Lifecycle of Mobile Phones

Master’s Thesis

Joel Martela

Aalto University School of Chemical Engineering

Chemical, Biochemical and

Materials Engineering

Fall 2019

Aalto University, POB 11000, 00076 AALTO

www.aalto.fi

Executive Summary

Writers Joel Martela

Title Lifecycle of Mobile Phones

Department Department of Materials Science and Engineering

Date 1.7.2019 Pages 72 Language English

Summary

The number of mobile phones has grown rapidly since their introduction to the general public in the 1990’s.

The sheer number of devices has led to concerns over environmental effects of the industry and the lifecycle

and waste management practiced today. Even though in Finland, the market mainly studied in the thesis, the

devices seldomly end up in landfills the end of life treatment is far from perfect. The major concerns are the

poor collection rate of devices and the heterogeneity of the waste collected. Also, the relatively low lifespan of

the devices is seen as a problem.

The prime incentives for the actions among the stakeholders involved in the mobile phone lifecycle are

economical. Consumers can be incentivized to return their devices by monetary compensation and the re-use

of the devices can be promoted by economical benefits for both the consumer and the refurbishing company.

All in all, re-use is seen as the most effective solution to minimize the environmental impact of the industry

and the future actions should aim to encourage re-use and so prolong the lifespan of the devices.

Keywords Mobile devices, Mobile phone lifecycle, Mobile phone re-use, WEEE, recycling

processes, EPR

Table of Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3

Outline of the Subject ......................................................................................................... 4

Aim of the Work .................................................................................................................. 4

Current Situation ................................................................................................................. 5

Quantity of Waste Generated ......................................................................................... 6

Materials in the Waste .................................................................................................. 10

Legislation ......................................................................................................................... 12

How Mobile Phones are Collected? .................................................................................. 13

WEEE Recycling ................................................................................................................. 15

Characteristics of Mobile Phone Waste and Separation ................................................... 18

Value of the Recycled Phone ............................................................................................. 19

Value of the Materials ................................................................................................... 20

Value of refurbished phones ......................................................................................... 24

Economics of refurbishing ............................................................................................. 28

Value of recycled components ...................................................................................... 29

Consumer Behaviour ......................................................................................................... 30

Consumer Survey .......................................................................................................... 36

Future and Current Trends ................................................................................................ 46

Propositions ...................................................................................................................... 50

Preparation for re-use ................................................................................................... 50

Takeback campaigns ..................................................................................................... 53

Service ........................................................................................................................... 55

Legislation ..................................................................................................................... 56

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 59

References ............................................................................................................................ 64

Notes ................................................................................................................................. 68

Attachments ...................................................................................................................... 73

Introduction

The number of mobile phone users has increased yearly since they were introduced

to the public. In just five years, from 2013 to 2018, the number of new users has

grown by approximately a billion to a total of 4.93 billion independent users (Statista,

2016). This rapid increase in users and in popularity of the product has led to

increasing demand for raw materials used for manufacturing the latest models. At

the same time, technological innovation and market expansion creates a pressure to

update the technology in mobile phones and replace models with updated version,

which shortens the lifespan of the product. This means that accumulating number of

mobile phones meet their end of life -phase faster than before and yet increases the

demand for raw materials.

To tackle the shortage of raw materials and to minimize the generated waste from

mobile phones, recyclability, reuse and recovery rate of the products must be

increased. In 2009 in United States alone an estimated 300 000 phones were sent to

trash daily mainly due to obsolescence of the product (Underwriters Laboratories Inc,

2011). For example, an average phone can be estimated to contain 300 mg of silver

and 30 mg of gold (Scott, 2014) which means that daily 9 kg of gold and 90 kg of silver

are flushed down the drain with the phones not recycled in the US.

With mobile phones containing valuable metals such as gold and silver, just to

mention the obvious, means that they have value even as secondary material. But as

mentioned above the phones are not collected efficiently and financial benefits are

not fully exploited. Despite the loss of economic value, the phones not treated

properly are also a huge concern for the environment.

Outline of the Subject

The author of this thesis has worked in the mobile phone industry over time for more

than 4 years. The rapidly developing and relatively new industry raises interest in the

public in such a way that an increasing number of people are willing to pay up to four-

digit numbers for a device that has a shorter lifespan than a pair of quality jeans. The

companies in the industry are also among the largest in the world with for example

the electronics company Apple’s turnover being larger than the whole gross domestic

product of the country of Finland. The success of the companies and the short

lifespan of the products makes the market a subject of environmental discussion and

scrutiny. These reasons combined with the facts and concerns about environmental

effects introduced earlier generate interest in the author to study the industry and

its habits further.

