice of vocabulary the social

movements effectively restricted their own possibilities of arguing their moral case” (Hajer

1995:103), because it would again put their new status as experts and coalition-partners at risk.

Moreover, Harvey (1998:342) argues that:

Some radical environmental groups have been partially drawn to the ecological modernization thesis […] sometimes as a matter of deep conviction, viewing it as the only way to move a deeply entrenched capitalism toward ecological sanity and a modicum of global justice.

However, the conflict between economic features and environmental issues is central to all

environmental politics. Ideas such as sustainable development or the theory framework of

ecological modernization are trying to resolve these contradictions by promoting the idea that

both issues are not contradictory but combinable. Carter (2003:1) argues, that “Sustainable

development, and its half-sister, ecological modernization, offer an alternative policy paradigm to

the traditional model of environmental policy”. Hajer (1995:31) perceives it as a strong positive

approach to environmental policy.

The idea to stick to the current status quo and to continue with economic growth, consumption

and a certain living standard is, of course, also politically convenient and very appealing to

policy-makers worldwide. Hajer (1995:31) identifies four reasons why: Firstly, he argues that due

to the failure of regulatory and bureaucratic practices of the 1970s, politics are now in need of

new strategies. According to Hajer (1995:101) “embryonic forms” of ecological modernizations

have existed since the 1960s, for example, in ‘limits to growth’ (1972) or ‘blueprint of survival’

(1972). The right political climate was still missing at this point of time. First, the regulatory

failure needed to become acknowledged globally by organizations such as OECD, UNEP and the

UN commission on the environment, via, for example ‘Our common Future’ (1987) and Rio in

1992. The outdated categorizing of environment into water, air and soil, as well as development

of strategies to fight pollution and protection, took place in accordance with sub-categories. In


43

terms of sustainability and integration, this approach was a failure because it was just composed

of routine measures.

Secondly, a positive-sum game is now apparently replacing the perceived ‘zero-sum problem’.

Politicians are relieved of interfering and restricting, as industry is reacting, of its own accord,

due to the fact that pollution is “conceptualized as a matter of inefficiency”. This approach is

accommodating dependencies between government and business (Hajer 1995:31). At the same

time the discourse seems to become a “sophisticated political response by governments and

industry to popular mobilization around issues such as nuclear power, acid rain, biodiversity

preservation, ozone depletion and induced climate changing“ (Christoff 2006:180), in order to

legitimize state regulation and controlling of environmental agendas. In Germany, for example,

the continuous subsidizing of environmental research and development (via the Ministry of

Research and Technology), transformed it into a market leader of innovative energies and

recycling (Christoff 2006:180ff.).

Additionally or thirdly, it avoids social contradictions of other discourses and does not demand

any revolutionary structural change. Its objective to find an institutional solution to ecological

problems is reflecting its modernist and technocratic character. It is not acknowledging that

systematic factors can be made responsible and results in these kinds of ‘wasteful’ systems

continuously ‘discarding’ generations of localities, productions and workers. What Hajer

(1995:31) calls ”leap-frog movement of capitalist innovation”, describes this process of

ecological modernization legitimizing as well as reinforcing and adding to this wastage.

As the fourth and last point, it accommodates radical environmentalist critique and movements of

the 1970s. The mainly anti-modern ideologies of ecological movements, which were

contradictory to modern technologies, as well as to the strong fundamental belief in progress and

the skills of social engineering, are now made ‘compatible’ with these contradictory forces. As

described above, environmental movements changed their course towards a more moderate and

cooperative direction, which resulted in institutional changes, such as participation in committees

and panels of government and industry. By adapting to those structures and promoting their

collaboration, they accepted the fundament of the (capitalist) system and its corresponding

practices (Hajer 1995:103).


44

Moreover, adding to the discussion, Foster (2002b:92) argues that the idea of “the magic bullet of

technology, however, is still by far the favorite; which seems to create the possibility of

environmental improvement with little effect on the smooth workings of the capitalist machine”.

One major question arising in the context of ecological modernization, as a concept or reform is,

whether changes in society or structures of consumption and production do not require a

transformed social order as precondition. This argument goes back to Marx’s (1946) [1867]

introduction of the ‘metabolic rift’ theory, which describes the discrepancies between city and

countryside or even within capitalist society (Foster (2002b:92ff.).10 In case of the recyclers, who

are mostly wageworkers, it does not make any difference in wage (equaling sustenance) how they

are treating the waste. That they are contaminating their environment (and health) does not have

immediate consequences for their lives, which if perceived would possibly create an attempt

within in them to change the processes. This is also true for the workshop owners, who could

install simple environmentally-sound technology, but lack aspiration to do so because advantages

are not apparent to them. Instead they save money by choosing the cheapest option in order to

have more available for living.

In contrast Mol and Sonnenfeld (2000:10), refer to ecological modernization theories’ roots in

classical European social theory. They take up a position between realism and social-

constructivism, in order to address issues such as consumption practices, and consumer behavior

and incorporate, not only the development of cultural institutions and practices but also “national

culture orientations”.

Furthermore, Cohen (2000:7) took a first step in identifying conditions for ecological

modernization and emphasized that culture and environmental consciousness as well as belief in

technological progress and science, play a central role in ecological modernization. This points to

a crucial concern while describing and investigating cultural, societal and environmental

preconditions for a functioning e-waste management system within an Indian context. As one

result, Cohen is pointing towards the very diverse outcomes that are possible if the theory/concept

10 Marx was coming up with the idea that within the capitalist system human’s intervention with nature, which strives to simply derive sustenance. This is especially true if people earn money as wage laborers (migrating into cities) in order to purchase their food etc. As a result, they do not act in the best environmentally-friendly manner because advantages of such behavior are not visible directly (Foster 2002b).


45

is applied outside of the countries where it was constructed. Two examples are described in the

following.

Mol and Sonnenfeld, in their introduction to ‘Ecological Modernization around the World’

(2000:9), emphasize as follows:

Modernization Theory is useful for social scientific analysis and policy formation, even where all conditions for development of ecologically modern institutions do not yet exist. At the same time, some processes of ecological modernization are global (even while others are not), and thus this body of theory remains at least partially relevant around the world.

As part of the described collection of studies ‘Ecological Modernization around the World’

(2000); two very interesting studies come from developing countries in Asia; such as ‘South-East

Asia’s Pulp and Paper Sector’ investigated by Sonnenfeld (2000:235ff.) and ‘Ecological

Modernization in Vietnam’ examined by Frijns et al. (2000:257ff.). In the first study, cleaner

technology was adapted by the domestic pulp and paper sector. This was possible because strong

social movements were demanding it and a sophisticated position in the international market

enabled the corresponding expansion of the companies. Sonnenfeld (2000:253) underlines, that in

this case, the application of clean technology was only to some extent ‘ecologically-modern’.

This was because the production increases went hand in hand with more demand of space and

land from small holders of exotic tree plantations, which resulted in the cutting down of natural

forests. Therefore, he concluded that “greater attention should be paid by technology firms and

technology-exporting countries towards developing ecologically modern approaches for small-

and medium-sized enterprises, which provide important sources of employment in developing

countries” (2000:14).

The case of Vietnam also seems quite interesting; although there exist different conditions

compared to, for example, India. This young ‘tiger state’, which is still going through a transition

period to a market-oriented economy, is facing a lot of industrial development and environmental

problems. After investigating ecological modernization in Vietnam, Frijns et al. (2000:285)

summarized that the regulatory mechanisms and policy framework there are still in a very

rudimentary stage in the field of the environment, and therefore Vietnam finds itself in a very

early stage of ecological modernization. It has neither policy programs, to promote cleaner

technology nor, a strong environmental movement to push the issue forward. To conclude, the


46

authors emphasize that ecological modernization cannot serve as an explanatory frame, but can

only offer a set of principles to improve the environmental management and practices. The hitting

point is, that, due to research, the concept has to be reshaped in accordance to the specific

circumstances, and therefore differs from the originally Eurocentric one. This is a challenge also,

because most approaches of ecological modernization have emerged from industrialized

countries, which possess ‘exemplary’ environmental protection records.

However, it seems as if most critics of so called “sustainable capitalism” are linked to the camp

of Neo-Marxism. This is rooted in the fact that Neo-Marxists insist on a systemic change in order

to achieve social and environmental equality; while ecological modernization accepts the

capitalist system and neoclassical ideology as prevalent. In accordance to Neo-Marxism, the

ecological/social exploitation and disproportionate distribution of the environmental/social

burden is an outcome, as well as a precondition, for capitalism. As a result it is perceived as self-

destructive. Therefore, it seems out of the question that it could incorporate environmental

protection and serve as a solution for the ecological crisis in a holistic way. Capitalist

sustainability depends on profits and expansion, and implies long-term exploitation of renewable

and non-renewable resources. So it appears that what is in accordance to the Neo-Marxists, is also

contradictory to meaningful environmental protection and socially decent working conditions.

Hence, the exemplary behavior of some Western countries in environmental and social terms is

only possible because of the existing ‘Southern’ periphery (O’Connor 1994:7ff.).

Foster (2002b:40), for example, is in favor of transforming the system and organizing it in the

first place “democratically, reflecting the fulfillment of the totality of human needs in order to

become non-alienating and addressing welfare of every individual”. This of course, would set the

course in a quite different way from the economist approach to determining ecological

modernization. Additionally, Giddens11 (1998:58), summarizes the theory as “too good to be

true” as it “skirts some of the main challenges ecological problems pose for social democratic

thought”.

11 Giddens is traditionally located within the Neo-Weberian camp (which is according to some authors as for example Erik Olin Wright closely linked to Neo-Marxism) as he was promoting the Third way between capitalism and socialism (Breen 2005).


47

Going deeper into the deficits of ecological modernization, Christoff (2006:187), is arguing

firstly, that the approach is rather economically centered rather than ecological, as it is focusing

solely on environmental efficiency of industrial development and resource usage. Secondly, it

only concentrates on changes within industrialized countries. Hence, the transformation of the

system is not satisfactorily acknowledged, as the impacts of globalization on the environment are

crucial. Also, issues regarding international flows of material and resources; outsourcing of

manufacturing of components, goods, and division of labor; MNCs influence on investment;

regulatory capacities of states, and international treaties (deregulatory or environmental protocols

are complex and not only affecting industrial countries and need to be integrated into the

discussion. Ecological modernization is in danger of facing the same criticism as development

theories in former days (e.g. Rostow 1960) as it promotes a uniform path to ecological

modernization, while addressing ‘uneven’ development as inferior.

Furthermore, the question arises whether civil society and the public are needed to guide

institutions and practices in the direction of a market that participates in a more socially

ecological way. Weale (1992), for example, bases state intervention (investment and subsidies to

encourage innovation and clean production) on a broad green movement and public pressure. In

contrast, Hajer (1995), refers to a more technocratic perspective, where the environmental

performance of a nation-state, as well as institutional and technological capabilities are the central

factors for sustainable production structures (Christoff 2006:190). This would also serve as an

interesting feature to investigate in the Indian context, as social movements in general play a

crucial role in that society; while environmental movements still lack influence. Furthermore, the

environmental performance leaves a lot to be desired and institutional capacities are limited in

India.

Among other things, reflecting on country specific circumstances, Christoff (2006:196) is

differentiating between a weak and strong ecological modernization. The weak version is

constituted only as ‘techno-corporatist’ approach. It focuses on linear technical solutions to

environmental problems through cooperation of corporate, political and scientific actors (cp.

above Hajer 1995). The strong one incorporates the development of different ‘ecological

modernities’, which depend on cultural, local and environmental factors, and are linked by human

and environmental rights, as well as a reflexive relationship to technologies and institutions. This


48

means that environmental issues become integrated in institutions and society by embracing

issues of development and democratization that cover the international sphere (Carter 2003:214).

Even though Christoff (2006:196) appreciates the acknowledgment of a more ‘reflexive

modernization’ (environmental efficiency) by the community, he criticizes the lack of ‘reflective

ecological criticism’ on industrial modernity itself.

While social movements and pressure groups are in place to moderate destructive tendencies of

the capitalist system to some extent, the complexity of the world makes it obvious that an

ecological modernization approach needs to deal with all components; such as production,

distribution, technology or growth on a global scale in order to be effective and sustainable

(Foster 2002b:67). As it stands, ecologically improved production processes still do not allow

infinite consumption of resources. Christoff (2006:187) argues further in this context, that

ecological modernization is self-evidently overlooking limits to growth, and ignoring integrity of

ecosystems, as well as accumulated implications of industrialization. Not only do levels of

consumption and behavior need to be addressed, but people have to recognize their responsibility

as well.

Furthermore, ecological modernization is running the risk of legitimizing misleading actions in

the name of green consumerism. The consumer is dependent on information coming from

industry, which is of course, only a fragment of the truth. For example, poisonous substances are

replaced by less-poisonous chemicals (in fridges and computers etc.) but instead labeled as

‘environmentally-friendly’ or ‘green’ (Carter 2003:216). Nevertheless, they are still endangering

the ozone layer or the recycling workers of the informal sector in India or China. Furthermore,

what remains is a niche market and decisions, of the majority of consumers are guided by other

features. A lot of people cannot afford, financially, the ‘luxury’ of choosing products in

accordance to social and environmental standards. Others practice a rather selective activism

because they do not want to change their living standards or do without certain products (Carter

2003:215).

Fisher and Freudenburg (2001:701) criticize in particular the black and white thinking in the

ecological modernization discourse with its “significantly theoretical and practical implications”.


49

I would support their argument that “the reality is likely to be more complex—a matter of

degrees, rather than of absolutes”.

Opponents and proponents of ecological modernization, both find examples to prove the truth or

value of the theory and the opposite. Hence, none of them could be entirely right or wrong, as

there is no such thing as a universal ecological modernization which could be applied. Therefore,

Fisher and Freudenburg (2001:704) suggest that the aim should be to identify conditions under

which ecological modernization can work or not. For the purpose of drawing such conclusions,

they are emphasizing the need for further empirical data to which this research could contribute to

a small extent. Thus, they argue:

Ecological modernization is ultimately likely to prove neither completely correct nor completely incorrect; instead, the ultimate verdict is likely to be, ‘it depends’. If that is indeed the case, then it would be highly beneficial to devote a significantly larger fraction of our effort to studying the more specific factors upon which it depends (2001:706).

Theories and concepts are not static but always in the process of developing. Christoff

(2006:182), is pointing to another bias existing within the discourse, and reinforcing the obvious

discrepancies between both sides, as ecological modernization is still used in a very diverse

manner. This could be looked at descriptively, as well as analytically or normatively. There are

theorists, whom are using it to describe technological improvements with positive ecological

impacts. Others are showing how and why the discourse evolved over time, or even use it as a

kind of a belief system. Those diverse lines of discussion reflect the discrepancies which might

emerge between “progressive environmentally-friendly companies and short term profit makers”,

whom both interprete this concept as they like (influenced by consumer patterns/ policies) (Weale

1992:31).

Hence, looking into the Indian e-waste problem through the lens of ecological modernization is

not only an interesting field to be investigated but also requires the inclusion of various factors

such as cultural circumstances (e.g. environmental consciousness, belief in progress and

technology etc.), institutional structures, political mobility or civil society, as well as a critical

reflection from an outside perspective on the rather Eurocentric concept itself, which was

developed in accordance with post-industrial economies.

Chapter III: Conceptual framework – 2. Industrial ecology 50

2. Industrial ecology

The concept of ‘industrial ecology’(which originated as one of four ideas of Natural capitalism

theory12 of the 1990s), and whose ideas are more specific but closely linked to ecological

modernization, serves a tool of counterbalancing negative environmental and social

consequences. It has introduced concepts and instruments such as cleaner production/eco-

efficiency, life cycle assessment, eco-design, eco-industry-parks, product stewardship (Extended

Producer Responsibility), dematerialization and de-carbonization, as well as product-oriented

environmental policy (Lifset 1999:4).

Industrial ecology itself, promotes the idea of shifting industrial processes from a linear model to

a closed loop system, which follows cyclical flows of natural ecosystems, where waste as such

does not exist but where everything is considered a resource. Hence, instead of resources, as well

as capital, producing waste in the end, this output becomes new input for new processes resulting

in reduced amounts of raw material, pollution and waste handling processes (Ehrenfeld 2005:23).

Indigo Development (n.d.) summarizes the aims of industrial ecology as: minimizing energy and

materials usage; ensuring acceptable quality of life for people; minimizing the ecological impact

of human activity to levels natural systems can sustain; conserving and restoring ecosystems

health and maintaining biodiversity and maintaining the economic viability of systems for

industry, trade and commerce.

As Fiksel (2006), points it out: “Industrial ecology provides a foundation for rethinking

conventional product or process technologies and discovering innovative pathways for recovery

and reuse of waste streams, in place of virgin resources”. This also reveals industrial ecology’s

main deficit, similar to ecological modernization, as it is rather concerned with the reduction of

‘non-sustainability’, instead of concentrating all its efforts on manifesting sophisticated systemic

sustainability (Ehrenfeld 2005:24). Industrial ecology concepts focus on minimizing

environmental harm, and are measured according to resource consumption and output waste.

Broader effects of material and energy flows and specification of systems or nonlinear behavior,

12 The term ’Natural capitalism’ often refers to specific reforms listed in the book by Hawken, P. and Lovins, H. (1999): “Natural capitalism” describes the main idea as reforms created in order to improve material and energy efficiency, by making usage of the neoliberal market system and its mechanisms (energy savings, waste reduction, and bio-mimicry), while approaching further environmentalism and a service oriented economy (Rocky Mountains Institute 2008).

Chapter III: Conceptual framework – 2. Industrial ecology

51

are factored out. Instead the opponents of the concept assume that it can be applied universally

with similar effects. However, ecological systems, as well as societal and industrial systems, are

complex, dynamic and interdependent. Therefore, a solution to ecological problems requires

more holistic and resilient, as well as adaptive approaches (Fiksel 2006).

Besides the question, of whether environmental targets and industrial development go together,

extended producer responsibility (EPR) itself has been presented as a strategy of environmental

protection. The idea is to make the producer, instead of the consumer or the government,

responsible for the environmentally safe management of a product. This includes ‘take back’,

recycling and disposal (Lindhqvist and Lifset 2003:3). EPR is aimed at relieving the

municipalities from some financial burden of waste management and providing incentives to

producers, to reduce the usage of resources, to use secondary materials and to redesign products

(Clean Production Action 2004:3). According to OECD (2005) the idea is resource, as well as

material conservation; waste prevention; design of environmentally compatible products and

closure of material loops to promote sustainable development.

As it is one of the major concepts underlying the Indo-German-Swiss e-waste-Initiative, the

question, of whether it is applicable to an industrializing country such as India, emerges. It needs

to be investigated whether manufacturers attach importance to their reputation and image (for

example due to international or domestic public pressure and interest in manufacturing,

remanufacturing and recycling, as well as disposal processes). One central feature in looking into

this concept related to my research data is to find a response to the question of whether EPR/CSR

has the power to counterbalance negative consequences of consumerism and materialism: which

are not addressed, themselves within this conceptual framework. Consumers and industry are

mutually influencing each other in accordance to societal value systems and enforcing over-

consumption and obsolescence at the same time. It is most unlikely that companies might be

willing to change the profitable short product cycles to longer timeframes of obsolescence, in

favour of the environment.

