The Circular Electronics
Roadmap
The Circular Electronics Roadmap provides the electronics industry and its stakeholders with 40 clear actions across six pathways that follow the product lifecycle to enable companies’ transition to a circular economy by 2030. It is the result of an extensive stakeholder engagement process with more than 100 experts from companies and NGOs and its success relies on continued collaboration.
Explore the six
pathways
1
Design for circularity
2
Drive demand for circular products and services
3
Scale responsible business models
4
Increase official collection rate
5
Aggregate for reuse and recycling
6
Scale secondary material markets
7
Cross-pathway theme
Pathway 1
Design for circularity
A common vocabulary across stakeholders is vital for implementing and evaluating a circular economy. Generally agreed and achievable principles for what circular design is are needed to drive harmonization efforts in standards, government policies, procurement practices and certification schemes. This will help bring consistency across the sector to achieve circularity-related goals. Value chain stakeholders are going to collaborate to propose principles for evaluating circularity in products and services. These stakeholders include producers, retailers, refurbishers, product service and disposition companies, recyclers, importers, resellers and relevant public sector entities. Together, they can develop a North Star vision of what the industry transformation towards a circular economy should look like, creating a base reference for further standard, certification and regulatory development. Based on this model, standardization institutions can develop industry-wide standards to define and assess circularity – incorporating product design and business model perspectives. This North Star should consider the context and associated characteristics of different electronics categories.
To accelerate circular product design practices, an NGO or industry association can set up, curate and maintain an online repository of circular design materials. This can include standards, references and definitions on circular electronic products and services, eco-design policies and regulation for different regions. Beyond this, the repository can hold information and case studies on industry design best practices.
The repository should encourage and enable designers, marketers, distributors and other relevant actors to prioritize circular design criteria by providing them with accessible information on available tools.
During product development, designers and other stakeholders are required to balance various requirements. Design for circularity can take many different forms, depending on the intended life cycle and recovery at end of life (e.g., durability, repairability, recyclability, use of recycled content, etc.) and often requires different, even contradicting, design solutions. In addition, requirements for product safety (e.g., flame retardancy), customer preferences (e.g., usability) and economic requirements (e.g., production cost) are also important. It is critical to provide designers and product developers with the tools and capabilities to effectively evaluate circular design criteria as part of the product development process. To overcome the lack of industry-specific training on product design for circularity, businesses can collaborate with NGOs and education institutions to develop tools and training for designers and engineers. These can be rolled out as corporate training programs for professionals and consumers, or as part of relevant study programs at universities.
A company transformation to a circular business is extraordinarily complex. Certain starting principles, such as “use of circular resources”, “design for circularity” and “ensuring material recovery”, are helpful. However, by specifying and translating what this means for a particular product, these principles can lose meaning if the full intended circular life cycle of the product is not considered. Without an in-depth strategy for how products will be sold, used, collected, repaired, reused, refurbished or recycled, designers have very little context when it comes to developing circular design solutions. Therefore, rather than starting with design, producers need to approach circularity by carefully considering how products will perform on circularity throughout their life cycle, balanced with other key parameters such as cost, safety and performance. The development and implementation of business tools, like a “circular value proposition canvas”, could help top-level management structurally consider how to practice circular business. It could further help them engage and direct all relevant company stakeholders, including design teams, to contribute within their capacity to the central circular business transformation. These tools could either be developed by companies internally or through industry collaboration for subsequent individual use.
Demand is the primary driver for circular product and service development and is vital to ensuring circularity is a priority for corporate decision-makers. Policies and regulations that support the development and uptake of circular products and services are needed to accelerate the transition to circular electronics. Governments can build on the momentum of the EU Green Deal and the new Circular Economy Action plan – under which legislation is currently proposed. Globally, governments need to further develop and implement a regulatory framework that incentivizes development and uptake of circular products and services while not over‑regulating the detailed execution. This can include, but is not limited to, value‑added tax (VAT) reductions, extended product support periods or modulated extended producer responsibility (EPR) fees – where not already in place.