Aim of the Work

This thesis is a review into mobile phone recycling. It aims to give the reader a

comprehensive view of today’s field of mobile phone recycling, what happens to a

mobile phone once it is no longer used by its original purchaser and why this is

important in today’s society. This is done by gathering information from scientific

reports and articles, data from a major company in the industry and by explaining the

characteristics as well as the legislation concerning the end of life product. The report

also introduces the reader to the main methods used today to collect and treat the

material generated and seeks to go through in depth the whole recycle and reuse

chain. It introduces the reader to the basic principles of electronic waste recycling,

later referred to as WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment), which mobile

phones are also a part of.

Even though there are numerous possibilities to recycle mobile devices, the first

problem that must be solved is the collection of the waste. The thesis aims to trace

the end of life products and answer the question of whether the valuable

components or materials of the devices can be extracted from waste streams and

what are the economic and environmental drivers behind it. The regions mainly

studied in this thesis is Finland and Nordic countries but most of the problems,

legislation and consumer behaviour are applicable to EU and most other markets.

Also, studies from other regions are discussed in this thesis to give relevance in global

scale and to support or question the findings.

The target is also to close the loop on mobile phone lifecycle and propose ideas which

could be applied in the future. If the devices are collectible and the valuable materials

can be extracted from waste, is it economically profitable? The thesis presents the

factors affecting profitability and the key issues around recyclability, evoking ideas

how the industry could evolve into being more sustainable.

Current Situation

To evaluate the effects of actions to be taken it is crucial to know the prevailing

situation. Since the whole mobile phone industry has gone through a radical change

from the devices being large and heavy to small and complex, the characteristics of

the waste must be studied further. The weight and size reduction of the devices has

also contributed to decrease of the environmental effect of a single mobile phone

(Fishbein, 2002) however, the number of devices has grown drastically at the same

time. This has led to major concern around the environmental effects of the industry.

Quantity of Waste Generated

As mentioned earlier in the introduction the number of mobile phone users is

increasing as seen in the Figure 1 (Statista, 2016) and by today the total number of

users is over 4.5 billion and it is estimated to increase still in the future. By the year

2019, estimated number of 67 % of the world’s total population will own a mobile

phone. The growth is attributed by the increasing number of smartphone users. The

share of smartphone users has grown from 38 % in 2014 to estimated 50 % in 2018

(Statista, 2016). The growth in the number of smartphones sold per year has settled

and past few years show only slight differences in the number of devices sold. In the

first quarter of 2018 a total number of mobile phones sold was 455 million from

which nearly 384 million were smart phones (Gartner, 2018).

This overwhelming number of new phones sold in just one quarter means that almost

the same number of phones are being replaced. Most of these phones are not re-

used or recycled. In 2017 in Finland 2.4 million phones were sold and only 200 000

phones were brought for recycling (Tianen, ”Ihmisille alkaa kertyä museoita, kun

laitteet jäävät pöytälaatikoihin” – Näin laitat vanhat läppärit ja kännykät kiertoon

maksutta ja tietoturvasta huolehtien, 2018). The phones ending up in recycling are

traditionally not the previous models but rather the models bought earlier which are

considered to have no value.

These numbers and information are relevant and important when putting the

amount and the characteristics of the waste generated into content. The exact total

amount of waste generated from mobile phones in the world is impossible to

estimate but what can be said is that the amount is increasing in a rapid pace. A study

carried out in Czech Republic (Polak & Drápalová, 2012) estimated that in the years

between 1990-2000 only 45 thousand EoL mobile phones were generated in the

country. During the next decade 2000-2010 the number grew to 6.5 million pieces

and the estimations predict the number to increase to 26.3 million between 2010-

2020. They also made the same estimate based on the numbers for the whole EU

Kommentoinut [1]: PALAA TÄHÄN

Kommentoinut [2]:

which suggested that 1.3 billion mobile phones would be available for recycling inside

EU around 2020. At a global level the International Telecommunications Union, a UN

agency, estimates that approximately 45 million tonnes of WEEE was generated in

2016 from which 435,000 tonnes were from phones discarded, despite containing as

much as 9.4 billion euros worth of raw materials (42)

The high and increasing numbers of EoL mobile phones show the existence of

significant amounts of recyclable waste and recoverable material once the devices

are effectively collected. An expert interviewed for the thesis, Mikael Meffert from

Sony Mobile, points out another positive trend and estimates that an average

lifespan of a smartphone has risen from the worst stages of the year 2003 (Geyer,

2009) of average lifespan being 15 – 18 months to today of 24 – 26 months (Meffert,

2018). The numbers suggest that roughly half the number of phones bought per year

correspond to the number of phones replaced worldwide. Also, most of the phones

reaching the end-of-life phase today are still not smartphones but in developed

markets and in the near future this will be the case. This is something that needs to

be considered when developing new practices to recycle mobile phones

Figure 1 Development of mobile phone user quantity globally.