Hence, in this context, it becomes obvious that e-waste is not only an environmental issue, but

also one of very high social importance. The interest of the producer and consumer groups only

Chapter III: Conceptual framework – 3. Environmental justice 52

covers a certain period of time, and as the case of e-waste is showing, that afterwards, it is very

likely that vulnerable groups will bear the burden of this waste. If the context of the policy were

to possibly embrace implementation activities, it would be especially interesting to examine its

impact on poor workers and recyclers, who constitute the smallest and weakest units of the

system.

3. Environmental justice

Moreover, as mentioned above, ecological modernization is not taking social implications into

account, because not everybody is able to participate in the positive-sum game if they cannot

even meet their ends. As Carter (2003:15) points it out, environmental issues always have a

distributional dimension and it seems to be impossible to solve them without having losers in the

end. Therefore, social justice and contradictions are an essential issue to be addressed in this

context (Hajer 1995:35). One possible threat of ecological modernization is that it only takes

place in the North (e.g. introducing clean technology), while outsourcing polluting activities into

the South where regulation and implementation (cp. Christoff 2006:180) is rudimentary or non-

existent, as is the case for India. Therefore, Carter (2003:15) is speculating that “perhaps

ecological modernization requires a large periphery of poor countries to act as a waste tip for the

polluting activities of a rich core of nations”.

In terms of environmental transformations, Harvey (1998:334) is arguing that these are always

transformations of social relations. Hence, contradictions in social relations will create social

disputes of land and within ecosystems as “wealthy people tend to occupy privileged space of the

habitat and poorer segments of society live and work in more toxic or hazardous environments”

(Harvey 1998:335). Again, this is a kind of externalization of costs, and the benefits are divided

disproportionately among few. Hence, environmental problems often result in struggles for

environmental justice (Foster 2002b:40). The corresponding concept will be illustrated in the

following paragraph.

The concept of ‘environmental justice’ is describing this phenomenon of discrimination. EPA

gives a useful definition of what environmental justice implies:

Chapter III: Conceptual framework – 3. Environmental justice

53

The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, colour, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including a racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group, should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies (State Environmental Resource Centre 2004).

Or, as Foster (2002b:40) describes the modern environmental conflict:

The struggle for material welfare among the great mass of the population, which was once understood mainly in economic terms, is increasingly taking on a wider, more holistic environmental context. Hence, it is the struggle for environmental justice – the struggle over the interrelationship of race, class, gender, and imperial oppression and the depredation of the environment – that is likely to be the defining feature of the twenty-first century.

Low-income and minority communities are especially concerned with discrimination because

they lack knowledge about exploitation or pollution, as well as prevention or mitigation

opportunities. Furthermore, they do not have the political power to organize and influence

location decisions, nor do they have the financial means to prevent themselves from being at risks

(Getches and Fellow 2002:3). In the case of e-waste, workers do not even know about their health

risks. By applying this concept to my research, I aim at examining what impact a sustainable e-

waste policy would have on the most vulnerable communities and in how far it is planned and

realistic to integrate workers into a formalized e-waste scheme. I will also examine whether those

that are often excluded in the policy making (these vulnerable communities), especially those

rules that are meant to protect both their health and the environment’s, are at high risk of loosing

their livelihoods, because of these intentions. Taking into account the fact that the informal sector

is very fluid, flexible and mobile, it is very likely that the workers may get involved, in which

they may continue to suffer in some other harmful occupation again, suffering from supposedly

positive policy changes and initiatives, and to still bearing the (waste) burden of society.

Since the late 1980s and early 1990s environmental justice has evolved into an organized

movement against environmental racism. It actually was not an offspring of environmentalism,

but evolved out of the African American Civil Rights movements of the 1960s. After Martin

Luther King’s last journey in 1968, for example, on behalf of improved working conditions of

garbage disposal employees, the movement integrated environmentalism into its social justice

perspective.


54

For a long time environmentalism was predominantly perceived as an elitist and exclusive ‘white’

issue representing the interests and concerns of white majorities (or even minorities as in South

Africa). Also, because the British colonialists were not born in India, nor even really settled there,

they appeared to lack any kind of ‘ownership’ for the land (Mann 2005) and the issue of

environmental destruction seems not to have a racial dimension but rather a class/caste based one

(see also chapter I.4). Therefore, poorer classes/castes became ”trapped in a cycle of poverty and

a continual battle to survive, few had the means, the inclination, or the leisure to engage in

conservation activities [referring to South Africa]” (Khan 2002:21). This is true for India also (see

also Gadgil and Guha 1995). These thoughts are reflecting the direction on how I want to apply

this concept to the Indian context. Even though, the approach has its origins in the US, before it

was transferred to South Africa (Khan 2002:21), it can be very useful on a global perspective

also.

In this regard, I follow Ruiters (2002:121), who is pointing out the universality of the concept by

stating that “environmental injustice is as much national and local as it is international. But the

tendency to see it only in the local, national, or group-specific terrain is very widespread. As a

result, justice becomes wrapped in territorial colours and coalitions”. Except for Ruiters, the

weaknesses of most literature concerned with the concept of environmental justice are twofold.

First, most authors put the main stress on ‘race’ as a trigger for environmental injustices and

mainly deal with black communities, instead of examining how inequality is produced, and

understanding class inequalities and political weaknesses (Ruiters 2002:117). Weintraub (1995)

points in the right direction by underlining that poverty and lack of empowerment are according

to recent studies, better indicators of environmental racism than race itself. Hence, the very poor

workers employed in the informal recycling sector in India are exposed to hazardous substances

and emissions during the management of waste of the higher classes, as well as Western

countries. They probably will never use most of these products themselves. An e-waste policy

may only be pretending to prevent environmental harm and protect the workers from hazardous

occupational practices, if a plausible positive end result for the workers is not provided for.

However, new policies, practices and implementation processes are in need of participation from

all of the stakeholders and approaches need to integrate or solve all concerns and problems in


55

order to be sustainable. In the case of e-waste, the ‘polluter pays principle’, which is generally

introduced to tackle the problem of responsibility, remains problematic, because victims, in order

for compensation to be calculated, have to prove in court, that the damage they suffered is caused

by a corporate citizen (Getches and Fellow 2002:7). The major problem with this is that the

workers are ‘voluntarily’ employed in this sector, carrying out the hazardous processes of their

own accord. However, there is also the argument that law should provide a framework for “equal

protection from environmental and health hazards for all people regardless of race, income,

culture or social class” (Martinez-Alier 2002:168).

Ruiters (2002), is challenging the crucial points in the environmental justice debate. He is not

denying the potential of law to formalize environmental rights and to challenge environmental

injustices as a judicial tool (McDonald 2002:8ff.), but he is also indicating that law itself is never

focussing on wider social interest and keeps people passive and dependent on the state.

Therefore, it should be taken into account that law strategies, can even weaken the power of

movements because the state is somehow formulating ‘their’ goals (Ruiters 2002:124).

Moreover, Harvey (1998:345) lifts up the debate to an ideological level by emphasizing that “the

coupling of the search for empowerment and personal self-respect, on the one hand, with

environmentalist goals on the other, means that the movement of environmental justice, twins

ecological with social justice”. He argues further that:

In the case of exposure to toxic wastes and hazardous landfills, there is a symbolic dimension, a kind of ‘cultural imperialism’ embedded in the whole issue […] The question of stigmatization of ‘the other’ through pollution, defilement, impurity and degradation becomes a part of the political equation (Harvey 1998:346).

Environmental justice, in contrast to ecological modernization, was by far not as willingly

absorbed or accepted, and both are rather conflicting with each other. Harvey (1998:352)

recommends to “radicalize the ecological modernization discourse itself” by confronting crusted

power structures, social relations and institutional arrangements as well as belief and value

systems which result in environmental and social injustices.


56

The uprising of what Martinez-Alier (2002) calls “environmentalism of the poor”, aided

environmental justice in becoming an essential topic within the discourse of ecological

modernization in regards to the achievement of long-term stability and sustainability (Harvey

1998:339). Even though activities by international organizations, NGOs and civil society in

general, increased in this field, most ideas have not been put into practice. Hence, the following

chapter will present the results of the empirical study and indicate among other things what

NGOs (representing the civil society) expect from the government side in this regard and what

the government’s current plans are, concerning an e-waste policy, with regard to the informal

sector’s employees.

Chapter IV: Results and analysis of the empirical study – 1. Government bodies 57

IV. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF THE EMPIRICAL STUDY

The framework for my problem definition is based on 35 interviews (added by questionnaire

results), which I conducted with various stakeholders in New Delhi and Bangalore. I was asking

for their perceptions, definitions, experiences and suggestions, to create an illustrative picture of a

problem definition on the current e-waste debate. In order to visualize the significance of

outstanding personalities, as a motor for Indian e-waste, I picked four key stakeholders which I

introduced separately (see appendix I).

1. Government bodies

During interviews with the various government bodies, depending on the government level,

divergent interests and perceptions in regard to e-waste issues, became apparent. While state

governments tend to be very concerned about local realities (namely the informal sector), the

national government’s focus is on industry. Correspondingly, they both seek cooperation in

regards to environmental activities from each other. Often, the national government finds fault

with implementation on the state level, and the state governments demand proper legislation from

the national level, in the creation of an e-waste management system.

To start with the MoEF, it is striking that they are convinced that a separate legislation for

electronic waste would fail, based on their experience of batteries and bio-medical waste (see

chapter I.4). L. Raghupati13 is emphasizing the problem of un-transparency for the industry,

which “does not know in the end, which regulation belongs under what. Lead is in batteries, but

also in computers”. However, one could also argue the other way around, that a separate

legislation could aim at more transparency. Whatsoever, a regulation without industry support

will not happen either way. In accordance to L. Raghupati, hazardous substances are already

covered by the Hazardous-Waste-Management Rules, and just need some amendments to support

installation of a recycling management system. One first result aimed at, will be guidelines which

are not binding for the industry nor interfering of their realm, but that give guidance and advice

for the industry, on how to handle electronic waste. This also means that EPR will be omitted

along with the installation of a central PRO /ARF or ‘take back’ system for India, if the industry

13 Raghupati (Additional Director of MoEF) interviewed on 24.07.2007.

Chapter IV: Results and analysis of the empirical study – 1. Government bodies

58

is not asking for it. For a system to work properly, like in Switzerland, the industry has to engage.

Raghupati is emphasizing, in this context, that the “government cannot just point with the finger

and impose [top-down], but needs to include the stakeholders”. As the consultation period for the

e-waste guidelines had just started during that time, Ashish Chaturvedi, expert for e-waste of

GTZ, was pointing to the fact that consultation should take place before the publication of the

guidelines, as it is “easier to add than to change bureaucrat’s creations”. Furthermore, he is in

favor of separate regulations, where hazardous substances are covered individually and not

separated from the electronics. The problem is that the consumer cannot take mercury out of his

computer and give it back to the company to recycle it.

In contrast, R. Babu14 is arguing that CPCB is just representing a technical body and cannot

include financial or management schemes into the guidelines. Those need to be added by MoEF.

He is supporting the idea of a workshop where associations and NGOs gather to come to a

common statement on amendments. Whatsoever, Ashish Chaturvedi, of GTZ, emphasizes that

only the release of the guidelines, during the project period, should be seen as a major

achievement of the e-waste initiative.

Believing the words of MoEF, after a proper assessment, followed by regulations and finally

implementation; the guidelines serve as a first step towards the implementation of a take-back

system. As a matter of course, the government cannot provide for everything, and responsibilities

need to be distributed, according to Raghupati. CPCB, supported by the state government, and as

a technical body of MoEF, would take care of control and auditing. This implementation part, can

be seen as a bottleneck in the road to solving the e-waste problem. Though the Delhi Pollution

Control Committee (DPCC), as well as the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB),

insists that industry is complying with Indian environmental law, because the implementation

agencies are working and controlling accordingly. Hence, J.K. Dadoo15 argues:

This is my agency, the DPCC, I have about 33 engineers and I am the chairmen of that agency. They [industry] are complying because we are tough with the legislation. They realize that with

14 R. Babu (Project Manager of Central Pollution Control Board, CPCB) interviewed on 14.07.2007. 15 J.K. Dadoo (Secretary of environment in Delhi government and Chairmen of DPCC) interviewed on 03.07.2007.


59

climate change they can also make CDM-profits. So, they want to conserve energy, they want to conserve water. They want to do projects with carbon credits they can sell. […] And we are assuring that they get some profit out of it.

But, as electronic waste management is still a voluntary activity, it belongs in another league. J.K.

Dadoo is pointing to the fact that CSR is done by a lot of companies, as they have realized that

corporate social behavior is needed (see also chapter IV.3). As the MoEF does not want to

interfere in industries’ business, EPR and CSR (which also means ecologically-modern concepts)

become a requirement for initiating law. The MoEF is very aware and honest about the

implementation problems, as it is not its responsibility, and underlines that industry needs “to get

brain-washed and educated about the regulations (via the workshop), and then they will comply”.

Both, K. Kumar16, of the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MoIC), and

L. Raghupati, of MoEF, perceive the e-waste imports, not as a threat, but a business opportunity,

if the correct facilities were in place. The MoEF, is even against any kind of restriction or ban on

e-waste imports due to that reason. This must be seen as highly problematic, as it puts the cart

before the horse- appropriate recycling facilities, as well as safe recycling channels, are not in

place.

All in all, K. Kumar rejects that electronic waste could become a problem in India and states that

“there is no reason to create paranoia and there are so many other environmental hazards which

need to be solved”. He also believes that all environmental problems can be solved by

technology. Nevertheless, he is arguing that the recycling sector is mainly in need of education,

and should become organized and install safe efficient technology. Furthermore, he is indicating

that “technology has no limits and hazardous substances in computers or TVs get reduced” [not

phased out]. Technology should not only offer techniques to prevent health and environmental

effects, but also be more efficient and increase revenues, as money, according to Kumar, is the

only language people understand. Hence, business getting better will convince people to change

behavior and practices. However, one problem arising from that argumentation is that technology

evolution takes a lot of time and historical waste will not be covered. Furthermore, technology

always has some impact on the environment (see also chapter IV.4).

16 K. Kumar (Director of Department for Information Technology, MoIC) interviewed on 20.08.2007.


60

Concerning the setup of facilities, DPCC is trying to find interested entrepreneurs to set up a

recycling plant in reach of the National Capital Region (NCR). For example, Dadoo contacted

Ash Recyclers to set up a second plant within the reach of Delhi. Also, while the KSPCB was

well advised in authorizing two universal best-practice recyclers in Bangalore, Dadoo (DPCC)

chose to follow a unique path, as he wants to split up the e-waste process and have specialized

actors to be authorized individually. He argues that:

Now, if I have an offer from one person to do all the five jobs, I will not take it seriously. The reason being, he would not have a system to collect all types of electronic wastes. He may be interested in laptops for example. He will not say, if you send him an iron, he will not touch it. Now, we can not distinguish between different types of electronic waste. Therefore, we need different players in the field. One may be one collection agency which ties up with the kabadiwalla and gets everything collected. Then we need different dismantlers: one for white goods, one for brown goods, one for IT equipment et cetera.

The idea of DPCC is that a specialized actor could handle larger quantities in order to be viable.

However, it is important to mention that the splitting of the processes does not seem to be

necessary. The structures exist already- the informal recyclers in India (who are at the same time

extractors and dismantlers). Furthermore, the formalized recyclers in Bangalore are not not viable

due to their universal activities, but because they are not getting enough material, due to their

cost-structure and other factors (discussed in chapter IV.4). Nevertheless, the DPCC, as a

regulator, has the power to authorize different players for different processes. The committee is

keen on getting:

Individual developers in each of these (five) processes and then authorizing them to act, so, that a collection agency will advertise in the newspaper: ‘Anybody having electronic waste – please send it to me’. So, for the manufacturers it is very simple. For the office guys it is very simple. For the households it is very simple. He will also tie up with all the kabadiwallas – ‘bring it to me’ – I will give you a better price. So, all the kabadiwallas will collect it from the households and bring it to them (J.K. Dadoo, DPCC).

Keeping environmental justice in mind, one crucial issue is impacts of activities on the informal

sector. While DPCC and KSPCB are very much concerned about the informal employees, the

MoEF is stating rigorously that “the informal sector has a very strong immune system. Otherwise

they would starve and die”. This explanation serves the fact that they have ‘survived’ so many

regulations somehow and have continued to do business in one way or the other. Therefore, L.

Raghupati (MoEF) is arguing that “they will not be touched by the legislation. They need to be

trained and educated in any possible way (‘to become good boys’) and learn the good


61

housekeeping practices, to ensure that recycling takes place in an environmentally friendly

manner”.

In terms of employment, there could be worse and worst solutions for the informal employees.

One environmentally dubious company, namely Ramki, which created problems in Bangalore,

applied to set up a plant in the Delhi region. It was not getting approval because of its association

with a European company, which is using large scale technology, that could possibly be resulting

in problems of getting sufficient amounts of material and endangering employment opportunities

(KSPCB 2007)17. As the Delhi government is concerned about livelihood, it was rejecting the

offer. Dadoo is arguing that setting up big plants will not solve the problem - as long as the

informal sector is still there offering a cheap workforce and paying more money for resources

(because of this, the household waste especially, will end up there). Hence, employment is one

essential motive in India which needs to be considered in setting up a recycling management

system. The workforce could be used effectively in formalized recycling units too. KSPCB is

underlining that 97 percent of e-waste is treated by the informal sector and the formalized plants

cover only the limited amount of three percent. The three existing formal recyclers cover one ton

per day each, but India faces 150.000 tons per year. Therefore, guidelines are a first step on the

way to a sophisticated legislation. However, the financial issue, is a striking one, as the

government bodies do not see PROs a necessity and J.K. Dadoo (DPCC), assumes that his

scheme would be self-financing (due to high volumes). The easiest thing, would be that they get

the material for free- which seems rather unrealistic, taking into account the existing structures.

Therefore, the kabadiwallas would remain responsible for collection from households and pay a

fragment for the resource. J.K. Dadoo explains: “households would not go anywhere with their

waste. That is not in our culture. So, they would not take it anywhere”. Concerning industry, he is

oriented towards an individual responsibility scheme as it is more flexible. In terms of ‘take

back’, J.K. Dadoo argues that the DPCC ”can even make it mandatory for them [industry]. I am

not saying that we will”. This is reflecting the MoEF strategy of not interfering, but relying on

17 KSPCB interviewed on 08.08.2007.

Chapter IV: Results and analysis of the empirical study – 2. Industry associations 62

industries’ responsibility and intention/demand. In conclusion, L. Raghupati (MoEF) is referring

to the difficulty of changing mind-sets, which is an extremely long process, but an essential need

of efficient environmental policies (initiation and implementation). So far, she is stating, they

“need long to get through to the people, especially because so many other things seem more

important in India”.