Pathway 2
Drive demand for circular products and services
Integrating circularity criteria into organizational procurement processes can drive major purchasers of electronic products and services towards increased circularity, influencing overall market demand. NGOs, together with academic and standards organizations, can apply the definition of circular products and services to the procurement context, defining circular products and services for purchasers. This includes developing globally applicable purchasing preferences, standards and guidelines (aligned with the joint definitions as per Pathway 1). This guidance will help public and private sector procurement specialists integrate circularity criteria in their organization’s procurement processes. It will also help them reconsider specifications that prevent circularity, such as those that only allow tendering of new devices and equipment. In line with the Circular Electronics System Map, asset disposition can also play a critical role for circular procurement to avoid linear practices at end of life. Guiding principles could either be included in procurement guidance or developed separately in tandem.
Clear commitments to circular procurement by governments, companies and other large buyers can stimulate circular procurement by demonstrating relevance and creating momentum for other organizations to raise their ambitions. Commitments also provide direction for employees and create a sense of urgency around defining clear responsibilities and developing implementation plans. NGOs could launch a global campaign for countries and private sector leaders to commit to circular procurement. Commitments could include setting a defined annual percentage spend on circular information technology (IT) products and services; they should highlight the impact of circular procurement on the global UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In addition, governments and companies should consider integrating circular procurement into strategies for supply chain continuity, climate resiliency and in upcoming policies (e.g., the EU Green Deal).
Fact-based communication about the climate, social, environmental and economic benefits of circular procurement helps raise awareness. It also creates a sense of urgency for changing mindsets from the status quo of a linear model towards one of circularity. NGOs, with support from research organizations, can develop tools that help quantify the environmental, social and economic benefits of circular products and services. They can also highlight the value case and associated organizational benefits for buyers. Increased awareness among consumers supports uptake of organizational and governmental policies that stimulate circular electronics. In addition to clarifying and quantifying benefits, these tools should include guidance on terminology used to communicate these benefits to consumers.
Training and knowledge sharing can support purchasers to integrate guidance on circular electronics procurement into their own organizational processes. This includes category management, process improvement and demand management. NGOs, industry associations and manufacturers can offer training resources to increase uptake. This could include training for procurement specialists on the definition of circular products and services, the modification of sourcing strategies and the application of circularity preferences and requirements in procurement decisions. A circular procurement certification and recognition program could highlight and reward best practices, incentivizing wider uptake of circular electronics procurement.
A clear commitment to circular electronics from producers, especially manufacturers, is vital. It will signal to purchasers that a wide range of products and services will exist that meet circular procurement requirements. To meet demand, producers need to integrate circularity into their corporate strategies, adopt circular design and sourcing policies, and partner with purchasers on circular products and services (e.g., via take-back programs). Purchasers should be encouraged to explore innovative commercial models that promote mutual benefits with producers (e.g., multi-year performance-based service contracts for hardware assets). NGOs should be prepared to support producers’ commitments, where considered appropriate and helpful (e.g., featuring case studies, speaking opportunities on transitional progress, shared target-setting, etc.).
ESG reporting is growing increasingly relevant with regard to stakeholder engagement and investment decisions. Annually, ESG factors are systematically included in financial analysis on USD $2.5 billion worth of investing assets – a 143% growth since 2016.15 To attract and retain investors, as well as satisfy stakeholders, companies will increasingly need to show sustainable, and circular, procurement progress. Companies cannot manage what they do not measure. It is important to track and report data related to circular procurement goals and policies. Reporting would include both the procurement of materials necessary for finished products sold, as well as internal procurement practices for business operations on technology purchased. Both measurements will facilitate tracking of progress against goals and allow for planning and/or course corrections where needed.
Circularity in raw material sourcing and product and service procurement is currently not integrated into existing ESG reporting guidelines – leading to a lack of global reporting. The integration of circular sourcing and procurement in ESG accounting standards (e.g., GRI, SASB) and protocols by ESG reporting organizations (e.g., CDP) would lead to more informed assessments of the progress or, lack thereof, towards circularity. Regular reporting would enable setting, tracking and achieving circularity goals at scale. To support this process, consideration could be given to initiatives such as the collaborative efforts between CDP, CDSB, GRI, IIRC and SASB.16 It could also include existing guidance or policies on non-financial reporting, such as the CSRD or the Disclosure and Engagement Guidance to Accelerate Sustainable Finance for a Circular Economy in Japan.