In Finland, the main region studied in this thesis, development of the number of

mobile subscriptions has been in somewhat steady state since 2012 and the situation

could be described as saturated (Viestintavirasto, 2016). Also, the number of total

users has remained at 4.6 million past several years (Statista, 2019). This makes the

region interesting to study since in general once a new phone is purchased, an older

model reaches its end-of-life phase. This also makes it easier to estimate the number

of handsets being retired annually. The Figure 2 shows the development of mobile

subscriptions in Finland from 2007 to 2015. It is important to note that not all of the

subscriptions are used in mobile phones. Out of the total number of 9.46 million

subscriptions in the year 2015, 2.1 million did not have any voice or messaging service

and are mostly used in tablets or wireless modems (Viestintavirasto, 2016). The

number of subscriptions used in mobile phones can then be estimated to be around

7.36 million.

Figure 2 Number of mobile subscriptions in Finland in thousands. Red line marks privately owned and green line company owned subscriptions. Blue line symbols the total amount.

In the same year 2015 approximately 2.2 million mobile phones were sold across

Finland (Arola, 2015). An estimate for an average replacement period can then be

calculated by dividing the total number of mobile phone subscriptions by the number

of phones sold per year, which was estimated to be the same as phones retired. By

doing so the average number of years a phone is connected to a mobile phone

network is 3.3. but when dividing the total number of users by the number of phones

sold per year the average interval for a user to purchase a new device is only 2.1

years. These numbers are only approximations, but they do give a scale to the

problem and they correspond with the estimates given by experts.

Materials in the Waste

According to Sakari Hietala, the CEO of the recycling service company Elker Oy, up to

99 % of the materials used in mobile phones are recyclable (Valkonen, 2019).

Whether it is economically profitable depends on a vast number of variables. Also,

the term recyclable can be argued, since according to Antti Kukkola (Kukkola, 2018)

from recycling company Kuusakoski Oy, who was interviewed for this thesis, states

that part of the plastics in the phone are used as energy in the copper smelters when

separating copper from the circuit boards. To further determine how mobile phones

can be treated it is necessary to know which materials the waste consists of.

Waste generated from end-of-life mobile phones is heterogenous and contains

materials such as metals, plastic, silicon and glass. To examine the materials further,

the phone in the upcoming example is broken down into components because of the

possibility to separate the components before treatment for a better recyclability.

Below is a walkthrough of material compositions of typical mobile phone

components and how the materials are used. The Picture 1 shows the compositions

in detail.

Electronics

Electronics are the most valuable parts of the mobile phone from recyclers point of

view. Copper is used for the phones wiring, and metals such as gold, silver and copper

are the main ingredients of micro electrical components. Tantalum is also used for

the micro-capacitors. Pure silicon is used to manufacture the chip inside the phone

in which the other elements are added. Tin and led are used to solder the electronics

in the device. (Compound Interest, 2014).

Casing

The phones casing is typically made of either plastics, aluminium or magnesium

compounds. If the case is manufacture out of plastic, usually flame retardants are

Kommentoinut [3]: PALAA TÄHÄN

used containing bromine. Nickel is used in the casing to reduce electromagnetic

interference. (Compound Interest, 2014).

Battery

Almost all phones today use lithium ion batteries. Lithium ion batteries are composed

of lithium cobalt oxide as a positive - and graphite as a negative electrode. The case

for the battery is typically made of aluminium. (Compound Interest, 2014).

Screen

To allow the screens to function as touch screen, a transparent film of indium tin

oxide is used on the glass to conduct electricity. The glass in majority of smartphones

is a mix of alumina (Al₂O₃) and silica (SiO₂) called aluminosilicate. Also, a variety of

rare earth metals are used in small quantities to produce colours on the screen.

(Compound Interest, 2014).

Picture 1 Composition of a typical smartphone (Compound Interest, 2014).

Legislation

End of life mobile phones are considered as WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic

Equipment) and meet the same legislation as other waste generated from electronic

products. The European Commission has been among the most active to regulate

WEEE and to address the environmental impact of electrical and electronic

equipment. (Underwriters Laboratories Inc, 2011). The directive set by the

commission in 2012 (WEEE Directive 2012/19/EU) aims to prevent the generation of

WEEE and to promote the reuse, recycling and other methods of utilisation of waste

in order to decrease the amount of waste ending up in final treatment (Tukes, 2014).

RoHS-directive (Restriction of Hazardous Substances) requires certain hazardous

substances (heavy metals such as lead, mercury, cadmium, and hexavalent chromium

and flame retardants such as polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) or polybrominated

diphenyl ethers (PBDE)) to be substituted by safer alternatives (Europpean

Commission, 2019). These two directives aim to tackle the rapidly increasing waste

streams by adequate treatment to minimize the health and environmental risks.