2. Industry Associations

Industry associations do not only play the role of representing member’s interests, but they also

seem to be the ‘environmental conscience’ of the industry, and perceive themselves as such. This

was not only a lip service offered for the interview, but is reflected in industry associations strong

engagement in e-waste activities, lobbying with government bodies and providing education, as

well as their promotion of the topic of the need for EPR/CSR (which includes examples of best

practices from e-waste management in Europe and news on the legislative framework in India).

However, the problem is that these associations (through PR activities and campaigns created to

increase awareness) only have indirect influence on the industry, because, in the first place, they

are representatives of industries’ interests. By interviewing key individuals in the Association of

telecommunications (TEMA), information technology (MAIT), consumer electronics (CEAMA)

and electronic components (ELCINA), most electronic products/companies are covered. All four

associations are active in the field of e-waste, as they perceive it as crucial for India. Vinnie

Mehta18 is explaining the process of sensitization:

Three or four years ago, the industry was coming from a perspective that the IT industry, manufacturing or the assembling industry, is a non-polluting industry. […] It is not the very highly-capital intensive industry in India. The manufacturing is nearly mostly assembly and maybe a little deeper.

However, the industry had not adapted the concept of end-producer responsibility or paid

attention to what happens to products once they are sold. He emphasized:

The industry bodies, like us and other NGOs (Toxics Link or Teri, or some of the other smaller bodies like the hawa19 at the grassroots level), have done all the kind of hand holding and exposure

18 Vinnie Mehta (Executive Director of MAIT) interviewed on 02.07.2007. 19 Hawa means the hazardous waste management project of GTZ and KSPCB in Bangalore aiming at a functioning waste treatment infrastructure in Karnataka State.

Chapter IV: Results and analysis of the empirical study – 2. Industry associations

63

given to the industry associations by bodies like Empa20 - because what they did, they took the industry associations on a trip to Europe to show how it is managed and we did Switzerland, we did Amsterdam. You know we moved around from country to country looking at their waste management practices. I think there is a change in the attitude of the industry definitely now.

Nevertheless, one central message of the associations was that economic considerations are still

determinant, and environmental issues are not perceived as priority or even a potential towards

either saving money or increase profits through a better image. This is related to the limited

interest of consumers for green products, fair working conditions and production processes. The

crucial factor for decision-making is the price (or price-performance ratio), but social and

environmental issues are not taken into consideration by most customers. This is seen as a

reflection of India, as a state on the way of developing its industrial status (all interviewed groups

agreed on that). Vinnie Mehta (MAIT) is putting it in the following way: “…the awareness

depends on where you are in the evolutionary cycle of the economy. If you are a developed

economy the awareness is much higher, because you are looking at a much better quality of life”.

This seems to me a very questionable assumption, as this better quality of life is accompanied by

a consumer society which is overusing resources and has a very limited consciousness in regard

to usage and wastage. Industry prospers from mass consumption and heats it up, so that

production and expansion (water, electricity and other resource usage) increases in tandem with

profits.

Concerning concepts such as CSR, all associations paint the picture that CSR, as such, is still

apprehended as an act of charity- even though international MNCs are following different

patterns and do have, by now, an appointed person for CSR/environment/e-waste issues, and are

associated with a formal recycler at their own accord (e.g. Wipro, HCL) as it is their international

policy. Nevertheless, their production processes, behaviour and actual mindset, have not absorbed

it fully, in order to put it into practice. D.P. Nair21 is explaining that CSR “is still no business

issue but merely social act or charity for the industry. Industry remains concerned with

maximizing profits, while the status of environment, as well as mindsets have not changed yet.

Economic features are dominant“.

20 Empa is the abbreviation for Eidgenoessische Materialpruefungs- und Forschungsanstalt (materials science and technology research institute) in Switzerland. 21 D.P. Nair (International relations officer of TEMA) interviewed on 11.07.2007


64

Suresh Khanna22, underlines, that within the consumer electronics sector, the topic of CSR and

the e-waste issue, must be seen more differentiated, as there are three segments of industry:

Multinational companies, regional companies and the grey market23. The first ones, the MNCs,

are not posing too much of a problem, as they have their international CSR policies in place and

do comply with WEEE, to be able to export to Europe besides companies from China, South

Africa and the US. They do not have something alike and do not need to comply if they export to

those destinations. It needs to be emphasized, in this context, that complying with WEEE and

having a voluntary CSR policy in place (which normally is the international version, but is

lacking control and audit mechanisms), is only a very small step towards socially responsible and

environmentally sound behaviour of industry. Furthermore, it is not entirely true, that most large

companies are completely WEEE compliant. Usually covered, are only product lines going into

Europe (Greenpeace 2005).

Rajoo Goel24 is facing a similar pattern as ELCINA’s members, who are mostly producing

components and appliances, solely are concerned with e-waste if they are large and export-

oriented [For example, so called electric manufacturing services (EMS), manufacture for original

equipment manufacturer (OEMS) for example, Phillips, and have to comply with their standards

(if they have any].. The positive news is, however, that for many MNCs the globe is the market

and most product lines are not differentiated. So, the same product might be produced in India

and sold in Singapore, or produced in China and sold in Europe and therefore comply with

WEEE and RoHS; meaning that some hazardous substances are phased out and redesign is

encouraged (see chapter I.2).

In accordance to CEAMA; the regional segment, in contrast, is hit double hard, as it is composed

of rather small and medium enterprises (SME), paying taxes and having to compete with large

corporations as well as the grey market. For them it will be impossible to install ‘take back’ and

pay for recycling, as well as invest into eco-design while still remaining competitive at the

22 Suresh Khanna (Director of CEAMA) interviewed on 27.06.2007. 23 Grey market in this context refers to retailers selling either duplicates of branded products (single components or assembled ones) or also the assembling of different branded components. 24 Rajoo Goel (Secretary General of ELCINA) interviewed on 07.07.2007.


65

current circumstances. Adding to that Vinnie Mehta (MAIT), is posing the crucial question, who

would pay for recycling? The IT sector is afraid of an unfair implementation process; therefore

the prices for products would go up and they would loose market share, while the 40 percent of

‘unorganized’ actors would prosper. Therefore, Vinnie Mehta is arguing that “you cannot be

charitable at the cost of loosing your business. […] It is very easy to target the organized players

because you can come to the people”. The problem is, according to him, that enforcement

mechanisms and bodies are not working due to institutional inconsistencies. Borrowing his

words:

The government says it is probably not too difficult to bring a regulation. The easiest thing to do is to write a regulation […].The institutions are under recruitment freeze. So, there is no recruitment happening in the government. So it is the same damn inspector who will be loaded with more work. And honestly people in India know how to manage inspectors (Vinnie Mehta, MAIT).

The issue of corruption was, though not namely, coming up during all four interviews. Besides

controlling the grey market, Suresh Khanna’s biggest concern is corruption along the whole chain

of electronics (waste). Especially, a collective scheme for e-waste management, can open the

floodgates to free-riding at the costs of the others. Furthermore, ELCINA is pleading for

legislation to be practical, in the sense that implementation and enforcement must be thought of

during law-making processes in order to make it effective. Rajoo Goel is arguing in this context:

“Most Indian laws are impractical, they never get implemented. Before making a law, the base

for it needs to be created. For example, awareness building needs to take place [...]”.

Furthermore, TEMA is stating that “legislation needs incentives, such as a tax relief, otherwise

the industry will not give a damn”. D.P. Nair is using the example of telecommunications, where

import taxes were brought down, so that the grey market in mobile telephones almost died off. In

terms of incentives, Vinnie Mehta (MAIT) is underlining that “the government is not in a

dialogue mood”. Therefore, MAIT and CEAMA are also pointing to the fact that environmental

legislation needs some pressure coming from civil society. Vinnie Mehta (MAIT) is arguing:

The models of electronic waste management that I have studied, mostly of the European Union, they work in a very interesting manner. […] It is the consumers who […] said the industry must ‘take back’ the dead product and make sure that it is recycled in the most environmental friendly manner with least or minimal damage to the environment. Since it was a consumer’s movement, the industry was supposed to take action. Also, you must understand, because of the consumer movements - people asked for it- they were also willing to pay for recycling it.


66

Even though, obsolescence rates differ in accordance to the product, advertisement in any form

creates demand and desires, especially for lifestyle equipment. Environmental standards are no

criteria, but, for example, technology improvements such as better resolution of monitors are. In

contrast, household equipment such as a washing machine remains hidden in the back of the

house. D.P. Nair is pointing out that ”prestige is still very important in India, showing off, being

ahead of the others with the newest flat screen TV. These sentiments of displaying can explain a

lot - consumerism”. Correspondingly, India is lacking a strong civil society engagement or

movement in environmental issues. Vinnie Mehta (MAIT) indicates further the important role of

the consumer psyche:

The entire recycling movement is so successful in the European Union because the consumers are behind it, whereas in India the consumer psyche is utterly different. […] First of all there is no consumer awareness. Forget electronic waste. […] there is very little awareness on the environment and environmental damage.

On the other hand, does the impression exist that democracy slows down economic development,

as well as environmental progress in India; especially when compared to China whose

tremendous economic growth rates, but also fast legislative processes (environmental legislation)

are looked up at (Suresh Khanna,CEAMA). According to Rajoo Goel (ELCINA), India is a

comparatively small and young player, while 25 percent of global production is manufactured in

China. Blamed for that, can be restrictive licensing policies which were unfavorable for

manufacturing. Some industries got, nevertheless, quite strong; such as textile, automobile, steel

or petroleum, but for example, manufacturing of cell phones only has taken place since 2006, and

most activities are linked rather, to assembling and testing. Therefore, he emphasizes that “one

has to go step by step and not from 0 to 100”.

What all four agree on is that India needs formal recyclers and corresponding infrastructure. The

retailer should serve as beginning of the chain, while the associations would be willing to serve as

head of a PRO (see chapter I.2), for the industry taking care of management and sanctions.

Currently two problems are becoming obvious. Firstly, the capacities, namely personnel and

finances, as well as expertise, are not sufficient to cope with this task. Secondly, none of the

associations can accept an additional fee for recycling in the form of ARF (see chapter I.2).

Especially since there is no guarantee that free-riders and the grey market are taken care of, which

is rather unlikely. MAIT is explaining, that such a system can work in a developed context, where


67

transparency exists in the entrepreneurial realm (registering of firms, documentation of sales etc.).

CEAMA is adding to that, in the form of a tax; it would be favourable that it was not a fee

charged on top of the retail price, because it harms the competitiveness and punishes the

organized industry for compliance. ELCINA is of the opinion that the user is also responsible,

and needs options for exchange (new-for-old) or ‘take back’ (see chapter I.2), and manufacturers

need options to take material to collection points or recycling facilities. In terms of financing,

Rajoo Goel (ELCINA) argued: ”the ARF in form of tax is a good option of recycling surcharge.

Nobody will notice a few percent increase of tax”.

This leads to the problem, that recycling needs to be financed or subsidized somehow, as it is not

a profitable business, nor self-sustaining process as such and . Furthermore, reusage should be

encouraged. But in relation to the consumer psyche, the producer model is not in a ’reuse phase’,

which represents, according to Vinnie Mehta (MAIT), an interlinked cycle and reflects the stage

of the economy. He is insisting that in prosperous countries reuse is not valuable, while in India,

resources are usually used to the very end. Even used clothes are given to relatives or staff, which

is, due to him, a cultural difference and also linked to the stage of economy. I would like to

emphasize, in this context that the environmental performance of developed countries is

‘advanced’ to the Indian one in regards to a formal chain of recycling waste and material This of

course does not relieve the ‘North’ from the tremendous volume of used resources /energy and

waste production.

Even though, CEAMA is indicating that India needs to stop “over-using resources for the next

generations”; all four associations’ environmental consciousness is not consistent either. What

they do with their own waste is rather ambivalent. Partly, they are using up very old equipment

themselves, while the rest is going back to the retailer at after the purchase of new equipment

(which means it is ending up in the informal chain). Hence, instead of recycling their material

properly, with the formal recyclers which they are promoting, they send their equipment to the

informal sector.

Chapter IV: Results and analysis of the empirical study – 3. Electronics manufacturers 68

3. Electronics manufacturers and importers

The responses to the questionnaires/its content revealed interesting information on distribution of

responsibilities, organization of an e-waste management system and definitions, with regard to a

legislation, from an industries’ perspective. Nevertheless, it needs to be emphasized that the

companies who were willing to provide information, were mainly concerned or involved with e-

waste somehow; while the others were refusing to be interviewed because they were not.

Greenpeace (2006, see appendix VII), developed a ranking meter on their homepage which is

keeping track of electronics industry behavior and the ones bringing up the rear, tended to hide or

refuse cooperation by postponing interviews again and again.25

Concerning legislation, the tenor of the industry, on goal and scope of legislation, was rather

uniform- the majority of the 15 participants agreed that prevention of e-waste entering household

waste; reduction in hazardous processing of e-waste as well as promotion of reuse and recycling;

and redesign, including waste prevention and phasing out the use of toxic materials, should be the

objective. Limitations were only seen in the fact that redesigning does not automatically imply

environmentally-friendly products, as toxics are often replaced by less harmful toxics which still

pose a problem to the environment. A lot of the participants see a need to achieve these goals, to

establish laws comparable to WEEE and RoHS in Europe. The scope of the legislation should

cover, in accordance to the industry, a product definition such as WEEE (80%). Furthermore,

there is agreement that business and household waste should be treated differently and that

commercial firms and industry should be tackled as a first step (it is much easier to install

individual recycling schemes for large quantities of waste, compared to collecting single products

from households).

Concerning a separate legislation, the responses were more divergent, as some people thought

separate legislation to be more practical, as it is more transparent. Others perceived it the other

way round. The reason might be that people are not really aware what advantages one or the other

would have. However, they are in favor of the more simple and practical solution. Finally, to the

question of what segments of the e-waste chain should be regulated, 87 percent of the participants

25 I tried to contact eight of the companies twice by Email, before I started calling them. After calling for five to six times they either stopped picking up the phone when I called or finally refused to give an interview (see reflections on p. 104).

Chapter IV: Results and analysis of the empirical study – 3. Electronics manufacturers

69

referred to trade and sale, as well as recycling, recovery and disposal. 33 percent also wanted to

see imports/exports regulated, while two participants, were pointing out, that this needs to be

covered by other policies. A regulation of ‘grey market’ activities is also suggested by several

companies. Obvious is, that manufacturing and take-back, as well as collection and logistics, are

omitted. Furthermore, there is mutual consent on the definition of a producer; who could be the

brand owner, the manufacturer, as well as importer and distributor. One problem mentioned again

and again is the problem of getting back the material to the companies as part of EPR, but this

leads again to the chicken-egg question. What needs to be done as a first step? And could

regulation initiate people taking back their equipment to producers or certain collection points?

Furthermore, two participants pointed out that industry needs the opportunity to recycle

themselves, after receiving authorization. While the results of the qualitative interview part,

proved that there is not really an interest in recycling one’s own equipment as a whole. Instead,

this is seen as a separate industry. So far, it is about taking spare parts out, or saving certain

components and materials in case repair is needed.

In terms of producer responsibility, there is a division between companies favoring a collective

(7) or individual scheme (4). Two would be happy with both, and the other two are only seeing

the possibility for an individual scheme at the moment. In terms of collection, 87 percent agree

that it should be mainly done by municipalities and consumers. While around 40 percent also

want to make the retailer responsible, only one third of the participants, think that the producer

should be responsible for collection (only commercial customer equipment). This is interesting,

as most of the collection at the moment is done by the kabadiwallas/recyclers or the

intermediaries anyways.

Surprisingly, do the manufacturers and importers acknowledge that they would be responsible for

system organization and operation (80 percent), while 20 percent also want to include the

retailers. Four companies indicate that this is related to collective responsibility via a PRO.

However, 80 percent want in case of PRO manufacturers and retailers represented, some 47

percent also want to see a government representation. While most participants agreed that the

government should set the standards for the system (but 47 percent is insisting on the consultancy

of all stakeholders), control and audit should be a joint responsibility. Financial aspects of the


70

management system should be figured out by industry and associations via PRO [or individually],

which should be organized by the associations in accordance to almost all interviewees, while the

environmental aspects are covered by government. In contrast the informational responsibility is

perceived as with the manufacturers and retailers or even through the PRO. Three companies also

demanded the government to provide information on authorized recyclers. Four other participants

want the government to support setting up facilities and two electronics manufacturers also

pointed out, that municipalities could be entirely responsible for e-waste recycling from financing

to authorizing and controlling, which is very unlikely as costs and responsibilities have to be

distributed correspondingly.

In terms of financing the system, the ARF is perceived as rather controversial. Almost half of the

participants opt for an ARF (fee at point of purchase), still they raise the objection that the

consumer’s responsibility must be addressed to make the system work efficiently. Orphan and

historical waste should not be covered in accordance to some, as the costs for these products did

not include the recycling, and therefore industry cannot recover them. Asking for the idea of a

fund concerning orphan waste, they react restrained, as they think it is creating even higher costs,

which is not the case in the European countries. Four interviewees also indicated that the ARF

needs to cover a payment to the consumer, as one cannot rely on mindset-changes in the short-

run. The other half of the participants reject a fee system, and want to see it financed via taxes on

the consumer. Also, they want to see the grey market involved somehow. Thus, in order to

answer the question of recycling targets, the majority of the participants were agreeing that they

could make sense (also from a CSR perspective), but time has to show how they could be

measured and calculated, as not even the European recyclers always meet the targets. The

reporting needs to be done by authorized recyclers giving out certificates to the companies.

The striking result of the qualitative interviews with the industry, is that four interviewees are in

process of, or have already introduced, a ‘take back’ scheme for the customer. While three others

are apparently also researching possibilities of ‘take back’ systems. However, the problem is that

the old products are not finding their way back into the companies. Reasons for that were

discussed already; the informal sector offers money, while collection and recycling services of

the companies are in the best case free of charge. Furthermore, the engagement in promoting the


71

system is very limited. Therefore, information cannot be found on the package, or is transferred

by the retailer or through ad campaigns, and may only be explained on the websites. This gives

the companies, of course, the possibility to promote their ‘green’ behavior without encouraging

further costs. However, one of the market leaders in electronics manufacturing is in process of

producing ‘green’ desktops, and one entirely Indian originated brand, is, according to its Head of

Personal Computing Business26, putting a lot of effort into a green image, by inaugurating a huge

campaign on their ‘greenware’: RoHS compliant Desktops and Laptops in 2007. Furthermore,

they are in process of phasing out BFR and PVC, which are not even covered by RoHS, and they

have a strong policy of equipment retirement. They have organized and advertised around 300

collection points in India which are promoted on the web-portal, explaining the whole issue of e-

waste.

Besides that the manuals are planned to carry statements on the hazardousness of e-waste and

offer handling recommendations (stickers on every package to dispose of it safely and where to

find detailed information on that), and all newcomers who join the company need to take part in

an education program on e-waste management. If quantities are large enough, they collect free of

cost. In contrast, the Director of Strategic development of another large-scale manufacturer of

electronics equipment27 is pointing out that he expects the government to take care of awareness

raising at the consumer level (he admitted that the companies could also be part of these

activities). All in all, it is still very early to judge the programs, as they are very young or not

fully established yet/in a pilot phase. But as a matter of course, they are not yet working for

anybody.