Pathway 3
Scale responsible business models
Enhancing current and developing value propositions of circular products and services is vital to driving demand and ensuring circular business models offer business value. The key will be to center this development around consumer needs. The consumer research and marketing teams of electronics manufacturers and retailers will play an important role in exploring and understanding those needs and translating them into opportunities. Marketing teams will also require training on how to drive the appeal and market position of such products and services, and on how to substantiate green claims. NGOs could work with research organizations to generate industry-wide consumer insights to support a larger transition towards circular business models.
To support the transition to a circular electronics industry, investors are adapting their understanding of value creation, risk and short-term versus long-term profits. It is the task of producers to consistently measure and communicate circular product and service performance to investors, demonstrating the financial success of circular electronics to attract and sustain investment. Standardized definitions and metrics for circular products and services (see Pathway 1) can help producers set growth targets for more circular portfolios and underpin financial performance with metrics such as percentage of revenue and profits from responsible circular offerings.
By 2040, the ICT sector is expected to produce around 14% of emissions globally. Depending on the product, Scope 3 emissions can constitute 50%–90% of an organization’s total GHG emissions. Though it is widely accepted that Scope 3 emissions must be addressed, they are also the hardest to measure and tackle. Further efforts are needed to establish a common baseline and better understand the GHG emission contribution of electronic devices in different industries. Focus should be on naming and quantifying the reduction potential of circular solutions on an organization’s Scope 3 emissions. This will involve development and use of corresponding emission and circularity standards, including industry-specific guidance on harmonized reporting methods. Another focus area could be the question of how to best verify or audit these findings. Development work is ongoing in both areas across and beyond the CEP partner organizations, such as the Scope 3 Guidance for Telecommunications Operators, developed by GSMA, GeSI and ITU, as well as the PACT Pathfinder Framework, powered by WBCSD.
Circular business models and circular electronics procurement can lead to an abrupt change in cash flow statements and balance sheets when introduced. This becomes particularly clear with the example of product-as-a-service models that have increased working capital demand and cash flows spread across a longer period of time. In addition, rules on depreciation and residual value estimation are biased towards a linear economy. They can, for example, incentivize large buyers of electronics to regularly replace used IT equipment with new products to exploit tax benefits. They can also present a biased picture of the financial health of providers of second-hand and refurbished products or products-as-a-service. Adaptation of current accounting practices through changes to the U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) can further support circular business models. For example, this can include guidance for estimating residual values of assets or for sizing the cost of repair and refurbishment.
More investment in responsible, circular business models is needed to improve the social and environmental impact of the electronics industry and help accelerate the transition to circular electronics. Producers can invest in, or partner on, the development of alternative business models that prioritize design for circularity, sourcing circular materials and exploring alternative take-back and collection models that facilitate reuse, use life extension or recycling. Public producer commitments to circularity can help drive demand (see Pathway 2). Financial institutions need to act responsibly and increase financing options for circular business models. This can be achieved by holistically integrating circularity and human rights into assessments of financial and ESG performance.
Reuse, refurbishment, remanufacturing and high-value material recycling depends on the timely take-back of unused electronic devices and e-waste. Fears surrounding data misuse and insecurity through collected end-of-life devices is a serious deterrent for users or end users when it comes to handing over their old electronics. Standards and certifications are in place to ensure sanitization processes with reliable technology are carried out through certified facilities. However, the self-education for consumers that is required to fully understand which sources to trust leads to many devices being kept but not used by consumers, or being disposed of in ways that offer little or no value retention. Electronics manufacturers can integrate a safe data sanitization solution in all electronics that store personal data. Users should be enabled to perform the data sanitization themselves. Clear communication about available data sanitization options can promote their use and reduce insecurities. Across jurisdictions globally, risks regarding unreliable data sanitization are addressed through voluntary frameworks, standards and guidelines, such as EPEAT, TCO, IEEE 2883 or NIST SP800-88r1. Engagement of the private sector in these policy developments is critical to ensure they are effective and constructive.