In Finland based on the European Union WEEE directive the producer or the importer

of the product is obligated to arrange and cover the cost of recycling, reuse or waste

disposal of the products placed on the market. The most common way of fulfilling

these responsibilities is to join a producer organisation. The service company Elker

Ltd, established by three producer organisations, takes care of collection points,

transport, recycling, reporting, waste management services and other obligations

towards producers in practise (Elker, 2019). Elker Ltd has over 400 reception points

for WEEE all around Finland and all small EE-equipment, dimensions not exceeding

25 cm, can also be returned to the retailer. The retailer is obliged to accept the EE-

appliances when the store is a supermarket-type of retail selling EE-equipment, with

at least 1000m2 of surface area, or a special store selling EE-equipment with at least

200m2 of surface area in active business use. Albeit this being the enforced system

for collecting the waste, many other options exist beside it.

How Mobile Phones are Collected?

In today’s society, consumers have different options from drop-off bins to prepaid

envelopes on how to treat their mobile phone device that has reached its end of life

point. As written above the legislation orders the distributors to organize the

collection for the EoL devices. These reception points usually do not offer any

incentive for the consumers to recycle their phone so many other scenarios beside

these, feel attempting. Consumer behaviour is discussed more in depth later in the

thesis.

A common and an easy way of recycling a phone in Finland is to bring the device to a

reception point organized by Elker Ltd. In this scenario the waste is mixed with other

WEEE. Antti Kukkola from Kuusakoski Oy explains (Kukkola, 2018) that this is a serious

problem since it makes the waste even more complex and heterogenous and the

value of a possibly working and reusable phone is lost. In addition, the waste is

collected into as large containers as possible in order to minimize the costs of

logistics. In the recyclers point of view this is not the best-case scenario since the

mobile phones have the highest value when they are serviceable or almost intact,

tells Kukkola. Another option for the consumer is to take the phone to any mobile

phone retailer. This can be beneficial for the consumer since most of the retailers

offer a reward for a working recycled phone. The price paid to the consumer varies

depending on the age, model and condition of the phone and usually can only be

used to purchase goods from the store. If this is not possible or the phone in need of

recycling is broken, most stores offer at least a collection tray where the phone can

be left to be recycled.

These days some take-back enterprises such as kierrätäkännykkä.fi, a member of

Redeem Nordics, offer cash for recycling a phone. The service is made simple for the

consumer since the consumer only sends the phone to the company in a prepaid

envelope and receives the payment after the phone is evaluated by the company.

Also, this does not require a purchase of a new phone or any other equipment. The

same take-back enterprises in many cases are also the providers for the drop-off bins

for non-working or valueless phones.

Both two options addressed are also pleasing from the ecological point since it

remains the chance for reuse of the phones or components. Consumers and

enterprises concerned about data security are offered data safe options for a small

fee. For example, Finnish post and Kuusakoski Oy offer a service named Seiffi in which

the customer can track the device until it is safely and properly dismantled by

Kuusakoski Oy. The customer is then emailed a certificate of the operation as a proof

(Seiffi, 2019). Despite of the methods mentioned above, in 2017 only 10% of mobile

phones were recycled in Finland according to CEO of Elker Oy Sakari Hietala

(Valkonen, 2019). However, the estimate of 10% only includes the phones treated

by the recycling companies and not the phones sold to refurbishing companies or the

ones sent abroad for re-use (Tianen, ”Ihmisille alkaa kertyä museoita, kun laitteet

jäävät pöytälaatikoihin” – Näin laitat vanhat läppärit ja kännykät kiertoon maksutta

ja tietoturvasta huolehtien, 2018).

WEEE Recycling

Mobile phones are a part of WEEE directives and pursues the basic principles of WEEE

recycling. Typically, the recycling of WEEE follows a basic flowsheet (Figure 2)

(Tanskanen, 2013) starting from the collection of the waste. After collection the

waste is transported from collection points to facilities for pre-treatment. In these

facilities the waste is normally first sorted and disassembled manually. Valuable and

hazardous components are separated from rest of the waste, which then is shredded

to reduce the particle size. In the case of mobile phones, the battery and possibly

circuit boards are taken away from the stream. Then the waste stream goes through

several separation methods typically including magnetic separation, eddy current

separation and density separation carried out in the order mentioned and seen in the

(Figure 2). Depending on the site some more advanced separation methods can also

be applied to increase the recovery rate. Once all valuable material is collected the

residual waste is sent to disposal.

This paper is mostly interested in the collection of the waste and its key points and

obstacles. However, when calculating the value of the collected material, it is also

important to understand the basics of the separation methods. Once it is clear, which

materials can be separated and what are the costs of the process, it is possible to

estimate the true value of the collected waste.