Moreover, the Assistant Director of a company28, which is not manufacturing in India (import

and sales), is reporting that they are researching how to get products back from the customers;

they also attempted to ship waste to a self-owned recycling plant in Southeast Asia, but it was not

possible due to export restrictions within the Indian law [Basel Convention]. One other company,

26 Interviewed on 14.08.2007. 27 Interviewed on 07.08.2007. 28 Interviewed on 04.07.2007.


72

which is supplying the electronics industry29, reported the same problem; when they wanted to

export waste, and the Indian government would not trust their well-meant intentions. The former

mentioned company was also planning to put up boxes at Nehru place, a hub for assembled or

second hand computers and components in New Delhi. But the problem is that there are no

guards, and people could take out and refill (in case of cartridges) or/and sell the material. Hence,

they would increase competition themselves. On a pilot base, they started collecting cartridges in

Hong Kong; more material of one competitor was collected than of their own brand.

Nevertheless, they favor a collective scheme.

Furthermore, almost all of my interviewees are recycling their own equipment (waste from

offices and production) by now, with one or more of the three authorized recyclers in Southern

India (Trishiraya in Mumbai, Ash Recyclers and E-Parisaraa in Bangalore) ,if they are not

already giving it to charity organizations. Only three companies, are not recycling their waste

with the formal recyclers in South India. The Director of one of them30 was stating, in this

context, that “they are not generating e-waste (even though they are a middle-scale electronics

manufacturer in India). They are RoHS and WEEE compliant and therefore not producing e-

waste” and do not recycle waste with the formal recyclers. Even though, all interviewees whom

did not acknowledge their own responsibility, agreed that e-waste is a problem in India and one

of them even stated that “it is a ticking time bomb and urgent problem which needs regulation

and engagement”.

However, one of industries’ major concerns in regulated e-waste management is, as already

pointed out by the associations, the grey market. Therefore, the government is expected to take

care of the grey market and assembling activities. Furthermore, four manufacturers are

demanding that governments, enforce through legislation, that the material is given back to the

producers so that they can become responsible. Besides formalizing and organizing the informal

sector, the government is also expected to initiate setting up of facilities. One Manager for

Corporate Communications of one major electronics manufacturer31 is also pointing out that

29 Interviewed on 14.08.2007. 30 Interviewed on 12.07.2007. 31 Interviewed on 21.08.2007.


73

“transporting waste all the way to Southern India is also harmful to the environment, and besides

it is creating extra costs“. In terms of equipment retirement, one of the interviewees presents the

company’s alternative strategy to extend the end-of-life. This strategy operates by putting up an

internal net platform where second hand products (used office equipment etc.) is sold, bought or

exchanged by employees.

All in all, the tenor of all participants (questionnaires and interviews) was that industry is

insisting on sharing responsibility not only with the government(s) but also with retailers and

consumers. The Senior Manager marketing and Communications of one importer32 is arguing in

that context:

You are responsible for what product you buy, no? The public does not care how this or that is manufactured as long as the (basic) needs are fulfilled. Social impact is no convincing argument to encourage consumer’s or producer’s responsibility. […] Consumer awareness is the starting point […] European countries are welfare states but in India one takes care about one’s own education, the education of the children, the health of parents, grandparents et cetera. Towards whom else should one be socially responsible? Green issues are just not decisive yet for purchase but the price and the technology is.

Hence, if civil society pressure is low and green issues, inferior to industry; the question arises

how substantial industry perceives CSR. The majority of my interviewees was underlining that

CSR is still perceived as a charity issue, as one of them is pointing out: “CSR needs to be a

business issue. The companies are still, in the first place liable to their stakeholders, who want to

know revenues, and are not philanthropic institutions”. This means that e-waste is no priority, and

environment is often not looked at as a CSR issue yet, but only as a health and educational issue.

One Manager, who is mainly responsible for CSR and Community affairs of her large scale

company33, is explaining in this context that “economic prosperity and employment generation

are at the top of the mind in India”. The area, where most activities take place, seems to be in

community development. Industry is donating equipment to educational institutions to stretch the

life-cycle of their computers and ‘give something back to society’. One large software company

is even offering trainings, with the purpose of teaching people without access to computers, how

to use them. In this context, one should not forget that this engagement is not quite altruistic, as it

32 Interviewed on 27.06.2007. 33 Interviewed on 05.07.2007.


74

is convenient for industry and serving its purpose. In the first case they get rid of equipment

without having responsibility for recycling, and in the second case they enable people to use their

products, which also means enabling them to purchase their goods. After having installed ‘take

back’ schemes, arranged recycling with the formalized recyclers, attended meetings on e-waste

frequently et cetera, some of the producers think that they did enough already. One interviewee

pointed out in this regard that “It is an urgent issue and we want to become a leader in this within

the next two years. We do not want to wait to do something [for legislation etc.] and they also do

not think that they did enough already, but it is the others [especially government] turn now”.

Another voice in this regard is stating that he does “not want to attend anymore meetings because

nothing is coming out of it. Progress is too slow and there is too much talking instead of action.

Our ‘take back’ scheme is in place since four years and not getting sufficient feedback”. Hence,

from the active industry players, there seems to be some kind of resignation already. As they

mostly belong to IT, the criticism that telecommunications and consumer electronics are spared

by the public, is a valid point. Nevertheless, one can criticize, that they are not articulating their

supposed interest in an e-waste policy covering the above mentioned issues towards the

government. What is also striking is the fact that the issue of implementation and enforcement is

treated very step-motherly, as four or five companies were solely underlining, that proper

implementation is needed to succeed. This can be seen as a self-protective attitude (see also R.

Agarwal of Toxics Link p. 89).

Chapter IV: Results and analysis of the empirical study – 4. NGOs and formal recyclers 75

4. NGOs and formal recyclers

Interviewing NGOs, as well as the formal recyclers, resulted in a rather coherent picture of the

situation, with various important points. Besides environmental impacts of current e-waste

recycling, NGOs are mainly concerned with the informal sector and its dependency on this

employment and livelihood opportunity. At the same time, the two formal recyclers are starving

for material as their compensation payment for the resources is lower compared to the informal

sector, because of higher labor and processing costs.

Ravi Agarwal34 is asking the crucial question at the Greenpeace workshop on e-waste (28.09.07,

New Delhi): Whether the informal sector is desirable or not? A compromise might be necessary,

because the recycling activities will not take place in an environmental-friendly manner within

the current structures; and the large pool of workers cannot be absorbed by formalized recyclers

whom have the proper technology, because they will not be needed anymore, due to the

mechanization of some processes. Vijaya Lakshmi35, of Development Alternatives, suggests

concentrating on organizing informal dismantlers and collectors in order to build associations and

to have a fruitful ground for educational measures. And then, she suggests developing a strategy

for the recyclers/extractors who were already part of some initiatives in Bangalore and New

Delhi. They were expecting to receive European technology in order to become more efficient

and environmentally-sound, but were instead introduced to ‘good housekeeping practices’ (proper

storage, wearing protective gear etc.) by Toxics Link et al. in 2005/06. In addition, these

businesses were flooded by researchers from all over the world; with resulted in their retreat and

refusal to cooperate further. Ragesh Johri,36 of TERI, was referring to the livelihood fact, in the

following way:

What do you do? The sector cannot be closed down. These are simple economics. People are still available to do this job. And it will continue that there will be people to do this job. From kabadiwallas to the last [element of the chain], everybody makes money. It becomes their livelihoods. Otherwise the full chain gets upset. […] Organizations and institutions and industry should take their obsolete computers to reliable recyclers. Right? And household et cetera they should go through this kabadiwalla chain.

34 Ravi Agarwal (Director of Toxics Link) interviewed on 21.08.2007. 35 Vijaya Lakshmi (Manager Environments Systems Branch D.A.) interviewed on 16.08.2007. 36 Ragesh Johri (Project manager of TERI) interviewed on 05.07.2007.

Chapter IV: Results and analysis of the empirical study – 4.NGOs and formal recyclers

76

In contrast, Satish Sinha37 (Toxics Link), only wants to integrate collectors and dismantlers because:

Hazardous processes need to be stopped even though they have to find another occupation. Kabadiwallas get authorization, registration with the PRO and then for some products they will have to give the consumer some money and bring it to the recycling plants. A lot of people in Shastri Park died. The ones who drop out of business can get involved in not hazardous recycling of glass or paper or whatever else. You have to look for creative solutions but they can be integrated.

In this context, he is pointing to the highest barrier in this issue - that “a regulation is as strong as

the institution releasing it, if they are weak the law is also weak”. Enforcement and

implementation in existing environmental law is very rarely taking place, so that industry can

survive without compliance. In this context, Ramapati Kumar38 of Greenpeace is arguing further

that the owners of informal recycling plants are not poor people, but instead, do it in the

rudimentary manner because it is profitable and there are not any incentives to change practices

so far.

As all industry representatives at the Greenpeace workshop on e-waste (21.08.2007, New Delhi)

(around seven companies) were supposedly in favor of a legislation, but were always repeating

the same concerns (consumer psyche and responsibility, missing facilities, control of grey market

etc.), Ravi Agarwal of Toxics Link was asking them:

What keeps you from articulating that towards the government? Just tell them that you want standards, that you want legislation. Not only towards us during the workshops. I agree that good common rules for recycling are needed. Authorities need to pressure but business speed is needed too. How many models have been discarded? The time the civil society, the government needs to set up a system, corporations put thousands of products into the market. I want to see some of the energy put into there, that the step is taken. It is good for the environment and for the brand.

Moreover, Ravi Agarwal perceives talking about the grey market as invalid, as he argues that “we

do not need to talk about eliminating the grey market because it will survive and prosper, both

have impacts on the system and will still exist. Even though you wish it away, it won’t happen. It

will at least remain for 20 to 25 more years. All these factors need to be incorporated in the

scheme”.

37 Satish Sinha (Associate Director of Toxics Link) interviewed on 29.07.2007. 38 Ramapati Kumar (Toxics Campaigner of Greenpeace) interviewed on 21.08.2007.


77

Whatsoever, Satish Sinha wants to see three issues embraced by a policy: Producer’s

responsibility (especially after life), incentives for recycling industry to install environmentally

sound plants and facilities and integration of formal and informal players into the recycling chain.

Therefore, Toxics Link is criticizing, that they have already been working on this topic for five

years and have never been consulted by the government. Satish Sinha (Toxics Link) is suggesting

that tax relaxation for ‘green’ complying companies or pioneers in recycling, could help push the

issue forward. Concerning the application of a European scheme in India, he is not seeing too

many problems, as long as local structures are taken into consideration. Biomedical waste rules

are serving as a positive example (see chapter I.4). In accordance to Sinha, ten years ago nobody

would have believed in recycling, and all hospitals burnt their waste in the backyard. Now there

is a pick up by informal players and the hospitals pay for the waste recycling. Hence, this could

also be the destiny for e-waste. So, he argues, there is a need for legislation, in order to initiate a

system of ‘take back’ and solve the problem as to where the consumers could put their waste.

Furthermore, he is describing the fact that “multinationals often have a double morality”. They

are complying with ‘local law’, but not local conditions respectively (no enforcement means no

compliance). Instead they should install concepts such as CSR and not adapt to (lax) local

standards. IBM, Microsoft and other companies are all sticking to high environmental standards

in Europe, so they should also implement them here. Ragesh Johri (TERI) is formulating:

All they are doing in Europe and USA. There is not something new which is being asked for. […] they already do it there, why not in India also? What happens is - this thing will take time. In this mean time, EPR will get delayed. Because any EPR or CSR work means that they have to invest something.

Concerning the idea of imports as an official business opportunity Ramapati Kumar of

Greenpeace is emphasizing in this context that “there is Basel, people. We agreed on minimizing

and eliminating movements of hazardous substances“. Shyamala Mani39 of the Centre for

Environment and Education (CEE) is adding correctly in this context that the ‘livelihood-

argument’ is a dead-end argument to sustain status-quo as “everything is a livelihood

opportunity” in India. Therefore, governments usually become active only if there is a ‘real need’

for it and do not want to interfere with industry. She is arguing that, for example, in Sikkim, the

state government banned plastic bags because they were causing landslides once land-filled in the 39 Shyamala Mani (Coordination of the Waste and Resource Management of CEE) interviewed on 01.08.2007.


78

mountain areas (plastic bags are also recycled in a very harmful manner to environment and

health). So, incinerators did become banned from cities due to pollution control devices after

environmental impact assessments. Hence, the question to be asked in the context of e-waste

imports is:

How much can a country/city sustain and how many facilities are needed as one has to keep in mind that there is no such a thing as an industry with zero impact? Impacts are accumulating. And who decides how much can be accepted taking into account long-term developments? Who takes care of control and restricting imports if implementation and enforcement is already problematic (Shyamala Mani, CEE)?

Moreover, CEE discovered that by now more and more of the waste is not remaining in New

Delhi, but moving out into other regions. Plastics often remain within the Delhi state borders,

while the hazardous parts go to Uttar Pradesh or other surrounding states. The reason is increased

attention, domestic and international, on e-waste and correspondingly stricter industrial law and

controls of the government. Vijaya Lakshmi from D.A. is emphasizing that a very active state

government, is making crucial changes in environmental law implementation in Delhi. Although,

a lot of people are opposing the advancements, it seems questionable how long the responsible

people will hold their office. In general, it needs to be emphasized, that in India environmental as

well as occupational health concerns are compromised in favor of economic reasons, which are

the order of the day. Toxics Link is arguing that only one measure works on the government:

international pressure, but this is mainly regarding topics of the global agenda such as climate

change and poverty alleviation.

Hence, the consumer interest, which could make a change and initiate CSR-policies, is still

missing and therefore awareness-raising needs to take place; but corporations need to get

involved for that. A lot of consumers do not know anything about this. Nevertheless,

Development Alternatives is seeing some progress, as nobody knew about e-waste a few years

ago and now it has become an important topic. That electronics manufacturers do not put too

much effort into educating the consumers on new developments (e.g. ‘take back’); is reflecting an

ambivalent behavior of industry, what Ramapati Kumar is describing as “industry acts like it is

driving with one foot on the gas and one foot on the break”. Hence, Vidhi Aggarwal40, from

Association for Stimulating Know-How (ASK), is demanding a critical media system and

40 Vidhi Aggarwal (Project coordinator and campaigner of ASK) interviewed on 27.08.2007.


79

consumer in order to achieve some change. But TERI is pointing to a divergent development, as

new welfare has rather negative consequences on the consumer behavior. People want to fulfill

desires and not think about environmental or social impacts of consumer decision. Ragesh Johri

is arguing that:

India is a growing economy. And turnover of the present youngsters are much higher than it used to be earlier. […] Economy is booming, say 9 to 10 percent. The youngsters are making good money out of this… and that has an effect on the expenditure. […] You want to change things, you want this or that, new phones, new systems, Ipods, mobile, all kind of things.

In contrast to GTZ and the other NGOs, ASK has a different approach on the IT sector. Vidhi

Aggarwal explained that they are aiming at a Code of Conduct (CoC) for the IT; which addresses

bad working conditions and environmental impacts which are already applied in several Western

countries. Hence, ASK is not insisting on a voluntary approach but rather treats it as

supplementary. Vidhi Aggarwal knows about the weaknesses of voluntary agreements, as

standards vary and controls and audits are often nontransparent and incoherent. While she records

some progress in the garment sector, IT remains holy and untouched by politics. Positive

examples among the industry are, due to her, always linked to outstanding persons with certain

personalities.

Viraf Mehta41of Partners in Change (PIC), a NGO mainly concerned with CSR in India, has been

watching the evolution of CSR since the end of the 1980s and arguing that even in the European

countries most initiatives are still very young, and only started at the end of the 1990s. PIC is not

exclusively following voluntary approaches, but also supports governments in setting minimum

standards. He is pointing out that companies tend to implement only certain aspects of their CSR-

Policies, and the environment is no classical CSR issue (labor rights are also rather avoided). In

contrast, community support is the traditional area where industry is active (see also Chapter

IV.3). Nowadays, due to Western influence, industry is slowly recognizing CSR as a business

issue instead of a philanthropic idea. However, necessary pressure for initiating CSR policies is

coming from donors, external NGOs and Western consumers mostly. Since the markets were so

restricted in the beginning of the 1990s; Indian consumer’s concerns deal with competition,

avoiding monopolies, being able to have choices and low prices. But he argues, that “as soon as

41 Viraf Mehta (Director of PIC) interviewed on 25.07.2007.


80

they stand in the market in front of 10 different brands of the same computer or coffee, they will

ask for other things such as production processes”.

Coming to the practical side of e-waste, the two formal recyclers, Ash Recyclers and E-Parisaraa

(see also chapter I.3), in Bangalore, gave important and interesting information about their

concerns and needs. Ash Recyclers, who is in the business already for 30 years, is solely

repairing, refurbishing, upgrading, taking out reusable material and properly storing material for

recycling. Meanwhile E-Parisarra uses more advanced technology to be able to cover the whole

recycling processes of all electronic waste. E-Parisaraa explained that a lot of materials (metals,

PVC, synthetic granules or glass) can be sold to other industries as inputs for their processes.. P.

Parthasarathy42, director of E-Parisaraa, is auditing each and every company who is buying his

material as CRT glass or plastics, to prove his credibility.

Besides storing material and selling spare parts; Ash Recyclers provides training on proper

manual dismantling, for pupils from the neighborhoods or women of the community, who are in

need of earning some extra income and want to benefit from receiving some technological

education. That is how they create a work pool; but it needs to be emphasized, that people do not

have safe employment conditions and contracts, as it depends on the amount of material Ash

Recyclers receives. They tried to collect material, by putting up collection boxes in residential

blocks watched by guards, in order to raise awareness as well as inform others about their

existence, as well as that of the hazardousness of e-waste. Otherwise, Ash Recyclers business

lives from mouth-to-mouth propaganda. His work consists, for example, in refurbishing old

monitors into TV entertainment system which are sold on the second hand market. Some of the

material is also donated to educational institutions, if they agree to return it afterwards (R.

Kumar, Ash Recylers)43.

E-Parisaraa, on the other hand, is applying a more sustainable approach. P. Parthasarathy is rather

to be seen as a scientist instead of a businessmen, as he is reusing every single part of electronic

equipment. Doors consist of PCBs, flower pots of monitor cases and metal computer cases

become birdhouses, as well as small amounts of extracted gold, being used for his other business: 42 E. Parthasarathy (Director of E-Parisaraa) interviewed on 10.08.2007. 43 R. Kumar (Coordinator of Ash Recyclers) interviewed on 07.08.2007.


81

Gold plating of watchcases, temple statues and pens. However, P. Parthasarathy invented most of

the machines himself. They use different techniques of cutting, chiseling or grinding material, in

accordance to its strength, which then enables him to make use of every single component such as

glass, metal or plastics. To come up with one example, he constructed a machine to treat CRTs.