Electronics manufacturers need to support product use extension by partnering with independent repair and refurbishment providers. They can provide training and certification of technical competence to professionals to enable effective, accessible provision of repair and refurbishment services to customers. Leveraging the existing right-to-repair movement and circular product design, there may also be certain types of repairs that could be safely performed by the consumer. Electronics manufacturers will need to determine which products are suitable for this. Based on their assessment, repair manuals and replacement parts can be produced to help consumers perform simple and safe repairs themselves. Since the launch of CEP, legislative developments have taken place in both options for repair, such as the Digital Fair Repair Act23 in New York State and the Repairability Index24 in France. It is important that governments engage the private sector in these policy developments to ensure they contribute to productive solutions and avoid stalling progress for companies who are ahead of legislation.
Repair providers play a key role in the circular economy, providing fast, straightforward product services to local customers. Professional refurbishment providers, including manufacturers, complement these services at the regional, or even global, level. Currently, there is a lack of clarity about who is responsible for repairs under the manufacturer’s warranty, the voiding of warranty, the safety of repairs, and repairs conducted by individuals outside of warranty. This includes not only physical defects, but also digital defects, such as malware. In addition, poorly repaired products reflect primarily on the brand owner. These structural problems limit the growth of the repair and refurbishment sector and accessibility of these services for customers. The European Commission’s plans to establish a “right to repair” for electronics will require the definition of responsibilities.25 Policies clarifying liability of repair and refurbishment providers and manufacturers for any social, environmental or financial damages resulting from a repaired product – as well as work towards harmonizing product liability regulation related to product use extension services at the regional and global level – could help address the issue. The “right to repair” legislation currently in place in some countries and U.S. states can serve as an example. Collective insurance schemes for repair operators could also be considered to further support repair and refurbishment markets.
Informal repair providers, collectors and recyclers are dominating the electronics value chain in many emerging markets; markets that often have poor working conditions and low environmental standards. To maximize positive social impact and advance decent work in the transition to circularity, there is a need to promote respect for labor rights. This includes ensuring safe, adequate working conditions, decent pay and dialogue between actors ranging from government entities to employers and workers’ organizations (including informal workers). To support the formalization of enterprises, governments can offer incentives such as reduced taxes during transition or access to social security, etc. Furthermore, consistency of due diligence requirements across international and national frameworks is needed to support the development or reinforcement of assurance processes. All companies in the electronics value chain need to ensure human rights are respected throughout their value chains. Calibrating those standards and deploying them in the development and scaling of circular business models needs to be a priority.
Pathway 4
Increase official collection rate
The actual return of electronics that are no longer used by consumers (B2B, B2C and B2G) is a critical factor in take-back and collection. In addition to the major barrier of data security concerns (see Pathway 3), a lack of clarity on responsibility for take-back of equipment, and the financial costs or inconvenience associated with the returns process limit collection rates. To address these issues, producers, in collaboration with local governments, retailers, non-profit organizations and waste companies, can incentivize consumers to return equipment through investing in more convenient drop-off locations. They can also explore ways to reward correct behavior. Industry peers can take the lead in collaboratively exploring how to create appropriate collection pathways for different regions and product types and how to implement these through pilots and scaling. Better communication of EEE on specific take‑back opportunities and embedding messaging about take-back opportunities into the customer journey can raise awareness. Moreover, collection channels need to be explicit about the guaranteed data sanitization of their subsequent value chain partners. This is in relation to product and material recovery and will help assure customers that any remaining data on their device will be destroyed. To improve take-back rates from large purchasers, producers can consider integrating buy-back agreements, or product-as-a-service models, into purchasing contracts. Finally, producers could make agreements with small, third-party repair centers to boost collection and take-back of specific boards and circuits with components that contain precious metals and protected designs. In emerging markets, there needs to be a clear focus on implementing regulation (see P4.6) and boosting convenient take-back and collection schemes. To articulate opportunities for (further) development of regional and local collection and take-back systems, a thorough mapping and understanding of the current infrastructure and available channels is recommended.
Most actions outlined in this roadmap are targeted towards increasing responsible and efficient resource use, and avoiding dumping of e-waste going forward. However, industry players are aware that a significant amount of e-waste has been improperly disposed of or accumulated in large storage facilities in past decades. With the support of researchers, producers can consolidate data about historic e-waste to get a better picture of locations and volumes, and assess recoverability of historic waste. This will be used to develop regional strategies for efficiently recovering these resources.