Figure 2 Weee Recycling flow sheet (Tanskanen, 2013)

As mentioned earlier, a part of the legislation and directives is to promote the re-use

of waste. Re-use is the most effective practise to minimize the environmental damage

since no energy consuming methods mentioned in Figure 2 are needed and no

material is lost. Despite this fact most of the WEEE collected is not re-used due to

many reasons such the products being outdated, broken and difficult to separate

from the waste stream. Table 1 displays the amount of waste collected by the

members of Eurostat and the reported amounts of WEEE being re-used or prepared

for re-use in 2012. Since it is voluntary to report separate data on re-use, the table

only shows separated data on fifteen members states (EUR-Lex, 2019).

Member State

WEEE collected (tonnes)

WEEE re-used/ prepared for re-use

(tonnes)

Re-use/ preparation for re-use rate on the basis of

WEEE collected

Austria 77402 1248 2 %

Belgium 116458 4068 3 %

Bulgaria 38431 292 1 %

Croatia 16187 0 0 %

Cyprus 2514 42 2 %

Czech Republic 53685 0 0 %

Denmark 76200 0 0 %

Estonia 5465 0 0 %

Finland 52972 557 1 %

France 470556 9568 2 %

Germany 690711 11845 2 %

Greece 37235 0 0 %

Hungary 44262 0 0 %

Ireland 41177 360 1 %

Italy 497378 0 0 %

Latvia 4694 37 1 %

Lithuania 14259 0 0 %

Luxembourg 5010 0 0 %

Malta 1506 0 0 %

Netherlands 123684 475 0 %

Poland 175295 791 0 %

Portugal 43695 33 0 %

Romania 23083 0 0 %

Slovakia 22671 0 0 %

Slovenia 9430 30 0 %

Spain 157994 351 0 %

Sweden 168612 0 0 %

United Kingdom 503611 41630 8 %

TOTAL 3474177 71327 2 %

Table 1 Quantities of WEEE collected and re-used/prepared for re-use in 2012

Characteristics of Mobile Phone Waste and Separation

Typically end-of-life phones are delivered to the service centres among WEEE

collected in collection points. This is not optional since it prevents the possibility of

re-use in most cases as the phone does not stay intact. A broken device is also

troublesome to dismantle. In addition to a loss in value it also causes a fire safety

hazard explains Antti Kukkola from Kuusakoski Oy (Kukkola, 2018). According to him

the statistics show a major increase in fire accidents inside service centres mainly

because of the increasing battery capacities of mobile phones and their breakage in

collection and delivery. Batteries have also become a greater issue for the recyclers

since most handsets today have an integrated battery which is more difficult and

more time consuming to remove.

Removing batteries from mobile phones is important for two reasons. Lithium ion

batteries (LIBs), used in most mobile phones, contain valuable metals such as lithium

and cobalt but are also a hazard for the environment. Lithium is a chemically reactive

and when exposed to water it creates environmental problems (Manis Kumar Jha,

2013). Despite the problematics with batteries in the waste, according to Mr. Kukkola

(Kukkola, 2018) batteries have value and generate revenue for the recycling

companies. They have their own recycling paths and do not mix with the other part

of the waste stream. Ari Jokilaakso a professor at Aalto-yliopisto states, when

interviewed by Helsingin Sanomat (Tianen, Puhelin palasina, 2018), that a problem

with recycling lithium ion batteries is that extracting lithium is not economically

profitable at the moment and therefore mostly cobalt and nickel are collected from

the batteries. A special value can be put on recycling cobalt since it is one of the most

controversially mined metals and is often linked hazardous working condition, child

labour and extreme poverty.

After removing the battery, the remaining part of the phone consists of roughly 25%

of metals and 30-50% of plastics with the remainder being glass, ceramics and epoxy.

As discussed earlier in composition of a smartphone and seen later in Table 2, the

phone consists of vast variety of metals which end up in waste streams. 35 metals

were found with an electron microscope inside an iPhone 6 dismantled by Ari

Jokilaakso for an Helsingin Sanomat article (Tianen, Puhelin palasina, 2018). Out of

these metals, copper, steel and aluminium make up most of the mass. (Geyer, 2009)

(Oiva;Oppermann;Middendorf;Zuber;& Stobbe, 2000) .

Already the sear number of metals inside a mobile phone makes it difficult to recycle.

Differences between phone models and the devices usually being apart of other

WEEE when arriving to recycling facilities makes the task even more complex. In best

case scenarios the content arrives from B2B customers or drop-off bins designed

specifically for mobile phones which makes the waste more homogenous and easier

to treat explains Kukkola from Kuusakoski Oy (Kukkola, 2018). This also leaves a

better opportunity for reuse of the devices or components.

Typically, the first phase of separation is done manually. After the manual separation

the waste is crushed and taken through several separation methods depending on

the characteristics of the waste. These methods can consist of magnetic or air

separation, flotation or other hydrometallurgical methods or even x-ray. Even

aluminium and silver can be separated from silvered aluminium. Rare-earth metals

are a point of discussion at the moment, but the market is not ready for a greater

treatment since the costs would rise higher than the revenue, explains Kukkola

(Kukkola, 2018).