They are pressurized, by breaking the top, with an electron gun, to prevent implosion. Next, in a

fume hood, the glass is cut with an angle grinder. Then luminescent powder is vacuumed in bags

and the glass is broken into pieces and stored in plastic containers. This technology could be of

high value for the other informal recyclers. E-Parisaraa’s employees come from surrounding

villages and are trained accordingly. Even though, they have safe employment conditions and

contracts, the company is facing high drop-out rates because people can use their gained

technological knowledge to find better paid jobs. As corruption is a major issue in any

authorization process, P. Parthasarathy is preserving his credibility by international audits such as

TUEV or ISO 14000. Furthermore, a central problem is receiving sufficient material; as he can

process one ton per day, but only receives one to four containers of seven to eight tons per month.

Chapter IV: Results and analysis of the empirical study – 5. Analysis 82

5. Analysis

While summarizing the collected material, one thing especially catches the eye: None of the

stakeholders are ready to make sacrifices in order to solve the e-waste problem. The government

is following a rather ‘agnostic’ solution strategy as it does not want to interfere with the

industries’ realm or regulate the handling of e-waste itself. Ministries as well are ignoring the

threat that policies may create for the informal sector. Furthermore, their representation and

attempts at action are rather poor and half-hearted. In contrast, industry seems to use GTZ and the

e-waste initiative as a cover-up for limited (rhetoric) engagement, half-heartedly installed ‘take

back’ schemes and other (non)-activities. This behavior is reflecting the usual very reactive or

curative, rather than preventive thinking in Indian (but also Western) environmental politics.

Most activities of the industry are a response to poor or rather moderate pressure coming from

national and international NGOs, GTZ/Empa and media and therefore, it does not initiate

sophisticated solutions- especially, again, because government does not want to meddle with

industries’ business. This is the reason why the approach towards an effective e-waste

management is based on ecological modernization. Industries have to react on their own accord

and therefore need to see certain (financial) advantages coming out of this engagement. None of

the activities of the e-waste initiative will work without industry’s commitment. The electronics

industry installing ‘take back’ schemes, without proper advertisement and assigned collection

points, does not only enable them to promote an environmentally-friendly image, but also saves

them further costs, as it is lacking the proper response from consumers. Industry refers to

structural and cultural barriers without reflecting on their possibilities. What comes out of the

pioneer’s attempts in e-waste management, only time will reveal. Moreover, calling upon the

government to regulate recycling, collection, trade and sale; but omit ‘take back’ and EPR, is

very convenient and prevents electronics manufacturers from action and costs. Especially, as they

articulate those demands towards NGOs and the public (e.g. during workshops) but not towards

the government. All in all, CSR typically only pays lip service, as most of the companies pity

themselves and present opinions and arguments in the forum differing from what they say during

private conversations and actual behavior. This is also true for the government bodies. Therefore,

the e-waste initiative project seems stuck somehow. Institutional weakness in government bodies

often results in implementation deficits and environmental issues are perceived as inferior, by

Chapter IV: Results and analysis of the empirical study – 5. Analysis

83

industry and most consumers (civil society), to economic issues, instead of being compatible or

even possible (as ecological modernization assumes).

In the late 1960s, environmentalism was broadly associated with the post-material ideas of

Ingelhart (1971, quoted in Hajer 1995:75). He pointed out a shift in value preferences in Western

countries from material to post-material- such as intellectual or aesthetic ones, and environmental

issues. The roots of environmentalism, due to him, are located within a hierarchy of needs, which

assumes that if basic needs are fulfilled, others are taken care of. Furthermore, Ingelhart argues

that people value most, the things which are socially scarce (Hajer 1995:75). Of course, this kind

of approach is very reductionist, and leads us back to antiquated theories of modernization, where

a certain stage of development needs to be reached step by step. This means that the major

objective for all developing countries would be to reach the stage of the industrialized countries,

including their consumption levels, which would demand capacities from the earth which are not

there (Muerle 1997:15). Nevertheless, Hajer (1995:75)also perceives, this is still as relevant

today, in order to understand environmentalism. Surprisingly, many of the interviewed

stakeholders seem to have anticipated this pattern of development. However, global

communication, financial flows, logistics and production networks distribute not only goods and

people around the world, but also values and ideas, which result in parallel developments of

divergent behaviour (Kraidi 2005:148, see also Pieterse 2001). The US, especially serves as an

example of an industrialized country which lacks a positive environmental performance and civil

society pressure. Among others, the reason might be that space is not as scarce there as it is in

Europe. After examining the e-waste problem in India, it becomes obvious that a sense of

environmental justice among the civil society, and/or an advanced environmental performance of

the government, is an essential condition for an efficient electronic waste management system.

The former, for providing material as well as pressure towards industry and government to

become active, while the latter, is needed to guarantee standards of recycling, and proper

facilities, as well as collection via the authorization or even the promotion/enforcement of an

EPR-scheme. Those conditions are explained by different authors of ecological modernization

theory, but take into account, the concept originated in a post-industrial setting. In the European

countries, environmental movements (via ‘green parties’ or consulted NGOs) played a crucial

role in installing environmental policies, by claiming their rights to benefit from public goods and


84

responsible behaviour of industries. This meant a reduction in externalizing costs, as government

and industry responded to this pressure by setting up policies or state-independent management

schemes. Those forces are encouraging engagement mutually.

Therefore, some authors, such as Emirbayer and Sheller (1999:146), or Cohen and Arato (1994)

are relying on civil society (especially NGOs) in their ecological modernization approaches, to

act as a “predictor of ecological modernization outcomes – where the notion of ’civil society’ is

generally defined as involving a ‘self-organized citizenry’” (Fisher and Freudenburg 2001:6). In

India’s case, a long tradition of civil society engagement (Chatterjee 2001:23-24) and weak

institutional structures (see also Jaenicke 1993), point towards the importance of NGO and public

engagement in an ecological modernization approach to e-waste. Weale (1992:169) is pointing

towards the important role of civil society and public pressure by emphasizing that “the

combination of a growing public concern with the environment, and the technical skills to

understand the environmental significance of economic processes and products, means that firms

are increasingly liable to see their environmental performance come under public scrutiny”. As

the divergent NGOs were pointing out during the interviews, environmental engagement, is seen

rather, among professionals (NGOs) or affected people (see also Gadgil and Guha 1995). The

reason that environment is still not treated as a priority might be, among others, that its effects are

often only visible in the long run, and need to be tackled from a broad-societal base to be

successful. However, in order to make progress in e-waste management, industry (and

government) needs to feel pressure (consumer choices etc.) which could result in the anticipation

of an ‘ecologically-modern’ (redesign, ‘take back’, recycle etc.) behavior because it would be

financially feasible then.

Hence, the case of e-waste management, cannot only be based on legislation and industry

engagement, as consumers remain an important link in the e-waste chain or channel. They need to

become/ made aware of the issue in order to make the system work. Whether education [which is,

due to Eckersley (quoted in Hajer 1995:76)the most important issue to tackle in this regard] can

counterbalance this, is the question. Democratic structures help in articulating interest towards the

legislative players, but as long as the level of awareness is not there and interest in environmental

issues is missing, nothing will happen. At the same time, it could be compensated by an offensive

institutional structure of enforcement and promotion, which is not to be found in Indian


85

environmental politics concerning e-waste. As civil society engagement as such, also needs

support of regulating and controlling structures. In India, government consultation remains very

limited. After release of the e-waste guidelines, no suggestions of industry, associations and

NGOs were incorporated by CPCB/MoEF yet. Hajer (1995:280) is emphasizing in this context,

that “the ecological crisis is a ‘discourse of self-confrontation’ that calls for a reconsideration of

the institutional practices that brought it about”. Besides Hajer (1995), Andersen (1993) also

relates a country’s capacity for ecological modernization to its level of institutional and

technological ‘problem-solving capabilities’. Furthermore, Andersen (1993) and Jaenicke (1993),

point to the importance of a policy style, which is seeking consensus. Hence, a government

structure which omits consulting affected stakeholders, as well as including any of their

statements during an (e-waste) policy-making process; and a structure where actors (collectors,

dismantlers, recyclers) are able to buy their authorization for money and not in accordance to

compliance and standards, is not only futile, in this regard, but also endangers transparency.

Therefore, both features are important when applying an ecologically-modern approach to the

Indian e-waste problem. Hence, those two factors are not only crucial in making ecological

modernization work in India, but they also determine each other, in this regard.

All in all, the described mentalities and the state of civil society and government, point to e-waste

as an important issue of environmental justice. The ignorance of the MoEF (compared to a strong

engagement of state governments) towards the informal sector is probably linked to their political

independence from them. While industry uses the livelihood argument as an excuse for not

getting active; politicians on the state level who are concerned politically and whom are also

closer to the people than ministries, want to integrate all informal recyclers into an

environmentally-sound formal sector. Hence, this seems unrealistic, as simple technology is

needed and will probably replace a percentage of manual labor. The two formal recyclers in

Bangalore employ 30 to 40 people for managing one ton of e-waste per plant. Therefore, any

policy enforcing adequate recycling procedures and authorization will have negative

consequences on the recycling segment; very poor people (in particular from the lower class of

the Muslim community, who are mainly employed in the recycling sector) will lose employment

opportunity. Hence, by fighting environmental injustice on a macro level, people face

‘discriminating’ impacts of the policy on a micro level. That reflects on what the EPA describes


86

as discrimination of specific groups (which is also done socio-economically). These people are

affected disproportionately by the policy approach of the ‘well-off’ politicians. The problem is

that the workers are not the ones demanding this policy, which is supposed to protect them, (also

they are not even consulted, pointing again to environmental injustices in policy-making). They

are afraid of loosing their livelihood and lack political power to prevent themselves from risk (or

do not even know about it). Ideally, they would be absorbed in the formal recycling sector.

Hence, informal recycling workers need to be integrated into an e-waste management system as

much as possible. Because the recyclers will be there to do this kind of job for less money than

the formal recyclers, if they do not get absorbed somewhere else; this kind of problem remains

and must be addressed (need for employment provision). Stricter implementation, may only just

result in activities being shifted towards other regions in India (see also chapter IV.4).

Nevertheless, environmental and health considerations justify closing-down this sector as it

operates currently. Moreover, the idea of using imports/exports as further opportunity for

livelihood is very questionable, (from the macro environmental justice perspective) but often

linked to the livelihood discussion. People are not taking the overall environmental burden into

account that India would face in this case. Most actors, besides the NGOs (especially MoEF and

DPCC), were therefore not against such a scenario, and favoured restrictions rather than bans.

However, if there existed such a thing as global ecological modernization, it would be favored,

but as CEE is pointing out correctly, no industry has zero impact and the burden would be

distributed disproportionately. The effect would be that the poorest segments of society could

suffer even more, as they lack access to prevention or mitigation mechanisms. (see chapter III.3

and IV.4.). Finally, the environmental burden would increase further from transporting material

across the globe. However, The Basel convention is fortunately in place to restrict such

movements.

In a country like India, stricken by poverty and inequality, where resources are stretched to the

edge and everything has a value (e.g. payment for e-waste) (see Interviews Toxics Link and

TERI); those features might also determine the outcome of ecological modernization. For

example, Fisher and Freudenburg (2001:6), refer to inequality (see also Boyce 1994), prosperity

and state repression (see also Jaenicke 1993,) in this regard. Other cultural features, which are


87

also important for the Indian e-waste, are pointed out by Cohen (2000:77): environmental

consciousness, which was already discussed above and belief in technological progress and

science. He is pointing out that “this policy programme is dependent on a firm commitment to

science and a preference to address environmental problems in technological terms”. The Indian

belief in technologies’ capacities and scientific progress, is that it is ‘unbeatable’. This is not only

reflected by the interview with MoIC (see chapter IV.1), but also was confirmed by Toxics Link

and TERI. Shah (2004) is supporting this impression by explaining that the unshakable belief of,

for example, Indian farmers in scientific progress, also creates vulnerability to this ‘technological

culture’44 (see also Varma 2005:104ff.). Technology is seen as solution to solve ecological

problems. Hence, this is at least a ‘positive’ observation for applying ecologically-modern

approaches to India.

As industry is perceived as enabler of economic growth and prosperity, as well as provider of

employment L. Raghupati45 of MoEF and K. Kumar of MoIC do reject any interference into

their business, but also appreciate any approaches towards them in order to express legislative

needs in e-waste concerning EPR. In this case, they claim that they would be willing to set

something up. This is matching one of four reasons why ecological modernization has been so

convenient for politicians, pointed out by Hajer (1995:31). While MoEF does not want to

interfere into industry’s business, they are still addressing the topic of e-waste in ‘cooperation’

with social groups and NGOs, in order to respond to the (international) agenda without having to

deal with systemic criticism as such. Due to institutional structures and deficits (e.g. corruption),

legislative and implementation processes take very long, as seen in the case of bio-medical waste

or batteries (see also chapter I.4). However, they ‘wait’ until environmental advantages get

acknowledged by industry as financially beneficial and legislation is been asked for.

44 Technological culture refers to the pervasiveness of science and technology in modern, highly developed societies. It entails the basic underlying assumption that modern societies are shaped by technology and knowledge and that social interactions are mediated through technology, whereby technologies can only function when embedded in societal institutions (Bijker, 2006). 45 L. Raghupati (Additional Director of MoEF) interviewed on 24.07.2007 and K. Kumar (Director of DIT, MoIC) interviewed on interviewed on 20.08.2007.


88

Hence, this is leading to Jaenike’s (1993) point, that ecological modernization encourages

political modernization. This is still very rudimentary in Indian environmental politics, as the

government is not willing to give away influence to other actors and consultations; as well as,

cooperation with social movements or industry association with the MoEF, are rare. Politics here,

are as much as everywhere, a business of profiling and maintaining hierarchies (Dumont 1970).

However, NGOs such as Toxics Link and Development Alternatives are perceived as partners,

rather than as antagonists. Nevertheless, they loose impact power through their

‘professionalization’.46 Even though, government representation is poor during workshops, I

experienced industry (including associations) and NGOs brought together to one table, discussing

constructive solutions to the e-waste problem. While associations play a crucial role in raising

awareness and establishing environmental consciousness, their work is limited to that, and their

influence on actual activities very marginal. However, the significance of collective pressure

articulated by the associations, should not be underestimated. At the same time, NGOs in India

are following moderate approaches, and want to represent according to Toxics Link, “sensible

public players, who are not shouting and insulting”, but whom are creative and diplomatic instead

of radical. This is reflecting the ‘ecologically-modern’ tendencies of environmental movements,

as described in chapter III.1. Even Greenpeace, who was following a more radical path in raising

awareness by laying open individual misbehaviour of certain companies (Wipro, HCL but also

the MoIC), switched to a dual strategy, as scandals proved to be of rather short-lived and of

selective impact. One reason was that companies which were not addressed were relieved and

increased their protection mechanisms instead of improving their environmental performance.47

While looking at the two examples, where an ecologically-modern approach was used, both seem

interesting in terms of analysing the material regarding an Indian e-waste scenario (see chapter

III.1). Vietnam, as a strong industrializing country in Asia, can be seen as only a few steps behind

India, in environmental questions; according to the example of Frijns et al. (2000). While in

contrast to Vietnam, environmental policy framework exists in India (though not separately for

electronic waste), but regulatory mechanisms and the enactment of implementation through

penalties are not established and corruption enables buying off people. Therefore, as in the case

46 L. Raghupati (MoEF) interviewed on 24.07.2007 and Vinnie Mehta (MAIT) interviewed on 02.07.2007. 47 Ramapati Kumar (Toxics Campaigner of Greenpeace) interviewed on 21.08.2007.


89

of Vietnam ecological modernization will not serve, in the first place, as an explanatory frame,

but offer instead a set of principles to improve the environmental performance (management as

well as practices) (Frijns et al. 2000:285). Furthermore, the second study of Sonnenfeld (2000) on

South-East Asia suggests that SME needs, in the first place, support in developing clean

technology. For the Indian e-waste case, my empirical data shows, that, in small and medium

electronics manufacturing but also recycling units need special support and incentives in order to

purchase and install clean technology. The large scale companies can go ahead as pioneers, but

the small scale structures need to be included too, as they account for around 90 percent of the

Indian economy (Saigal and Bose 2003).

Indeed, ecological modernization, a base for a lot of environmental initiatives - including e-waste:

at least admits that environmental problems are a structural outcome of capitalist production. The

image of a clean and neat electronics industry is broken open and a need for action is anticipated

as a result of NGO campaigns (internationally and domestically). Therefore, the situation should

not be depicted as entirely negative. Instead, environmental issues have reached the Indian

mindset to some extent. CSR policies are imposed by international MNCs, education starts to

cover ecological issues. International donors promote environmental topics, advise governments

and institutions, as well as support old-established NGOs in raising awareness, encouraging ‘take

back’ or upgrading the informal sector (knowledge-wise and/or particularly financially) (e.g.

Indo-European e-waste initiative of EuropeAid 2005 or E-waste management, UNEP 2005).

Hence, some fragmented activities are under way. More and more electronics manufacturers

contract with the formal recyclers, research on how to get material back with ‘take back’ and are

joining workshops on e-waste. Meanwhile state governments are in negotiation with recyclers to

set up appropriate facilities (due to international pressure and eco-policies). The MoEF, took a

first step in formulating ‘guidelines’ and good-housekeeping workshops are arranged by NGOs.

Attempts are made as well to organize dismantlers and collectors in Bangalore and Delhi. The

whole awareness campaign of NGOs is yielding some fruits. For example, the car company

Maruti, one of the two major manufacturers in India, approached GTZ on its own accord, because


90

they aim at setting up a recycling plant as they have so much equipment themselves (still in

process).48 To summarize, the topic gets attention from more and more stakeholders.

While E-Parisaraa can be seen as an important example of best practices, Ash Recyclers should

be rather seen as an example of having taken one step further in proper e-waste management.

Media is advertising Ash Recyclers as having the ‘best practice’. For them, it creates the

opportunity to receive more and more material. But even though its facilities are suiting the

Indian context, as a source of employment opportunities for people without education or income:

his concept and methods are not revolutionary or sustainable, as Ash Recyclers is not recycling.

Thus, an evaluation by Byrde (2006), looking for ‘best practices’, showed that they are not

making use of every kind of material. Repair, reuse and storage for later recycling, is not an

adequate response to the problem, as all material needs to be taken care of and recyclable

components cannot be stored forever. Furthermore, its employees are not in safe employment

contracts, as people are only employed on a project/daily base depending on the material volume.

He benefits from media interest, as his practices are ranked a few levels above the informal

sector, but he should not be seen as an institutionalized solution.

In general, finding local solutions to the e-waste problem in India, reflects a dilemma, for there

are, in the first place, Western schemes in existence and working, which are often used as

examples. This can be due to reasons such as sales of Western technology on the market,

(assumed) superiority of western knowledge and technology, or simply that the environmental

performance in the ‘North’ and R&D activities, result in a lead and experience in this field.

However, because conditions are different, the system of Switzerland can not be copied to the

Indian context, even though the system is great. At least the actors, entrepreneurial structures and

mindsets need to be taken into account for establishing any ecologically-modern scheme. Basing

an approach on mind-set changing is not very promising, as this takes a long time and can only be

aimed at being supplementary to setting up recycling plants, developing legislation and so on.