In many developing countries and emerging markets, informal workers and worker networks dominate WEEE collection and recycling. While transitioning the informal sector (see Pathway 3), governments should do more to formalize unofficial take-back activities to ensure decent labor and environmental standards. In cooperation with governments, NGOs and development organization, industry players can create frameworks for informal workers to participate in formal markets. They can also pilot financial mechanisms for informal actors to formalize their practices in a decentralized circular system. Increasing their financial return and the speed of payment will be key to developing an effective incentive. These actions support the transition of informal actors to formalized entrepreneurs and enable improvements in health and safety practices. Building on successful take-back solutions, collection networks and logistics developed by the informal economy can ensure easy access to and availability of take-back for many more consumers. In collaboration with NGOs and international organizations, certified recyclers can expand current collection work and develop pilot projects that create business models for buying e-waste from informal collectors, ensuring safe material processing.
Integrating solutions for take-back and collection into the business model is an additional driver of enhanced collection rates. Circular business models based on ownership retention, such as leasing or pay-per-use models, are one option. However, take-back solutions can also be added to existing models. Manufacturers can identify viable solutions (e.g., through agreements with universities and local research centers) for integrating take-back and collection into their value propositions. They can also invest in creating digital solutions that facilitate take-back (e.g., reverse vending machines, product passports, etc.).
A first step towards harmonizing global approaches to take-back and collection involves improving consistency in reporting and measurement. International research and reporting initiatives (e.g., Global E-waste Statistics Partnership, GRI, OECD, UN Statistics Division, SASB, etc.), in cooperation with governments, can drive convergence on definitions and reporting for WEEE/EEE take-back, collection and recycling rates. It is recommended to start at the national or regional level and move towards creating global standards.
EPR has proven to be a successful regulatory framework in WEEE management. This is true of countries that lack legislation on e-waste management, and where private sector-led collection schemes are difficult to establish. In these geographies, strong public-private cooperation is needed to develop effective EPR regulation that encourages the right actions by all stakeholders. Governments can benefit from support by experienced producer responsibility organizations, manufacturers and recyclers. They can learn from models that have been successfully implemented in other developing countries and roll these out to vastly increase the global coverage of e-waste legislation. Public-private cooperation is also key to improving enforcement of existing regulation or enhancing regulation to drive better outcomes (e.g., through avoiding inconsistencies or tailoring policies to the type of equipment.
Pathway 5
Aggregate for reuse and recycling
Currently, administrative requirements for transboundary shipments are largely paper based. Original notification documents must be signed in hard copy and posted to competent authorities in the importing, exporting and transit countries for approval. A strong digitization effort for PIC processes can significantly streamline processes, reducing transaction costs for legitimate shipments and preventing delays. This includes points of import and export, as well as every point along the reverse supply chain. Members of the Basel Convention should continue to prioritize and accelerate planned digitization efforts.i Partnerships with other international e-government initiatives, logistics providers and other companies, as well as groups such as the Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation and the Prevent Waste Alliance can help bring global best practices to the PIC procedure. Industry can play an important role in ensuring solutions are made possible by actively engaging in their development.
Waste equipment flows tend to follow a path of least resistance. Efforts to assure paths lead to a formal repurposing facility and not to the informal economy are critical. Based on bilateral arrangements of competent national authorities, logistics providers, electronics producers and recyclers can set up “trusted trader agreements”. These are for shipments that channel used equipment from pre-approved collectors or processers (including original equipment manufacturers with collection programs) to pre-approved and certified recovery facilities under a trusted trader system. This would cover shipments of waste intended for reintroduction of materials into the circular economy. The system enabling this needs to be transparent and robust and could be created through a multi-stakeholder process. Shipments should not be possible to countries that do not wish to receive waste. Regional agreements, such as Africa’s Bamako Convention, will need to be respected. Although such agreements are made between countries, it is the industry that would be obligated to follow implementation. There is current support for the concept of such agreements, but no pragmatic model of what it could look like. A group of experts could come together to design a model arrangement for a resource recovery lane or equivalent, consulting with trade, customs, business and non-profit leaders. The arrangement will be delivered as inspiration to champion governments to take forward. Countries would be able to pursue trusted trader bilateral or regional agreements under Article 11 of the Basel Convention.