Value of the Recycled Phone

Almost every recycled phone has value. Whether the phones are economically

interesting to the recyclers depend on many different aspects such as quantity,

quality and the location of the phones. The value of the device comes from either its

reusability, reusability of its components or the value of the materials inside the

phone. What makes mobile phones particularly interesting is the thriving second

hand market which makes it possible to compare the options of re-use and recycling.

This chapter contemplates the different opportunities to benefit economically from

end of life mobile devices and aims to give some examples to demonstrate the

possibilities. The goal is to also clarify the main challenges and to discuss the question

of how the processes could be improved.

Value of the Materials

Mobile devices have changed radically since their launch in the early 90’s. The

handsets have become more complex and the percentage of total weight of each

valuable metal has decreased. This is a challenge for recycling and treatment of the

end of life products. Due to the complexity and the difference in composition of

components the device must be dismantled before further treatment. One of the

most important features in dismantling is to separate components of different

compositions to receive the most effective recovery rate. This can be done manually

or mechanically. By dismantling the components manually, a more precise separation

is plausible but with mechanical dismantling number of phones treated in the same

amount of time is far greater. Besides being time consuming manual dismantling also

needs more labour which is expensive and makes it an economically challenging

dismantling method.

As discussed earlier in the recycling of WEEE paragraph, mobile phones pass through

different separation methods once the most valuable components are separated

manually. Most of the components and materials can be recycled but their value

varies greatly depending on the material. Not all materials such as glass and some

plastics can be recycled, and these generate costs to the recycling facilities. Recycling

company Kuusakoski, gave some estimates on the value of materials. The values are

listed in Table 2.

Material Price Price/kg Recyclability

White Plastic -100 €/ton -0.1 €/kg Non-Recyclable

Dark Plastic (ABS) 300 €/ton 0.3 €/kg Recyclable

Aluminium 1 €/kg 1 €/kg Recyclable

Stainless Steel 200 €/ton 0.2 €/kg Recyclable

Batteries 200 €/ton 0.2 €/kg Recyclable

Electronics 15 €/kg 15 €/kg Recyclable

Glass -100 €/ton -0.1 €/kg Non-Recyclable

Table 2 Separated parts tabled according to their characteristic and materials. Numbers are estimates given by Kuusakoski Oy.

As seen in Table 2 some materials in the phone are recyclable and some cannot be

recovered. Table also shows that the electronics inside the phone are by far the most

valuable components because of their high concentration of valuable metals. Below

in Table 3 the recoverable metals are listed with their high and low values of metal

composition data from four different (Wright, 1999); (Lindholm, 2003);

(Oiva;Oppermann;Middendorf;Zuber;& Stobbe, 2000); (Scharnhost, ym., 2005)

sources and multiplied with the respective metal prices in 2018 (Taloussanomat,

2019); (Metalbulletin, 2008). The high and low values are from phones before the

year 2006 which slightly differs from the values found today but respects the features

in the waste generated by discarded devices.

Mass (g) Metal price in 2018 (cents/g)

Value of recoverable metals in cents

High Low High Low

Silver (Ag) 0.9 0.11 51.64 46.476 5.6804

Aluminum (Al 7.2 1.52 0.22 1.584 0.3344

Gold (Au) 0.033 0.026 4229 139.557 109.954

Chromium (Cr) 0.72 0.2 0.72 0.5184 0.144

Copper (Cu) 20.68 9.3 0.63 13.0284 5.859

Iron (Fe) 6.62 2.7 0.084 0.55608 0.2268

Nickel (Ni) 2.74 0.7 1.24 3.3976 0.868

Lead (Pb) 0.8 0.28 0.2 0.16 0.056

Palladium (Pd) 0.09 0 3730 335.7 0

Tin (Sn) 0.8 0.43 1.89 1.512 0.8127

Zinc (Zn) 0.92 0.27 0.26 0.2392 0.0702

Total 41.503 15.536 542.7287 124.0055

Table 3 Recoverable metals in mobile phones, their composition high and low values and their high and low economic value.

As the Table 3 shows two metals, gold and palladium, make around 88% of the total

value of metals inside the handset. This means that if the profit from recovering

metals were to increase these two metals should be the objects of interest. For

example a typical iPhone is estimated to house around 0.034g of gold, 0.34g of silver,

0.015g of palladium (Nogrady, 2016). With today’s metal prices this would mean 2

dollars’ worth of metal from just gold and palladium. This is wise to keep in mind when

comparing the figures to the option of refurbishing phones which is studied later in this

thesis. Also, the estimate of recoverable economic value determines profit possibilities

of takeback campaigns and other incentives aiming to increase the recovery rate of EoL

mobile devices.

The price of recovery and its environmental impact must also be taken into

consideration when discussing recovery of valuable material from mobile devices.