However, the guidelines leave a lot to be desired. Even if MoEF does not want to regulate EPR

and ‘take back’: they should promote it as an individual scheme, or give/take suggestions on a

collective scheme in order to give industry guidance in what to do with e-waste (which is still

48 Maruti workshop, participated on 12.07.2007.


91

unknown after those guidelines). Furthermore, standards should be set nation-wide for formal e-

waste recycling and a scheme for authorization of actors should be introduced. That industry is

not pushing for an EPR, which is no surprise, as they do not see any economic advantage coming

out of a ‘take back’ policy. The environmental benefit is no sufficient argument to match up with

ecological modernization’s argument that there needs to be seen an economic value too. The

question remains of course, whether, infrastructure (assuming advertisement and promotion) will

change the mindsets of people will deliver material to formal recyclers only. Some money, paid

to the consumer, may still be necessary.

After analysing the questionnaires and interviews, I am stating that an e-waste management

system should comprise of the following elements: First, collection agencies need to be

contracted to recyclers and dismantlers. Also, there needs to be a way to tie up to existing

structures and start to establish an individual or collective scheme. As some of the companies

have set up an individual solution already, and are afraid of free-riders - who could be eliminated

via legislation: this should be the starting point and can be merged into a collective scheme later

on via a PRO. Furthermore, associations need to develop corresponding capacities to be able to

manage such a system. However, legislation is needed to have a level playing field and to make a

certificate of E-Parisaraa more valuable than 600 Rupees from the kabadiwalla. In the long run a

PRO will manage collection and storage, to reduce administrative expenses, while the regulator

does the audit of the system. The possibility of offering free collection will result in the problem

of products disappearing from the chain because people get money in the informal sector.

Charging extra for something with the purchase is not favored by industry, as it seems only of

environmental value and threatens their competitiveness, especially if it is supposed to account

also for historical waste. (instead covering waste from current production only).

Not only is the final product resulting in waste, but also the manufacturing process. As such the

debate needs to be transferred to another level, where promotion as well as the examination of

opportunities for waste prevention and redesign with regard to ‘zero-obsoletism’, including

reuse/recycling of parts for manufacturing, are discussed. One problem is, that even concepts of

industrial ecology are only slowly becoming interesting to Indian entrepreneurs, who are still not

too familiar with EPR, eco-design or LCA. This also makes it difficult to make ecological


92

modernization work in India. A lot of research still needs to be done in this regard, such as a life

cycle analysis for electronics from cradle to grave. In Switzerland it proofed to be much more

environmentally sound to recycle rather than incinerate e-waste, as the study of Hirschier et al.

(2005:13) showed. However, recycling of e-waste without environmental impact does not exist.

In particular, the further treatment of products to produce secondary raw materials from them

causes considerable environmental impact. The material flow in and out of the system is totally

unmonitored at present, as data of e-waste movements is difficult to acquire, especially when

covering such a vast country, and huge amounts of waste, which are mainly imported illegally

and not recorded. (Sinha et al.2005:11).

Conclusion – Sustainable e-waste legislation and social responsibility in India 93

CONCLUSION

Hence, what do all those voices, covering a broad spectrum of perspectives on diverse angles

concerning e-waste tell us? Their overlapping is highly visible and most crucial issues and

problems are emerging within all divergent angles. So, what is to be done? Should we abandon

electronics or support setting up a policy frame? What will happen to the two small boys and the

women who depend on e-waste as a livelihood? Will they be worse off than before?

There is no unilinear response to all of these questions. By using ecological modernization as

conceptual framework, the discussion on e-waste management in India is transferred to a more

normative level; the concept itself is very polarizing because it avoids systemic-criticism as such.

This thesis has sought to engage with the subject in an analytical manner. Thus, talking about

environmental subjects and especially if ‘North-South’ discrepancies are tackled, some critical

reflections on the topic as well as on the concept are necessary. European and International

organizations coming into India and preaching the installation of an ecologically-modern system

and responsibility of industry and governments in order to process what is mostly their waste,

seems quite unethical. Western countries need to become responsible (especially the US) before

they should demand something alike from others. They are promoting the significance and

positive achievements of environmental conventions (BMU 2004) but not even complying to the

regulations in their own countries (Schmoegnerova 2002). Nevertheless, looking into India’s

economic, industrial and population growth rates, environmental considerations need to be

included into policies and management practices.

One major question emerging in this context is whether globalization and an international

division of labor is not only the requirement for cost-effective production but also enables such a

good environmental performance in the West. It appears to me very unlikely that a global and

universal ecological modernization scheme is possible at all from an economic perspective.

Technology will not be able to counterbalance all negative effects either as it is cost-intensive as

well as minimizing labor. Furthermore, environmental justice should be seen in the context of

globalization, because an externalization of costs takes place, based on the division of labour. The

costs are borne by developing countries. Poorer societies do the ‘dirty’ work for better-off


societies so that they can have a clean conscience. Consumerism, which is reflected in decreased

obsolescence rates and consumption levels of resources which are encouraged by industry ad

nauseam, cannot be ignored forever as resources are not infinite. An approach of designing

longevity and encouraging upgradeability as well as repair and re-use will be necessary at some

point if we aim at inter-generative justice. This shows an obvious bias within the ecological

modernization discourse which cannot be debated away by its proponents. The same bias can be

seen in addressing the e-waste issue in India. As described, the macro-perspective of

environmental justice requires that some kind of regulatory mechanism in e-waste is needed.

However, the discriminatory effects of a policy towards the (mainly Muslim) workers, needs to

be counterbalanced. People need to be integrated into formal recycling structures, in order to

withdraw them form the market and avoid social injustice on the micro-level.

Concerning my initial hypothesis, the empirical data supports my assumption and indicates that

the current Indian circumstances are not sufficiently incorporated into an e-waste scheme, and

that the corresponding ecologically-modern activities (redesign, industry dialogue) are very

fragmented and individually designed. Therefore, impacts are very limited and a policy will not

be set up in the near future, due to political priorities which are determined by economic issues

and the international agenda, rather than for the health of the environment. Providing a

sustainable and holistic policy (including enforcement) is inhibited not only by the government’s

unwillingness to do so, but also because it is beyond their capacities. Hence, there are a hundred

building sites and starting points but it is difficult to figure out how and where to put down the

next brick.

The usual recommendations, including the encouraged set up of facilities, the banning of

hazardous waste, organizing the informal sector, setting up RoHS regulation in India or installing

‘take back’ schemes are all important features of the system. This indicates a rather ‘techno-

corporatist’ approach which is, according to Christoff (2006:196), the equivalent of a ‘weak’

ecological modernization approach. As this approach focuses on linear technical solutions to

environmental problems through the cooperation of corporate, political and scientific actors, it

results in what we now see in the Indian e-waste discussion: The shifting of responsibility from

one actor to the other while everybody favors a next step which does not affect oneself too much.


During such negotiations, progress gets stuck on a policy level, showing that such an ecological

modernization scheme is not working. This failure is largely due to the prioritization of values

and political interests at the current point in time. Aiming at what Christoff (2006:196) calls

‘strong’ ecological modernization, which incorporates context-specific schemes (‘ecological

modernities’) as well as reflexive relationships to technologies and institutions, decision making

should start with contributions to awareness raising by all stakeholders: NGOs, recyclers,

industry, associations and government each in their way, through, or at least complementary to,

all of their activities. Environmental consciousness cannot be enforced especially by actors whose

own integrity is questionable. But it can be encouraged as ecological modernization needs

environmental awareness as prerequisite. These reforms should also take place in order to prevent

a fundamental belief in technology from having the converse effect of people assuming that

technology improvement will take care of all ecological problems.

The existing CSR policies and engaged companies should be pushed through the roundtable

channel to articulate their statements to the government and prove their credibility. Even so,

government is no all-in-one device and cannot take care of everything. It could promote if not

enforce the EPR and ‘take back’ policies and set standards for the recycling industry as a first

step. As institutional practices play an important role in ecological modernization,

implementation will remain a prominent problem in such a complex system influenced by so

many factors (including corruption). Whether an authorization scheme for collectors, dismantlers

and recyclers will work on a large scale is very questionable. However, the two examples of best

practices, especially E-Parisaraa, give an indication what direction needs to be taken. Simple

technology as used by E-Parisaraa is the only promising measure in order to improve practices in

the informal sector and absorb them into environmentally-sound working structures. However,

this requires at the very least financial and knowledge support from one or more sides. Moreover,

I think that the continuous engagement and activities of the associations, NGOs and GTZ/EMPA

could unite the existing individual schemes into a collective PRO scheme after some time. Even

though the ARF is highly debated, some kind of visible or invisible fee will most probably be

introduced as soon as there is a rise in the material amounts of e-waste which actually come back.

That companies will use it to encourage green consumerism is not entirely bad but it perverts the

facts. If the authorization of the informal sector is not able to cover large segments of the


workshops and employees, the result will be similar to what happened in the case of the batteries

(see chapter I.4). Collection is only partly taken care of and afterwards the products still end up in

the informal sector. At this point companies are in the dilemma: the inability to guarantee an

environmentally-sound destination for their waste, as well as the limitations of using schemes

from other countries as an example has become more than obvious.

What happens to the small boys and the woman is an unknown, as the governments will not be

able to take care of the informal sector work pool as a whole. However, they, as well as almost all

people, are part of the famous ‘treadmill of production’ (Schnaiberg 1980) by earning a salary,

making a living or holding on to a certain living standard. Even though, ecological modernization

might work in one context or the other and some conditions/barriers for the Indian e-waste

context are presented in this paper, the question whether social relations do not have to change in

order to transform these conditions will remain unanswered as there is no possibility of setting up

universal ecological modernization around the world.

Reflections on the research operations and limitations of the project

Doing research in a multicultural setting does not only provide opportunities but also poses

challenges. Especially if it comes to livelihood issues and illegal activities, research can, actually

pose a threat to affected people. Even though, the topic of e-waste is a novelty on the

international agenda, there are already problems of ‘over-research’ occurring because media has

awakened to the presence of powerful images of little boys sitting in between piles of Western e-

waste. Researchers are flooding the informal e-waste sector without being able to give anything

back. Therefore, researchers have reported about their difficulties with approaching recyclers. By

now, both, workers and owners often refuse to be interviewed or photographed. Therefore and

because of a strong interest in policy-making, I decided to conduct my project on the

industry/policy-level.

All in all, the research is only to a limited extent representative, as it solely compares a small

number of large manufacturers as well as key figures in the national government and only two

state governments: those of New Delhi and Bangalore. The spectrum of associations as well as

involved NGOs on the other hand is broadly covered. My project does not claim to catch the


common voice of the industry nor does it aim to come up with a modified policy draft. I rather

attempted to catch diverse voices of all stakeholders to come up with some input in order to

further the solution of the e-waste problem in India and the institutionalization of improved

electronic waste management.

Hence, my results will be more like a snapshot of the problem as perceived through different

lenses of the major stakeholders including those companies which were cooperative and willing

to be interviewed. I could not get hold of the companies manufacturing classical consumer

electronics (washing machines, vacuum cleaner, stoves etc.) as main products, which is linked to

the fact that they are not addressed sufficiently and have the worst environmental performances

(Greenpeace 2006, see appendix VII). In most cases, I could not even get through to the

responsible person via phone as they were publishing false contact details or refusing to deal with

this topic. The ones I reached often played hide and seek over weeks by telling me that they

would call me back or respond by mail within five minutes which they never did of course until

they finally rejected an interview. Furthermore, the associations, which I expected to be efficient

gate keepers and willing to help me, were totally useless in this regard. Using the name of the

association and person still did not open even one ‘gate’. Furthermore, I attempted to contact

SME in the beginning which proved to be completely impossible. The topic itself closed quite

some doors as people were afraid of experiences with Greenpeace aiming at bad image

campaigns. As GTZ was rather unknown in this sector and often mixed up with an NGO,

arranging interviews was not as easy as expected and companies were also quite cautious in what

they would tell. Nevertheless, some industries were quite open to be interviewed and interested in

‘information exchange’.

Concerning interviewees, I could only focus on English-speaking people, as the interview was

designed in English and my language skills in Hindi were still poor. The fact that the IT sector is

dominated by English vocabulary and most employees have very good language skills was an

asset. Politicians as well as interviewees working for associations and NGOs do speak proper

English too, of course. Conversation with the formal recyclers did also not pose a problem and

they were very engaged and friendly. In contrast the informal players were ashamed or not able to


speak enough English to communicate with me, so that I relied on a translator and participant

observation.

The GTZ had already established contacts to some segments of the industry which were very

helpful. The institution of ASEM provided the channel and opportunity to easily approach the

responsible government bodies but was no magic bullet either. A lot of patience and insistence

were required, as well as compliance with strict formalities, until I got the possibility to interview

them. Sending a letter, clearly pointing out my identity (occupation, nationality etc.) to the head

of the department, followed by continuous calling, served the purpose. As a GTZ-intern, I was in

close contact with the people working in this field and I was able to access literature and

publications, in order to illuminate the latest discourse on e-waste easily. Due to the limited time

frame of the project, I relied on the availability and willingness of staff members to disclose

information to me.

‘Time is money’ was the message I received from industry, and I could not afford to be late.

Profit-making, as a main principle also was reflected in my research; not only because they did

not want to waste time (money) with me, but also because they kept asking for reasons to be

interviewed and benefits for them. My offer of information exchange and collecting/articulating

their interest on legislation, was surprisingly, in a lot of cases, successful. Moreover, NGOs and

recyclers were very helpful and took a lot of time for the interview, as it was part of their PR or

personal interest. One thing I learned, was that as you build upon establishing your network,

industry (all stakeholders) cooperates. After I knew most of the key player’s names, and people

started knowing my name, they agreed to be interviewed, or invited me for workshops (further

interviewees).

Otherwise, I was facing the all day life challenges in India. But as I had studied there before,

coping with the cultural context was not too difficult. For example, explaining locations or

ambiguous directions in a Hindi-English mixture to rickshaw drivers, who did not know some of

the areas either, was especially a challenge, because when meeting the industry or government

officials, I had to arrive on time. Hierarchies, gender and age play an important role in India, and

can be of advantage/disadvantage for research.


Potential for future research

The fact that I am looking at just one end of the commodity chain of electronics and electronic

devices immediately hints at the potential for future research. It also illustrates well the

methodological challenges – and opportunities – facing multi-local social research in general. To

illuminate the theme fully, I would need to conduct research in the many spaces and locations that

electronics inhabit during their journey from origin to destination. My investigation could thus be

expanded to trace the journey of a specific product, say computers, from its origin to its final

destination, spanning producing manufactures, buyers, importers, retailers, collectors, and

recyclers. Such a project would need to investigate and negotiate the myriad meanings and life-

worlds that people produce and construct around these progressive, but also harmful goods.

References 100

REFERENCES

Relevant literature for further research:

Andersen, M.S. (1993): ‘Ecological Modernisation: Between Policy Styles and Policy Instruments – the

Case of Water Pollution Control’. Paper presented at ECPR Conference Leiden. Aarhus: Centre

for Social Science Environmental Research.

Atkins, Paul et al. (2003): ‘Key Themes in Qualitative Research. Continuities and Changes’. Walnut

Creek: AltaMira Press.

Basel Action Network (2004): ‘Mobile Toxic Waste Recent Findings on the Toxicity of End-of-Life Cell

Phones’. Seattle.

Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal

(1989) from http://www.basel.int/text/con-e-rev.doc (accessed 5.1.2008).

Berger, P. L. and Luckmann, T. (1997): ’Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit. Eine

Theorie der Wissenssoziologie’. Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer Taschenbuch.

Bernard, R. H. (2002): ‘Research Methods in Anthropology. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods’. 3rd

ed. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.

Bijker, W.E. (2006): ‘The Vulnerability of Technological Culture’. In: Nowotny, H. (ed.) Cultures of

Technology and the Quest for Innovation. New York: Berghahn Books.

Bilitewski, I.B. (2006): ‘Material flows and take back systems’. Workshop on efficient e-waste

management. Institute of waste management. Technische Universitaet Dresden. 8-9 May. New

Delhi.

Boyce, J. K. (1994): ‘Inequality as a cause of environmental degradation’. In: Ecol. Econ. No.

11(December):169 –178.

Breen, R. (2005): ‘Foundations of Class Analysis in the Weberian Tradition’. In: Wright, E.O. (ed.)

Alternative Foundations of Class Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 31-50.

Briggs, C.L. (1986): ‘Learning how to Ask. A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in

Social Science Research’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bruyn, S. (1966): ‘The Human Perspective in Sociology: The Methodology of Participant Observation.

Englewood Cliffs.

Bryner, G. (2002): ‘Assessing Claims of Environmental Justice’. In: Mutz, K. et al. (eds) Justice and

natural resources: Concepts, strategies and applications. Washington: Island Press.

Bundesministerium fuer Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (2005): ‘Gesetz ueber das

Inverkehrbringen, die Ruecknahme und die umweltvertraegliche Entsorgung von Elektro- und

Elektronikgeraeten’ from http://www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/applicati on/pdf/elektrog.pdf

References

101

Burawoy, Michael (1991): ‘The Extended Case Method’. In: Burawoy, Michael et al. (eds) Ethnography

Unbound. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pp. 271-290.

Byrde, S. (2006): ‘Electronic Wastes Recycling in Bangalore: Proposal for the Improvement of the

Environmental and Dismantling Performance of the Formal and Informal Recyclers’. Draft

Report. Prilly: Bureau d’investigation sur le recyclage et la durabilite.

Byster, L.A. and Smith, T. (2006): ‘The Electronics Production Life Cycle. From Toxics to Sustainability:

Getting Off the Toxic Treadmill’. In: Smith, T. et al. Challenging THE CHIP. Labor rights and

environmental justice in the global electronics industry. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. P.

205-215.

Carter, N. (2003): ‘The Politics of the Environment: Ideas, Activism, Policy’. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Castells, Manuel (2000): ‘The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Sociology

and Culture’. Blackwell Publishers.

Central Pollution Control Board (2006): ‘Pollution Control Acts, Rules and Notifications’. Section

Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules 1989. New Delhi. P. 637-721.

Central Pollution Control Board (2007): ‘Draft guidelines for Environmentally Sound Management of

Electronic waste’ from http://www.cpcb.nic.in/Electronic%20Waste/chapter1.html (accessed

12.12.2007).

Central Pollution Control Board and Ministry of Environment & Forest (2005): ‘Management of

Hazardous Waste. Guidelines for transportation of hazardous waste’. New Delhi.

Chakrabarti, T. et al. (2006): ‘Status Report of Hazardous waste in India’. National Environmental

Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) from http://www.envis.neeri.res.in/management.php

Chatterjee, P. (2001): ‘Civil Society in India. A necessary corrective in a representative democracy.’ In:

D+C Development and Cooperation No. 6 (November): 23-24.

Christoff, P. (2006): ‘Ecological modernisation, ecological modernities’. In: Stephens, P.H.G. et al. (eds.)

Contemporary Environmental Politics. P. 179-201.

Clean Production Action (2004): ‘Extended Producer Responsibility. A waste management strategy that

cuts waste, creates a cleaner environment and saves taxpayers money’. New York.

