The business models and drivers for reuse and recycling operations of cell phones in the UK and US suggest that end-of-use products are being reused more than recycled, a likely feature of the Nigerian construction industry. Notwithstanding take-back programs of some Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) (Apple, 2013; Nokia, 2013), a study of the cell phone lifecycle conducted in 2003 in the UK and 2006 in the US by Geyer and Doctori Blass (2010), discusses third party enterprises responsible for the reverse logistics, reuse and recycling operations in the two countries. Ongondo and Williams (2011b) corroborated the significance of this type of enterprises in phone take-backs, by reporting that an estimated 83% of the voluntary phone take-back schemes in the UK may be profit oriented enterprises. These third party operators in the cell phone sectors may be comparable in many respects to the operators of the salvaged building products market in the Nigerian construction industry.
This type of enterprises is central to the reverse logistics, reuse and recycling of cell phones rather than the manufacturers; similarly, the salvaged products marketers are the major promoters of reuse and recycling in the Nigerian construction sector. It was suggested that
80
manufacturers may not be in favour of these types of businesses for fear of cannibalisation or displaced production that might be associated to this type of enterprises; however, there are counter arguments that suggest otherwise. It was further discovered that displaced production may be the most important environmental advantage of cell phone reuse and recycling (Geyer & Doctori Blass, 2010).
The decommissioning, collection, and recycling or reuse of cell phones may also share some similarities with what is obtainable in the construction sector. While many salvaged building materials may be the by-product of renovations and remodelling, Saphores, et al (2006), Meyers et al (2002), and Coopers and Meyers (2000) in Geyer and Doctori Blass (2010) identify upgrade to newer models as the major reasons for discharging handsets, which also results in shorter lifespan as well as market growth (Paiano, Lagioia, & Cataldo, 2013).
The end-of-use handsets collection method is usually achieved through mass collection such as drop-off bins and return incentives such as prepaid envelopes, prize draws, or buy-backs (Geyer & Doctori Blass, 2010; Ongondo & Williams, 2011b). Salvaged building materials in Nigeria are likely being recovered from bins or buy-backs; which will be verified in chapters 5 and 6 from the analysis of the data collected from fieldwork. Phones that are suitable for reuse receive minimum reprocessing as salvaged building materials are treated (Geyer & Doctori Blass, 2010). The environmental benefits of cell phones recycling are usually accomplished through materials components recovery and improvement of secondary material quality (Scharnhorst, Althaus, Classen, Jolliet, & Hilty, 2005), a trend that is probably reflected in the C&D salvage market of Nigeria. On the other hand, it was reported that 65% of cell phones are reused in US (Geyer R, 2004), and over 50% in the UK (Doctori Blass et al, 2006), higher proportion of salvaged building products may be reused in Nigeria.
81
The EU Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment- WEEE Directive, California’s Assembly Bill AB 2901, and UN environmental program’s Basel convention are example of legislations that may affect the reuse and recycle operations of cell phones; however, there may be no sector specific legislations for both cell phones reuse and recycling, as for the C&D salvage market in Nigeria. The two are driven more by profitability than legislation. Incomes are generated through sales of the refurbished cell phones or recovered metals (Geyer & Doctori Blass, 2010). Although, the general small WEEE collection targets are not attained (Polák & Drápalová, 2012), only 9% of mobile devices are returned for recycling (Nokia, 2013). In a 2012 research survey in the US, it was realised that convenience, toxicity awareness, recycling experience, gender and marital status (Saphores, Ogunseitan, & Shapiro, 2012), and sometimes monetary incentives (Ongondo & Williams, 2011a), are the most significant factors in determining the willingness of household to re-cycle e-waste including phones. The absence of solid waste management infrastructures affects cell phones recycling efforts in Nigeria (Nnorom & Osibanjo, 2008), a challenge that may be extended to the C&D waste as a common characteristics of developing countries (Ongondo, Williams, & Cherrett, 2011, p. 726).
The similarities highlighted above notwithstanding, the reuse and recycling of cell phones possesses some distinct features that differentiate it from the construction sector. Unlike construction sector, due to their small sizes, many phones may pass through landfills unnoticed (Geyer & Doctori Blass, 2010), and when accounted for, may only be 6-10% of the total solid waste (Sha’Ato et al., 2007).
The demand for reusable handsets may be market driven as with salvaged building products in Nigeria; furthermore, there are reports of significantly higher demand for reusable handsets than the supply. The ratio of the demand to supply of salvaged building products in Nigeria is
82
however, subject to verifications. While the universal negative attitude of consumers to take-back programs is worrisome (Jang & Kim, 2010; Lim & Schoenung, 2010), a time lag between retiring of handsets and actual disposal can sometimes be critical as the secondary market value of the handsets declines with time (Geyer & Doctori Blass, 2010). According to Nokia (2013), there are findings that only 56% of unutilised cell phones are disposed by owners, while only 9% are made available for recycling. In a survey among UK university students, an estimated 3.7 million handsets or 60% of retired phones are accumulated by students (Ongondo & Williams, 2011a). This trend is subject to further investigation in the Nigerian C&D sector.
The concurrence of reuse and recycling markets for phones suggests profitability in both instances. The profit margin can be evaluated as the difference between the selling price and the cost of the reverse logistics. This covers the cost of attracting returns, collection, shipping, inspection, sorting, and sometimes refurbishment. Reverse logistics cost varies greatly depending on the collecting agent’s business orientation. It is documented that the reverse logistics for electronics including handsets can cost up to 80% of the retiring management expenses (Geyer & Doctori Blass, 2010). The reverse logistics for the Nigerian C&D salvaged products may follow the same pattern as the cell phones; however, this is subject to further investigation and the outcomes of the data (see chapters 5&6).
On the other hand, the management of cell phones designated for recycling may be different from the cell phones designated for reuse. Cell phones can be 100% recycled (Nokia, 2013), however incomes are realised from the sales of recovered materials with very negligible profit margin (Darby & Obara, 2005, p. 33; Geyer & Doctori Blass, 2010). According to the survey conducted by Geyer and Doctori Blass (2010), it was concluded that cell phone recycling can only be profitable without the
83
cost of the reverse logistics. In the same survey, it was conversely discovered that reuse is always profitable even with the cost of reverse logistics inclusive, with more than 50% yield. The comparative analysis of profitability between recycling and reuse in the Nigerian C&D salvaged products is another area yet to be explored.
The main positive feature of the end-of-life management of cell phones is that, it is driven more by profitability rather than legislation. The existence of third party enterprises that handle the reverse logistics at a profit should be encouraged in other sectors, including construction. However, the activities of these enterprises may be contrary to the spirit of the Extended Producer Responsibility legislation.
A selective adaptation of the end-of-use handsets collection methods such as drop-off bins, return incentives, buy-backs, etc may possibly be copied in the construction sector. Additionally, the sizes of the construction materials will make it unsuitable for hoarding by the original owners, as in the case of cell phones.
The nuclear sector on the other hand is as unique as the construction sector. In the following section the feasibility of exchanging best practices between the two sectors will be explored.