Navazo, Mendez and Peiró in their report from 2013 compared the required amount

of energy between metals extracted from discarded mobile phones to primary

production. The estimations were made based on the information of the methods most

commonly used at the time. The main two industrial processes used were

pyrometallurgical and combined pyro-hydrometallurgical process and they consumed

similar amounts of energy per treated tonne of mobile phones (7,763 and 7.568 MJ).

The recovery rates of metals from the described recycling processes varied from 80 to

99 % depending on the metal. Potentially from a tonne of recycled phones 128 kg of

copper, 0.347 kg of gold, 0.15 kg of palladium, 3.63 kg of silver, 15 kg of nickel, 6 kg of

lead, 1 kg of antimony, and 10 kg of tin could be recovered. Also, some other metals

which at the time were not profitable to recover can be considered as potential income

in the future. (Navazo;Mendez;& Peiro, 2013).

In their report, Material flow analysis and energy requirements of mobile phone

material recovery processes, they discovered that energy consumption of extracting

copper from discarded mobile phones is only half compared to primary extraction.

Other metals showed also similar or even greater energy savings (Navazo;Mendez;&

Peiro, 2013). In addition to energy savings, value to recycling also is added by the

reduction of hazardous waste generated, lessening of environmental and social

problems and minimization of the depletion of scarce materials.

A problem with the recovery of materials besides the collection of waste is the

development of the phones. The conductors inside the device are becoming smaller

and the coatings on the electronics thinner. To recover metals from this kind of

components, they must be totally melted or dissolved into acids, points out Ari

Jokilaakso, Professor at Aalto University, in a Helsingin Sanomat article (Tianen, Puhelin

palasina, 2018). The metals are then separated into their own piles, but the metal

recovered must be as pure as possible since the positive qualities of the metal weaken

with impurities. The impurities are also a problem for future recovery as the separation

of metals in the industrial processes used is hampered. According to Jokilaakso, this is

due to the separation of metals from the slag becoming more difficult (Tianen, Puhelin

palasina, 2018).

Value of refurbished phones

According to Counterpoint’s Refurbished Smartphone tracker (Kang, 2018) the global

market for refurbished smartphones grew by 13 % in the year 2017 reaching almost

140 million units. In contrast with the global new smartphone market, which grew

only by 3 % (Kang, 2018) this can be considered as an important rising trend in the

market. The Research Director Tom Kang commented on the trend by saying: “With

13% growth, refurbished smartphones are now close to 10% of the total global

smartphone market. The low growth of the new smartphone market in 2017 can be

partially attributed to the growth of the refurb market. The slowdown in innovation

has made two-year-old flagship smartphones comparable in design and features with

the most recent mid-range phones. Therefore, the mid low-end market for new

smartphones is being cannibalized by refurbished high-end phones, mostly Apple

iPhones and, to a lesser extent, Samsung Galaxy smartphones.” The fact that most of

the refurbished phones are iPhones also in Finland is confirmed by the founder of

Vaihdokki.com, Samu Kyllönen. He states that Android phones have more vendors,

competition and lower prices which makes iPhones appealing for refurbished

markets. (ESS, 2018).

Since the refurbished phone business is growing it must be beneficial also to the

refurbishing companies. An expert from Sony Mobile, Mikael Meffert, revealed that

an estimated value of a two-year-old non-refurbished phone is somewhere between

15 – 35 % of its original value depending on the model and condition of the device

(Meffert, 2018). The significant drop in price leaves room for the refurbishing

companies to make money out of reselling the products. As Research Director Tom

Kang stated earlier in the text and backed up by the Finnish refurbishing companies,

most of the refurbished phones sold are iPhones, the Figure2 shows four popular

models from different time periods and there original and refurbished pricing. The

prices shown are from two major refurbishing companies operating in Finland.

As seen from Figure 2 the prices drop significantly over time, which makes the

refurbished models attempting for the consumer. A survey conducted by WDS Oy for

Finnish consumers states that over half of the respondents (56 %) were willing to buy

a refurbished phone. In the age group of 18 to 24-year-olds the number was as high

as 68 % (iTapsa, 2018). Besides price, the ecological values and benefits of buying a

refurbished phone push people towards considering purchase of a used phone

instead of a totally new device.

Figure 1 Original and refurbished prices of different iPhone models offered by refurbishing companies on the 31.8.2. (Swappie, 2018) (Vihreäomena, 2018).