As well as documented challenges with cross-border trade of circular goods and materials, the global reverse supply chain system for electronics could be optimized through strategic planning of e-waste management infrastructure. National, or even regional, waste volumes can be too small to attract investment in specialist recycling facilities, leading to a lack of competitive recycling infrastructure in emerging regions. Collaboration between regional governments to develop a strategic perspective on e-waste management could help address this issue. They can engage with specialist recyclers to establish local centers for sorting, pre-processing and recycling, combining e-waste volumes from several countries to enable economies of scale and attract expertise and investment. Where local or regional facilities are not economically viable, they can consider how to enable access to international end-processing facilities (see Pathway 5). To encourage development of quality recycling infrastructure in emerging markets and developing countries, governments will also need to consider incentivization. This could be through using certified formal recyclers or minimizing business risks associated with illegal leakage of materials into the informal economy.
Collected electronics destined for repair, refurbishment or recycling are categorized at the border as either “non-waste”, “waste” or “hazardous waste”. Definitions are often interpreted (or misinterpreted) differently across jurisdictions, leading to uncertainty around the classification of waste. International organizations can collaborate with policymakers and customs officials in countries that are part of the global electronics value chain. They can provide training and build capacity on the critical assessment of incoming and outgoing shipments and the application of the Basel Convention. The training should include implementing the new Harmonized System (HS) customs codes for electrical and electronic waste that took effect in 2022. More sophisticated traceability systems could also enhance waste management at granular level.
If a company wants to make a shipment subject to the notification procedure, they must first provide funds in escrow to cover the shipment’s storage, return and/or treatment in case of non-compliant shipments. This financial guarantee is linked to each individual notification request. The money must be accessible until the final certificate of environmentally safe repurposing is given. To avoid locking up significant amounts of capital and simplify regulatory procedures, members of the Basel Convention should consider regulatory adjustments that allow for the financial guarantee system to be converted to an insurance system. Guarantees are only activated at a rate of 0.01%, so it is likely the insurance sector would be willing to serve this space.29 Currently, updates on the approach for financial guarantees in the Convention are being discussed, opening a window of opportunity to advance it.
The Basel Convention requires that all transit countries give explicit consent to every transboundary shipment by undertaking the full PIC procedure. According to company disclosures, transit countries seem to be the least likely to go through this procedure as they have the least at stake in the process. Members of the Basel Convention need to evaluate an opt-out system for transit countries that should be notified of planned shipments – retaining the right to block them. If the country does not block the shipment within an agreed timeframe, this should be considered as tacit consent to the transit. There is ongoing work on this topic.
Pathway 6
Scale secondary material markets
Industry-wide standards and definitions on the characteristics of secondary materials are critical for recyclers to provide the same level of material performance assurance as virgin material suppliers. Categories of focus should include: material quality and quantity,ii chain of custodyiii and production characteristics.iv Where limited alignment on these key definitions was seen as a serious barrier during development of the original CEP Roadmap, current perception is that many of the ambiguous concepts have evolved into more concrete and commonly understood language. This is reflected in ISO 14021, SCS Recycled Content Standard. As more standards become available (such as ISO 59020, currently under development), these can be compiled and shared for reference. Where gaps continue to exist, multi-stakeholder taskforces, including recyclers, designers and sourcing specialists from manufacturers, can form credible taskforces responsible for defining scope, data standards and definitions for key categories.
There is a lack of EHS assurance for the repair, refurbishment, remanufacturing and recycling sector. It makes the purchasing of secondary materials an often-unacceptable business risk for many electronics manufacturers as it bypasses their due diligence processes in other parts of the value chain. This curbs demand growth and slows integration of more recycled content into new electronic products. Certain EHS standards are available for early stages of recycling, but they do not provide full life-cycle due diligence for material procurement. The objective should be to drive consistency in EHS expectations for the recycling sector, especially in relation to engagement with the informal sector. The long-term imperative is to design and implement a validation scheme that provides onsite due diligence and assurance to EHS practices. Data standardization and reporting schemes could be expanded to include verification of EHS assurance in secondary material sources.