Clift, R. and France, C. (2006): ‘Extended Producer Responsibility in the EU. A visible march of folly’.

In: Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Yale University: Journal of Industrial Ecology Vol.

10.No 4.

Cohen, J. L., and A. Arato (1994): ‘Civil society and political theory’. Boston: MIT Press.

Cohen, M. J. (2000): ‘Ecological modernization, environment knowledge and national character: A

preliminary analysis of the Netherlands’. In: Mol, A.P.J. and Sonnenfeld, D.A. (eds) Ecological

References

102

Modernization around the world: Perspectives and critical debates. Essex: Frank Cass. P. 77–

107.

Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (1990): ‘Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and

techniques’. London: Sage.

CPU World (n.d.): ‘Intel 80486 microprocessor family’ from http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/80486/

(accessed 10.02.2008).

Danermark et al. (2002): ‘Explaining Society. Critical realism in the social sciences’. London: Routledge.

Deutsche Umwelthilfe (2006): ’Deutschland is Exportweltmeister – auch dank Elektroschrott!’ From

http://www.duh.de/pressemitteilung.html?&no_cache=1& tx_ttnews[tt_ne ws]=105

3&cHash=28b27cf51e (accessed 18.1.2008).

Directorate General of Foreign Trade (2002): ‘Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme’. Chapter 5.

Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009 from http://dgftcom.nic.in/ (accessed 15.01.2008).

Dumont, L. (1970): ‘Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste Systems and its Implications. 1980 Series: Nature of

Human Society.

Ehrenfeld, J. (2005): ‘The roots of sustainability’. Sloan Management Review. No 46(2): 23–25.

ELCINA (2006): ‘Annual report’. New Delhi.

Electronics Take Back Coalition (2005): ‘Exporting hazardous waste. The problem of exporting electronic

waste’ from www.electronicstakeback.com (accessed 18.01.2008).

Emirbayer, M., and M. Sheller (1999): ‘Publics in history’. In: Theory Society No. 28:145–197.

EMPA (2004): ‘E-waste pilot study Delhi: knowledge partnerships with developing and transition

countries’. St. Gallen: Empa from http://www.e-waste.ch/

EMPA (2006): ‘E-waste guide: E-waste case studies on Switzerland, South Africa, India and China’ from

http://www.e-waste.ch/

EMPA et al. (2007): ‘Preparation Document for the Roundtable on Models for E-Waste Management’.

New Delhi. [unpub.].

Energy information administration (2004): ‘India: Environmental Issues’. In: EIA Country Analysis Briefs

no. 2. from http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/indiaenv.html (accessed July 2007).

EuropeAid (2005): ‘Indo-European e-waste Initiative’. Presentation for GTZ-ASEM- workshop.

New Delhi. 7. February.

European Commission (2002): ‘Directive 2002/95/EC on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous

substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS)’ and ‘Directive 2002/96/EC on Waste

Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE)’ from

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/legis_en.htm

References

103

European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law (2004):

‘IMPEL-TFS Seaport Project: Illegal waste shipments to developing countries, common practice.

Project report.

Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development et al. (2007): ‘Policy Instruments for

Resource Efficiency. Towards Sustainable Consumption and Production’. Study. Wuppertal.

Bundesministerium fuer Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (2004): ‘A success story for

environment and health’ (BMU) from

http://www.bmu.de/english/air_pollution_control/doc/6905.php (accessed 15.02.2008).

Fiksel, J. (2006): ‘Sustainability and resilience: toward a system approach’. An open access e-journal for

sustainable solutions. Volume 2. Issue 2. from http://ejournal.nbii.org/progress/2006fall/0608-

028.fiksel.html (accessed 15.01.2008).

Fisher, D.R. and Freudenburg, W.R. (2001): ‘Ecological modernization and its critics: Assessing the past

and looking toward the future’. In: Society and Natural Resources No. 14:701-709.

Foster, J.B. (2002a): ‘Capitalism and Ecology: The Nature of the Contradiction’. New York: Monthly

Review Press.

Foster, J.B. (2002b): ‘Ecology Against Capitalism’. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Frijns, J. et al. (2000): ‘Ecological modernization theory and industrializing economies: The case of Viet

Nam’. In: Mol, A.P.J. and Sonnenfeld, D.A. (eds) Ecological Modernization around the world:

Perspectives and critical debates. Essex: Frank Cass. P. 257–291.

Gadgil, M. and Guha, R. (1995): ‘Ecology and Equity: The use and abuse of nature in contemporary

India’. London: Routledge.

Getches, D. and Fellow, D. (2002): ‘Beyond traditional environmental justice’. In: Mutz, K. et al. (eds)

Justice and natural resources: Concepts, strategies and applications. Washington: Island Press.

Giddens, A. (1998): ‘The Third Way. The Renewal of Social Democracy’. Cambridge: Polity publisher.

Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967): ‘The Discovery of Grounded Theory’. Chicago: Aldine.

Goldsmith, E. et al. (1972): ‘A Blueprint for Survival’. London: Penguin.

Greenpeace International (2005): ‘Recycling of electronic wastes in China & India: workplace &

environmental contamination Report’. Exeter.

Greenpeace International (2006): ‘Guide to Greener Electronics’ from

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/how-the-companies-line-up

(accessed 15.07.2007).

Grossman, E. (2006): ‘High Tech Trash. Digital Devices, Hidden Toxics, and Human Health’.

Washington: Island Press/Shearwater Books.

References

104

GTZ et al. (2007): ’E-waste recycling in the Delhi region’. Presentation for Delhi e-waste assessment

workshop 15.3. New Delhi.

Hajer, M.A. (1995): ‘The Politics of Environmental Discourses: Ecological Modernization and the Policy

Process’. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Haldar, A. and Madari, U. (2006): ‘E-waste and trade’. In: Envis trade and environment newsletter Vol

2(1).

Handwerker, W. P. (2001): ‘Quick ethnography’. Waltnut creek: AltaMira Press.

Harvey, D. (1998): ‘What’s Green and Makes the Environment Go Round?’ In: Jameson, F. and Miyoshi,

M. (eds) The cultures of Globalisation. Durham: Duke University Press.

Hieschier, R. et al. (2005): ‘Does WEEE recycling make sense from an environmental perspective? The

environmental impacts of the Swiss take back and recycling systems for waste electrical and

electronic equipment (WEEE)’. In: Environmental Impact Assessment. Review No. 25:525-539.

Huber, Joseph (1985): ‘Die Regenbogengesellschaft. Ökologie and Sozialpolitik’. Frankfurt: Fisher.

Indigo Development (n.d.): ‘Introduction to Industrial Ecology’ from http://www.indigodev.com/IE.html

Ingelhart, R. (1971): ‘The Silent Revolution in Europe: Intergenerational Change in Post-Industrial

Societies’. In: American Poltical Science Review 65:991-1017.

Jain, A. (2006): ‘E-waste management in India: Current status and needs’. New Delhi: IRG Systems.

Jänicke, M. (1993): ’Über ökologische und politische Modernisierungen’. In: Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik

und Umweltrecht no 2:159-175.

Khan, F. (2002): ‘The roots of Environmental Racism and the Rise of Environmental Justice in the 1990s’.

In: McDonald, D.A. (ed.) Environmental Justice in South Africa. Cape Town: University of Cape

Town Press. P. 15-48.

Kraidy, M.M. (2005): ‘Hybridity: or the cultural logic of globalization’. Philadelphia: Temple University

Press.

Lifset, R (1999): ‘The industrial ecology of renewable resources’. Berlin: Zero Emissions Forum

Publications. United Nations University. P. 2-4.

Lindhqvist, T. and Lifset, R. (2003): ‘Can we take the concept of individual producer responsibility from

theory to practice?’ In: Journal of Industrial Ecology No 7(2):3-6.

LRD (2005): ‘Des chercheures suisses au secours du recyclage des ordinateurs en Asie’.

LaRevueDurable. P.42-44.

Macaulay, M. et al. (2003): ‘Dealing with electronic waste: modeling the costs and environmental benefits

of computer monitor disposal’. In: Journal of Environmental Management No. 68:13-22.

MacGibbon, J. and Zwimpfer, L. (2006): ‘E-waste in New Zealand. Taking Responsibility for end-of-life

Computers and TVs’. Wellington: Computers access NZ trust. P. 54-63.

References

105

MAIT (2003): ‘MAIT-annual report 2003’. New Delhi: Manufacturers Association for Information

Technology.

MAIT (2007): ‘Manufacturers Association for Information Technology, computer penetration rates’.

[unpublished].

Mann, M. (2005): ’Geschichte Indiens. Vom 18. bis zum 21. Jahrhunder’. Muenchen: Schoenningh UTB.

Martinez-Alier, J. (2002): ‘The Environmentalism of the Poor. A Study of Ecological Conflicts and

Valuation’. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Marx, K. (1946) [1867]: ‘Capital’. Vol. 1. London: Dent.

McDonald, D.A. (2002): ‘What is Environmental Justice?’ In: McDonald, D.A. (ed.) Environmental

Justice in South Africa. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press. P. 1-11.

Meadows, D.H. et al. (1972): ‘The Limits to Growth’. New York: Universe Books.

Mol, A.P.J. and Sonnenfeld, D.A. (2000): ‘Ecological Modernization Around the World: An

Introduction’. In: Environmental Politics. No 9(1):3-16.

Mürle, Holger (1997): Entwicklungstheorien nach dem Scheitern der „großen Theorien“. INEF-

Report Heft 22/1997 Universität Duisburg.

O’Connor, J. (1994): ‘Is sustainable capitalism possible?’ In: O’Connor, J. (ed.): Is capitalism sustainable.

New York: Guilford Press. P. 152–175.

O’Neill, J. (2006): ‘Public choice, institutional economics, environmental goods’. In: Stephens, P.H.G. et

al. (eds) Contemporary Environmental Politics. New York: Routledge. P. 160-179.

OECD (2005): ‘Analytical Framework for Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Extended Producer

Responsibility Programmes’. London: University College from www.oecd.org/env/waste.

Perappadan, B.S. (2008): ‘Space at Ghazipur for medical waste’. In: The Hindu ePaper 5. January from

http://www.hindu.com/2008/01/05/stories/2008010559970300.htm (accessed 19.1.07).

Pieterse, J.N. (2001): ‘Hybridity, So What?’ In: Theoy, Culture & Society Vol. 18. No. 2-3: 219-245.

Puckett J, Smith T. (2002): ‘Exporting harm: the high-tech trashing of Asia’. Seattle: The Basel Action

Network. Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition.

Rocky Mountains Institute (2008): ‘Natural Capitalism’ from http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid69.php

(accessed 12.01.2008).

Rostow, Walter W. (1960): ‘The stages of economic growth, a non-Communist manifesto’. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Rudra, S. (2000): ‘The Division of Labor in Social Science Research: Unified Methodology or “Organic

Solidarity”?’ Polity 32(4): 499-513.

References

106

Ruiters, G. (2002): ‘Race, Place and Environmental Rights: A Radical critique of Environmental Justice’.

In: McDonald, D.A. (ed.) Environmental Justice in South Africa. Cape Town: University of Cape

Town Press.

Saigal, S. and Bose, S. (2003): ‘Small and Medium Forest Enterprise India: A discussion paper’. New

Delhi: Winrock International India.

Savage M. (2006): ‘Implementation of the Waste electric and Electronic Equipment Directive in the EU’.

Brussels: European Commission.

Schmögnerová, B. (2002): ‘World Summit on sustainable development’. Statement of the United Under-

Secretary-General UNECE. Johannesburg 29. August.

Schnaiberg, A. (1980): ‘The Environment: From surplus to scarcity’. Oxford: University Press.

Schwarzer, S. (2005): ‘E-waste, the hidden side of IT equipment’s manufacturing and use’. UNEP

Environmental Alert Bulletin No. 5 from

http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/publication/download/ew_ewaste.en.pdf

Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft (1998): ’SR 814.620 Verordnung vom 14. Januar 1998 über die

Rückgabe, die Rücknahme und die Entsorgung elektrischer und elektronischer Geräte (VREG) ’

from http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/c814_620.html

SECO and EMPA (2003): ’E-waste Handbook. A Contribution to a Sustainable Information Society’.

Presentation from http://sustec.ch/drupal475/e_waste_handbook_a_contribu

tion_to_a_sustainable_information_society

Shah, E. (2004): ‘Technological Vulnerability and Farmers - Suicide in Karnataka, India.’ Paper presented

at the EASST/4S. Paris.

Sinha-Khetriwal, D. et al. (2005): ‘A comparison of electronic waste recycling in Switzerland and in

India’. In: Environmental Impact Assessment Review No. 25:492-504.

Smith, T. et al. (2006): ‘Challenging THE CHIP. Labor rights and environmental justice in the global

electronics industry’. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Sonnenfeld, D.A. (2000): ‘Contradictions of ecological modernization: Pulp and paper manufacturing in

south-east Asia’. In: Mol, A.P.J. and Sonnenfeld, D.A. (eds) Ecological modernisation around the

world: Perspectives and critical debates. Essex: Frank Cass. P. 235–256.

Spaargaren, G. (1997): ‘The ecological modernization of production and consumption: Essays in

environmental sociology’. Wageningen: Wageningen University.

State Environmental Resource Centre (2004): ‘Background Environmental Justice’ from

http://www.serconline.org/ej/background.html

References

107

Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland (2006): ’Indien’ from

http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Content/Publikationen/Fach

veroeffentlichungen/Laenderprofile/Content75/Indien.psml (accessed 15.01.2008).

Streicher-Porte, M et al. (2005): ‘Key drivers of the e-waste recycling system: Assessing and modeling e-

waste processing in the informal sector in Delhi’. In: Environmental Impact Assessment Review

No. 25:436-458.

Tashakkori, A. and C. Teddlie (1998): ‘Mixed methodology: combining qualitative and quantitative

approaches’. California: Thousand Oaks.

The Basel Action Network and Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (2002): ‘Exporting Harm. The High-Tech

Trashing of Asia’. Seattle.

Toxics Link (2003a): ‘Scrapping the Hi-Tech myth. Computer Waste in India’. New Delhi.

Toxics Link (2003b): ‘E-Waste in Chennai. Time is running out’. New Delhi.

Toxics link (2004a): ‘It is time to reboot the system’. E-waste factsheet. March. No. 20. New Delhi.

Toxics link (2004b): ‘Household batteries: Discharging toxins’. Hazardous waste fact sheet. December.

No. 23. New Delhi.

Toxics Link (2007): ‘Mumbai: Choking on E-waste. A study on the status of e-waste in Mumbai’. New

Delhi.

Toxics Link (2008): ‘Dark shadows on Digitisation on Indian horizon’. In: TERI (ed.) E-waste a

Treatise on Impact, Management and Regulations. New Delhi.

Transparency International (2007): ‘Corruption Perception Index’ from

http://www.transparency.de/Corruption-Perceptions-Index-2.1077.0.html

UNDP (2006): ‘Human Development Report’ from http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/globa l/hdr2006/

UNEP (2005): ‘E-waste management – Environment and e-waste in India’ from

http://www.unep.fr/pc/pc/waste/e_waste_in_India.htm (accessed 15.02.2008).

UNEP (2006): ‘Basel Convention at a glance’ from http://www.basel.int/convention/bc_glance.pdf.

(accessed 15.8.2007).

Varma, P.K. (2005): ‘Being Indian: Inside the real India’. London: William Heinemann. Pp. 74.

Walonick, D.S. (n.d.): ‘Everything you wanted to know about questionnaires but were afraid of asking’

from http://www.statpac.com/research-papers/questionnaires.htm (accessed 15.07.2007)

Wankhade, K. (2004): ‘Is India becoming dumping ground for British e-waste’. Toxics Link from

http://www.toxicslink.org/mediapr-view.php?pressrelnum=5 (accessed 9.1.08).

Weale, A. (1992): ‘The New Politics of Pollution’. Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press.

Weintraub, I. (1995): ‘Fighting Environmental Racism: A selected annotated Bibliography’ from

http://egj.lib.uidaho.edu/egj01/weint01.html

References

108

Widmer, R. Et al. (2005): ‘Global perspectives on e-waste’. In: Environmental Impact Assessment Review

no 25:436-458.

Williams, E. (2005): ‘International activities on e-waste and guidelines for future work’. Swiss e-waste

guide from http://ewasteguide.info/international_activi

Williams, M. (2005): ‘Basel conference addresses electronic wastes challenge’ UNEP publication 27.

November from http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default

.asp?DocumentID=485&ArticleID=5431&l=en (accessed 12.01.2008).

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987): ‘Our Common Future’. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Zingel, W.P. (2007): ‘Wirtschaftssystem und wirtschaftliche Entwicklung in Indien’. Bundeszentrale fuer

Politische Bildung from

http://www.bpb.de/themen/9HJ43A,0,Wirtschaftssystem_und_wirtschaftliche_Entwicklung_in_In

dien.html (accessed 10.02.2008).

Appendix I: Key players in Indian e-waste activities 109

APPENDIX I: Key players in Indian e-waste activities

Key player in Indian e-waste engagement

Lakshmi Raghupati, Additional Director of Ministry of Environment and Forest Institution: Highest national authority in environmental legislation responsible for

planning, promotion, coordination and supervising implementation of environmental and forestry programs

Activities: Awareness and technical workshops, assessment studies, building of a work group initiating draft guidelines

Perspective: “Government cannot just point with the finger and impose [top-down] but needs to include the stakeholders in e-waste management”.


Vinnie Mehta, Executive Director of Manufacturers’ Association for IT

Institution: Since 1982 Association, representing Hardware, Training Design R&D etc.

by promoting usage of IT and business, strengthening its role nationally and transforming Indian IT into a world scale industry

Activities: Promotion of e-waste and invitation of members to e-waste dialogue events,

information on changes in the debate or legislation, providing data, concept-solution development, lobbying with the government

Perspective: “It is the [European] consumers who said the industry must ‘take back’ the

dead product and make sure that it is recycled in the most environmental friendly manner with least or minimal damage to the environment. People asked for it- they were also willing to pay for recycling it”.

Key player in e-waste engagement

Ashutosh Vaidya, Head of Wipro Infotech Personal Computing Business

Institution: US$ 1.76 Bio Company with 66.000 employees providing IT services, product

engineering services, Technology infrastructure services and BPO outsourcing

Activities: Pioneer in promotion of ‘take back’ with assigned collection points and

labeling of products as well as eco-design of desktops and laptops, participation in industry dialogue

Perspective: “E-waste can have a far-reaching, adverse impact on the environment if not

dealt with immediately. But in India the grey market is too substantial, so ‘bonafide’ vendors face increased costs and have disadvantages because the

customers will choose lower cost options”.

Appendix I: Key players in Indian e-waste activities 110

Source: GTZ, Homepages of MoEF, MAIT, Wipro, Toxics Link


Ravi Agarwal & team, Director of Toxics Link

Institution: NGO working for environmental justice and freedom of toxics, promoting

sustainable alternatives for India Activities: Baseline research, good-housekeeping workshops with ‘informals’,

organization of industry dialogue, solution-concept development with other actors, lobbying and awareness campaigns: publications, talks etc.

Perspective: “Good common rules for recycling are needed. Authorities need to pressure

but business speed is needed too. How many models have been discarded? The time the civil society, the government needs to set up a system, corporations put thousands of products into the market. I want to see some of

Appendix II: Health and environmental impacts of e-waste processing 111

APPENDIX II: Health and environmental impacts of e-waste processing

Computer/e-waste component

Process Witnessed Potential Occupational Hazard

Potential Environmental Hazard

Cathode Ray Tubes (CRT)

Regunning, Breaking, Removal of Yoke and Dumping

- Silicosis - Cuts from CRT glass in

case of implosion - Inhalation or contact with

phosphor containing cadmium or other metals

- Glass dust inhaling

Lead, barium and other heavy metals leaching into ground water, release of toxic phosphor

Printed Circuit Board

De-soldering and removing computer chips

- Tin and lead inhalation

- Possible brominated dioxin, beryllium cadmium and mercury inhalation

Air emission of same substances

Printed Circuit Board (processing)

Open burning and acid baths of waste boards that had chips removed to remove final metals

- Toxicity to workers and nearby residents from tin lead, brominated dioxin, beryllium cadmium and mercury inhalation

- Acid contact with eyes, skin may result in permanent injury

- Inhalation of mist and fumes of acids, chlorine and sulphur dioxide gases can result in respiratory irritation to severe effects including pulmonary edema, circulatory failure and death

- Hydrocarbons, heavy metals, brominated substances etc. discharged directly into rivers and banks

- Acidifying of river destroys fish and flora

- Tin and lead contamination of immediate environment including surface and groundwater

- Brominated dioxins, beryllium cadmium and mercury emissions

Chips and other gold plated components

Chemical stripping using nitric and hydrochloric acid and burning of chips

- Toxicity to workers and nearby residents from tin lead, brominated dioxin, beryllium cadmium and mercury inhalation

- Acid contact with eyes, skin may result in permanent injury

- Inhalation of mist and fumes of acids, chlorine and sulphur dioxide gases

- Hydrocarbons, heavy metals, brominated substances etc. discharged directly into rivers and banks

- Acidifying of river destroys fish and flora

- Tin and lead

Appendix II: Health and environmental impacts of e-waste processing 112

can result in respiratory irritation to severe effects including pulmonary edema, circulatory failure and death

contamination of immediate environment including surface and groundwater

- Brominated dioxins, beryllium cadmium and mercury emissions

Plastics from computers and peripherals

Shredding and low temperature melting to be reutilized in low grade plastics

Probable Hydrocarbons, heavy metals, brominated dioxins exposure

Emissions of brominated dioxins, heavy metals and hydrocarbons

Computer wires Open burning and stripping to remove copper

- Brominated and chlorinated dioxins, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (carcinogenic) exposure to the workers living in the works area

- Cuts from knife in case of implosion

Hydrocarbons ashes including PAH’s discharged to air water and soil

Miscellaneous computer parts encased in rubber or plastic e.g. steel rollers

Open burning to recover steel and other metals

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and potential dioxin exposure

Hydrocarbons ashes including PAH’s discharged to air water and soil

Toner Cartridges Use of paintbrushes to recover toner without any precaution

- Respiratory tract irritation

- Carbon black (possible carcinogen to humans)

- Cyan, yellow and magenta toners unknown toxicity

Cyan, yellow and magenta toners unknown toxicity

Secondary steel or copper and precious metal (smelting)

Furnace recovers steel or copper from waste including organics

Exposure to dioxins and heavy metals

Emissions of dioxins and heavy metals

Source: GTZ et al. (2007): Presentation for Delhi e-waste assessment workshop.

Appendix III: Questionnaire on e-waste management (industry) 113

APPENDIX III: Questionnaire on e-waste management (industry)

Question Option Yes/

No?

Strength Weakness

Prevent e-waste entering household waste?

Reduce hazardous processing of e-waste?

Promote reuse?

Promote recycling?

Waste prevention and better product design?

1. What is the goal of e-

waste legislation?

The use/phase out of toxic materials and processes?

Define which products are considered e-waste? How to define them? Categories? Historical/orphan goods?

Leave out what is covered by other legislation?

Treat business and households separately (B2B, B2C)?

Why a dedicated separated legislation?

2. What is the scope of

the legislation?

What parts of the system need to be regulated (manufacturing, trade&sale, use, reuse, collection, take-back, logistics, recycling and recovery, disposal, exports, imports)?

Brand owner?

Manufacturer?

Importer

Distributor

3. Who is a producer?

All of the above?

Individually?

Collectively?

4. How should

responsibility be

allocated? Not, at all?

Producer?

Retailer?

Municipality?

Recycler?

5. Who should be

responsible for

collection?

Consumer?

Producer? 6. Who should be

responsible for systems Retailer?

Appendix III: Questionnaire on e-waste management (industry) 114

Government? organization and

operation? Recycler?

7. Who is responsible

for control and audit

of…

…the entire system?

…environmental aspects?

…financial aspects?

8. Who is responsible

for the setting of the

standards?

Is financing explicitly regulated?

Are historical and orphan products mentioned?

9. How is the system

financed?

Should the following financing structures be adapted (ARF, visible fee, recycling fund or others…)?

10. What are the

current laws for waste

management/treatment

/environmental

legislation?

Not for profit organization?

Limited liability company?

Foundation?

11. What legal form

should a PRO take?

Other?

PROs?

Manufacturers?

Government?

NGOs?

12. Who should have

the informational

responsibility?

Retailers?

13. Should there be

collection and recycling

targets? (How could

they be measured?)

14. Are collection and

recycling targets set?

15. Do you have a take

back scheme in place?

Appendix IV: Results of industry questionnaire on e-waste management 115

APPENDIX IV: Results of industry questionnaire on e-waste

management

Sample size: n=15

Target group: electronics manufacturer and importer

Participation: Almost all questions were answered if not stipulated

Date: June 2007 – August 2007

Place: New Delhi, Bangalore

1. What is the goal of e-waste legislation?

Percentage

Prevent e-waste entering household waste 93%

Reduce hazardous processing of e-waste 80%

Promote reuse 73%

Promote recycling 80%

Waste prevention and better product design 67%

The use/phase out of toxic materials and processes 93%

2. What is the scope of the legislation?

2.1 Define which products are considered e-waste?

2.2 How to define products?

2.3 Leave out what is covered by other legislation? 2.4. Treat business and households separately (B2B, B2C)? 2.5 What part of the system needs to be regulated?

Yes No

87% 13%

Yes No No response

In accordance to WEEE 80% 13% 7%

Other specifications 13% - -

Covering historical and orphan waste 27% 40% 33%

Yes No No response

40% 13% 47%

Yes No

87% 13%


87% 87% 87%

33% 27%13%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

tra

de

an

d s

ale

rec

yc

lin

g/

reco

ve

ry

dis

po

sa

l

imp

ort

/ex

po

rt

(gre

y m

ark

et)

co

llec

tio

n

man

ufa

ctu

rin

g

reu

se

tak

e b

ac

k

log

isti

cs

3. Who is a producer?

4. How should responsibility be allocated?

5. Who should be responsible for collection (several responses possible)?

87%

33%40%

13%

87%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

municipalities manufacturer retailer recycler consumer

Percentage

Brand owner 80%

Manufacturer 80%

Importer 80%

Distributor 73%

All of the above 13%

Percentage

Individually 40%

Collectively 47%

Both would be fine 13%

Not, at all -


6. Who should be responsible for systems organization and operation (several responses possible)?

80%

20%

7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

municipalities manufacturer retailer consumer

7. Who is responsible for control and audit of… (several responses possible)?

8. Who is responsible for the setting of the standards (several responses possible?

9. How is the system financed?

9.1 Is financing explicitly regulated?

9.2 Are historical and orphan products mentioned?

9.3 Should the following financing structures be adapted?

Government Manufacturer (individual)

PRO Retailer Recycler

…the entire system 87% 33% 47% 80% 80%

…environmental aspects 87% - 47% - -

…financial aspects 27% - 80% 13% -

Percentage

Government 80%

Manufacturers 13%

No response 20%

Yes No No response

67% 20% 13%

Yes No No response

27% 40% 33%

Yes No No response

ARF 47% 53% -

Invisible fee 20% 13% 67%

Recycling fund 20% 33% 47%

Other 13% - 87%


10. What are the current laws for waste management/treatment/environmental

legislation (several responses possible)?

11. What legal form should a PRO take (several responses possible)?

12. Who should have the informational responsibility (several responses possible)?

13. Should there be collection and recycling targets?

14. Are recycling and collection targets set?

15. Do you have a ‘take back’ scheme in place?

Percentage

Solid Waste Management 47%

Hazardous Waste Management 40%

Other 7%

No response 47%

Percentage

Not-for-profit organization? 13%

Limited liability company? 27%

Foundation? 13%

Other? -

No response 60%

Percentage

PROs 67%

Manufacturers 80%

Government 7%

NGOs 13%

Retailers 67%

Yes No No response

67% 13% 20%

Yes No No response

- 93% 7%

Yes No In progress

27% 13% 60%

Appendix V: Group specific interview guidelines 119

APPENDIX V: Group specific interview guidelines

I. Interview guideline for government bodies: MoEF, CPCB, DPCC, KSPCB

Legislation

1. Are you in favour of extending existing law or creating new laws? Do guidelines actually mean

recommendations or formal law (What about guidelines, voluntary agreements, CoCs instead)? 2. What effect would different possibilities have on industry, informal sector and a clean e-waste

channel? 3. What implications will either legislation have for the implementation on state level? Are you

accordingly in favour for one or the other? Are there already activities in progress (if yes, what kind of)?

4. Do you anticipate it as sufficient to just cover the “disposal” of e-waste by law (If yes, what about non-hazardous parts of waste, recycling processes etc.)?

5. How far should responsibilities and involvement of industry go due to your opinion? 6. Are you taking any action to eliminate illegal imports of e-waste or closing legislative loopholes

through further regulations and in particular increased controls to comply with the Basel convention and decrease the amount of e-waste in India?

7. In India one’s waste is the other’s livelihood. If policies as well as enforcement are in place, will there be any plans to include the informal sector?

8. Are you in favour of formalized recycling sector (registering, authorization of collection points or pick ups and recycling units)? Why?

9. Is a formalized e-waste channel (registering, authorization issued by SPCB) a realistic option? Who would be in charge of controls?

Implementation

1. In your experience, in how far is the industry cooperating and complying with environmental law? Are there any mechanisms of control and enforcement (sanctions, incentives etc.) in place or planned?

2. What do you think will be the impact of a policy? 3. Could the municipalities contribute to collective take-back schemes (collection points, etc.)? Who

would you expect to do the collection of e-waste (producer, retailer, municipality, recycler, consumer)?

4. Who will be in charge of raising consumer awareness (producer, retailer, government, NGOs)? 5. Who should be in charge of control and audit of system (financially, environmentally?

Corporate Social Responsibility

1. How important is reputation, image (CSR) in India, is there any public interest and pressure on industry’s activities?

2. Are environmental targets and industrial development compatible at all? 3. Is there not a danger that the poor suffer most from environmental policies instead of benefiting?

What action will be taken to outweigh the loss of livelihood?

Other

1. Why was e.g. the legislation on Bio-Medical Waste (Management and Handling) a success (was it?) and the regulation concerning Batteries (Management and Handling) a failure? Can there be any lessons learned for e-waste?

2. Is a formalized scheme (ideal of clean e-waste channel) a realistic vision for India, with registered and authorized actors or will the informal sector always take care of some recycling activities?

3. How do you estimate the chances that the consumer will accept and use the system? Are environment and social impacts a sufficient reason for changing the mentality and behaviour of consumers


II. Interview guideline for industry associations Legislation

1. Are you educating your members about the progress of legislation and roundtable/dialogue

activities? Are you promoting a certain standpoint? 2. What is your standpoint towards the legislation and why? 3. Do you think a regulatory framework could change production processes and\or recycling

activities of the mobile industry? Would recycling or reuse be lucrative at all? 4. Have a lot of your members installed already procedures of taking back and recycling? What

kind of and if not why not?

Implementation

1. Do you think an e-waste legislation is necessary in general and will the industry take any action as long as there are no mechanism of enforcement (control as well as incentives or sanctions) in place?

2. What do you think will be the impact of a policy? 3. Do you agree that the producer should be responsible for take back of e-waste (or rather brand

owner, importer, distributor)? 4. What kind of take-back scheme would your members prefer (individual or collective) and

why? 5. Could an e-waste policy initiate that industry reuses and prevents waste and changes to a better

product design? Has the WEEE had already any impact on (some of your) product lines? 6. Who could be expected to take care of the collection of e-waste (producer, retailer,

municipality, recycler, consumer)? 7. Who should be in charge of control and audit of the system (financially, environmentally)? 8. How would they handle up-coming costs of the system? Could the mobile industry imagine to

include a collection or\and recycling fee or even small amount to be paid to customer into product’s prices?


1. How important is “reputation” and “image” regarding CSR in India? Does there exist a public

interest and pressure on your activities? If yes, through whom is it articulated (via domestic NGOs, international donors, government)?

2. Is “obsolescence” guaranteeing industries profits? Why does a laptop only lasts for 2 years, are new systems developed which are not compatible with the old ones etc.? Where do you think, does the need and desire of the consumer come from to get the newest version or design of a good (e.g. advertisement, societal status, practicalities)?

3. Do you think environmental targets and industrial development are compatible?

Other

1. Are there any laws of waste management or environmental regulations touching the realm of the mobile industry?

2. Would industry be willing to provide information for the consumer (awareness raising about e-waste system, product constituents, handling precautions and responsibility of the producers in changed situation) or do they anticipate this is the duty of retailers or the government(s)?


4. Why are you (not) involved in roundtable and dialogue etc. activities? 5. What does the industry expect from the government, retailers, consumers etc.? 6. What are you in your institution doing with e-waste, how many computers do you have for

how many people? What are reasons for replacement?


III. Interview guideline for electronics manufacturers and importers Legislation

1. Are you educating your members about the progress of legislation and roundtable/dialogue

activities? Are you promoting a certain standpoint? 2. What is your standpoint towards a new e-waste legislation and why? 3. Do you think a regulatory framework could change production processes and\or recycling

activities of the mobile industry? Would recycling or reuse be lucrative at all? 4. Have a lot of your members installed already procedures of taking back and recycling? What

kind of and if not why not?

Implementation

1. Do you think an e-waste legislation is necessary in general and will the industry take any action as long as there are no mechanism of enforcement (control as well as incentives or sanctions) in place?

2. What do you think will be the impact of a policy? 3. Do you agree that the producer should be responsible for take back of e-waste (or rather brand

owner, importer, distributor)? 4. What kind of take-back scheme would your members prefer (individual or collective) and

why? 5. Could an e-waste policy initiate that industry reuses and prevents waste and changes to a better

product design? Has the WEEE had already any impact on (some of your) product lines? 6. Who could be expected to take care of the collection of e-waste (producer, retailer,

municipality, recycler, consumer)? 7. Who should be in charge of control and audit of the system (financially, environmentally)? 8. How would they handle up-coming costs of the system? Could the mobile industry imagine to

include a collection or\and recycling fee or even small amount to be paid to customer into product’s prices?


1. How important is “reputation” and “image” regarding CSR in India? Does there exist a public

interest and pressure on your activities? If yes, through whom is it articulated (via domestic NGOs, international donors, government)?

2. Is “obsolescence” guaranteeing industries profits? Why does a laptop only lasts for 2 years, are new systems developed which are not compatible with the old ones etc.? Where do you think, does the need and desire of the consumer come from to get the newest version or design of a good (e.g. advertisement, societal status, practicalities)?

3. Do you think environmental targets and industrial development are compatible?

Other

1. Are there any laws of waste management or environmental regulations touching the realm of the mobile industry?

2. Would industry be willing to provide information for the consumer (awareness raising about e-waste system, product constituents, handling precautions and responsibility of the producers in changed situation) or do they anticipate this is the duty of retailers or the government(s)?


4. Why are you (not) involved in roundtable and dialogue etc. activities? 5. What does the industry expect from the government, retailers, consumers etc.? 6. What are you in your institution doing with e-waste, how many computers do you have for

how many people? What are reasons for replacement?


IV. Interview guideline for NGOs, research institutes and recyclers Legislation

1. Are you in favour of extending existing law or creating new laws? Do guidelines actually mean recommendations or formal law (What about guidelines, voluntary agreements, CoCs instead)?

2. Are you taking any action to eliminate illegal imports of e-waste or closing legislative loopholes (e-waste declaration as “donations” or “metal scrap”) aiming at further regulations and in particular increased controls to comply with the Basel convention and decrease the amount of e-waste in India? Or are there any actions from your side concerning hazardous occupational and environmental processes during production of electronic goods and devices?

Implementation

3. In India one’s waste is the other’s livelihood. If policies as well as enforcement are in place, will there be any plans to include the informal sector?

4. What do you think will be the impact of a policy? 5. Who should be in charge of control and audit of system (financially, environmentally? 6. In your experience, in how far is the industry cooperating and complying with environmental

law? Is there any enforcement in place in any field? 7. How important is reputation, image (CSR) in India, is there any public interest and pressure on

industry’s activities? 8. Are environmental targets and industrial development compatible at all? 9. Why was e.g. the legislation on bio-medical waste recycling a success (was it?) and the

regulation concerning battery disposal and recycling a failure? Can there be any lessons learned for e-waste?

Perspectives 1. Is a formalized scheme (ideal of clean e-waste channel) a realistic vision for India, with

registered and authorized actors or will the informal sector always take care of some recycling activities?

2. How do you estimate the chances that the consumer will accept and use the system? Are environment and social impacts a sufficient reason for changing the “Lakshmi”-mentality and behaviour of consumers

3. Is industry not still perceived as guarantor of progress and development and therefore like an “untouchable” to the public opinion?

4. Video e-waste 5. How does the cooperation with GTZ, EMPA, UNEP etc. and industry works concerning your

rather radical ideas, approaches and statements in contrast to rather moderate working modes?

Specific questions to ASK/PIC:

Legislation or CoC/CSR

1. Why are you taking the approach of a CoC for the electronics industry instead of a legislation? 2. How are the bad working conditions within the informal recycling sector tackled by your CoC? 3. Do you think its outreach will be enough to improve working conditions within the informal

sector (reducing of hazardous substances during production etc.)? 4. Are you also in favour of a take-back scheme as industry’s responsibility? 5. How do you control whether the companies are complying with their voluntary CoCs? 6. Is “obsolescence” guaranteeing industry’s profits? Where do you think, does the need and desire

of the consumer come from to get the newest version or design of a good (e.g. advertisement, societal status, practicalities)?

Appendix VI: Visual snapshots of e-waste in India 123

APPENDIX VI: Visual snapshots of e-waste in India

Resale

Dismantling

Recovery

Source: GTZ

Storage

Transport

Recycling Backyard Copper wire scrap

Appendix VII: Greenpeace Guide to Greener Electronics 124

APPENDIX VII: Greenpeace Green Electronics Guide

Source: Greenpeace (2006)