Standardized material tracking and traceability can help overcome the lack of information about origin and routes of recovered materials. It can also improve assurance on material performance and EHS standards. As a first step, material suppliers, electronics manufacturers and recyclers – with the support of standards organizations and auditors – can define standardized technical data sheets. These can be applied at all tiers of the value chain, using virgin materials as a benchmark. They can then convene parties that are interested in the collaboration to define necessary data,v identify data sources, transferability and confidentiality, and align on reporting mechanisms and processes. The ability to trace recycled content to a level of assurance that wasn’t sourced from poor EHS practices can be developed over time.
Long-term commitments by manufacturers to procure recycled content would inspire confidence among recycling industry players to invest in technology that creates more reliable supply chains. Commitments and targets for secondary material demand should be long term so that supply from recyclers, smelters and processers can be developed to meet demand. Industry associations, universities and research centers, or NGOs, can support in creating space for designers from electronics manufacturers and recyclers. This can allow them to focus on overcoming technical barriers related to the use of secondary materials and to increase transparency on current and future demand for materials – especially scarce and rare earth metals, mass metals and plastics.
Certain conditions currently limit the financial viability of recycling operations and incentives for investment in new technologies and infrastructure. These include unstable scrap material flows (see Pathway 5), decreasing precious metal contents, increasing material complexity and the significant costs of compliance and de-pollution. To ensure future demand for secondary materials can be met, governments and financial institutions should create financial support mechanisms. This can be for technology development in the recycling industry (including chemical recycling), especially automated sorting, and pre-processing infrastructure that can handle advancing product and material complexity. Because demand for recycling is driven by secondary raw material demand from producers, it is key to align the two industries. In addition, better enforcement of e-waste regulations would support compliant recyclers by preventing undercutting of market prices by actors not following EHS standards.
In addition to financial support for investment and better enforcement of social and environmental regulations, incentives for the sale of secondary materials can help accelerate the transition from virgin material production. This is especially relevant where secondary material production exceeds that of virgin materials. This can be caused by value chain complexities (e.g., regulatory processes related to reverse logistics, see Pathway 5) or lower economies of scale. Downstream incentives for circular products should be combined with upstream incentives for circular materials and supported by policies that increase the sale of recycled materials (e.g., tax reductions, subsidies) during the circularity transition.
Cross-pathway theme
Cross-pathway theme
Our understanding of potential value chain data exchange applications to enable electronics circularity is expanding beyond material tracking, traceability and sourcing transparency (see action P6.3). This is reflected in major policy developments, e.g., the EC’s proposal to create DPPs that make product-related information available across the entire product life cycle among supply chain businesses, authorities and consumers. The first product groups,
including electronics, are expected to be affected by this regulation in 2026/27.
Many DPP elements, such as scope, data requirements and technical requirements, are still under development. Industry players, supported by NGOs and other relevant stakeholders, need to continue proactively helping shape such elements. They must also address some of the emerging barriers, such as data complexity, availability, standardization, interoperability and confidentiality. Companies can then collaborate in testing the operationalization of data exchange for circularity across their value chain(s). When doing so, they can build on existing and/or evolving standards and protocols, sector guidelines and frameworks and learn from other value chain data exchange initiatives. Early engagement would also allow companies to prepare for upcoming regulatory requirements and identify new business opportunities.
Download the publication
Download The Circular Electronics
Roadmap
In 2020, the CEP launched an extensive stakeholder engagement project to inform this first-of-its-kind roadmap. CEP mobilized the six founding partners, and more than 80 experts from 40 companies, industry associations and non-governmental organizations. Following six months of collaboration, they identified the barriers, enablers and necessary interventions across six Pathways that would help drive progress in key stages of the electronics value chain.
Since 2020, the world and our understanding of circular electronics has evolved. To keep the CEP roadmap relevant, current members and founding partners initiated a holistic review in 2023. We collectively reviewed each of the Pathways and their respective 40 actions, adjusting them as needed. While these changes reflect the latest developments in the landscape of circular electronics, the revised roadmap maintains the level of ambition and insight gathered during development of the initial document.
Measuring progress
As an action-oriented initiative, we seek ways to measure our contribution toward a circular electronics industry. We take a meaningful, yet pragmatic approach that acknowledges the limits of what information is realistically available and the resources needed to acquire reliable and representative data.