Refurbishing the devices is an effective way of expanding lifecycle of a phone. Since

it is also economically beneficial, it is an interesting way of reducing waste generated

from mobile phones. Below the Table 4 shows purchase prices of iPhones compared

to the refurbished prices. The chart gives a basic idea of the economical possibilities

in the industry and the purchase prize also serves as an incentive for the consumer

to recycle their phone. Earlier in the text Sony mobile expert Mikael Meffert

estimated a two-year-old phone to be valued between 15 - 35 % of its original value

(Meffert, 2018). An example shown in the Table 4 of an iPhone SE, launched in March

2016, fits this estimate perfectly. The average purchasing price of a working iPhone

iPhone X 256 GB Launch price Launch time swappie swappie swappie swappie swappie swappie Vihreäomena Vihreäomena Average price refurbished

1 349 € 10-2017 1 089 € 1 089 € 1 009 € 1 049 € 1 049 € 989 € 959 € 1 039 € 1 034 €

iPhone 8 64 GB Launch price Launch time swappie swappie swappie swappie

829 € 9-2017 639 € 639 € 619 € 619 € 629 €

iPhone SE 16 GB Launch price Launch time swappie swappie swappie swappie swappie swappie Vihreäomena

499 € 3-2016 189 € 179 € 179 € 169 € 159 € 159 € 189 € 174.71 €

iPhone 6s 16 GB Launch price Launch time swappie swappie swappie swappie swappie swappie swappie Vihreäomena

759 € 9-2015 269 € 249 € 249 € 249 € 229 € 229 € 209 € 299 € 247.75 €

SE for refurbishing companies in August 2018 is roughly 15 % of its original value.

After refurbishing the phone, the average selling price is almost exactly 35 % of its

launch price. This also underlines iPhones as devices, which keep their value over

time and in such are deservedly in favour of the refurbishing companies.

Condition

iPhone X 256

GB

Launch price

Launch time

Like new

Good Poor Faulty Average Purchase

Price

Average Price

Refurbished Difference

1 349 € 10-

2017 810

€ 737

€ 640

€ 162 € 587.25 € 1 034 € 447 €

iPhone 8 64 GB

Launch price

Launch time

Like new

Good Poor Faulty

829 € 9-2017 430

€ 391

€ 340

€ 86 € 312 € 629 € 317 €

iPhone SE 16

GB

Launch price

Launch time

Like new

Good Poor Faulty

499 € 3-2016 85 €

77 € 67 € 17 € 61.50 € 174.71 € 113.21 €

iPhone 6s 16

GB

Launch price

Launch time

Like new

Good Poor Faulty

759 € 9-2015 135

€ 123

€ 107

€ 27 € 98.00 € 247.75 € 149.75 €

Table 4 Launch prices of a phone compared to prices offered by refurbishing companies depending on the condition of the device.

From an ecological point of view, the low rate of Android phones refurbished is not

optimal. In Europe in August 2018, the share of phones running on Android was 73.67

% which makes it by far the most popular platform (24.81 % iOS) (Statcounter, 2019).

This makes it crucial to increase the reuse of the devices. The upside of Android

phones is that many vendors use same third-party components, which makes the

components reusable. This is discussed further in the next chapter.

The business model of refurbishing companies is simple. The companies purchase the

phones from consumers or in some cases recycling companies, refurbishes them and

sell them with a hope of profit. According to the article written by Guyer and Blass

(Geyer, 2009) not much is done to the phone during the refurbishment. Table 5 shows

the average costs and revenues from cell phone refurbishment and resale. The

numbers are from the years 2006 and 2003 from US and UK.

US 2006 (dollar/phone) UK 2003 (dollar/phone)

Average cost 2.1 1.76

Average revenue 17 23

Table 5 Cost of mobile phone refurbishment compared to revenue made.

As seen from the table the cost of refurbishing is relatively low which suggests that

no or little work is done to refurbish the phone. This is due to the added value being

easily less than the cost of the operation. Typically, the phone goes through processes

such as testing, basic cosmetic treatment, and software updates (Geyer, 2009). This

being said, by comparing the price differences offered to the customer wanting to

sell their phone to a refurbishing company, the difference can be as much as 648€

depending on the condition of the device (iPhone X, like new vs faulty), as seen in

Table 4. This indicates for example that repairing the screen would be economically

possible and profitable.

In the cases were the device is not brought straight to a refurbishing company, the

potential of re-use is vastly lower and follow simple procedures. The devices arriving

to recycling companies, such as Kuusakoski Oy in Finland, are auctioned onward.

Generally, these re-usable working devices come from the B2B unit and are sent to

developing countries where they cannot afford to purchase the devices new remarks

Antti Kukkola from Kuusakoski Oy (Kukkola, 2018). He adds that components can also

be sold onward but this is relatively rare in their case.

Economics of refurbishing

The basic economical principal among refurbishing companies is to maximize the

difference between the handset resale value and the costs of reverse logistics. Since

the costs and operations done to the handset are minimal as shown in the Table 5

the key to success is to invest in effective collection of the phones. In Finland common

and widely used ways of collecting the phones are either through retailers or by

posting or delivering the phone to the refurbishing company. When the phone is

traded in at the retailer the customer is typically offered instore credit, gift cards or

instant discounts to use at the store when purchasing new products. However, the

retailer does not refurbish the phones but serves as a collection point for the

refurbishing company. A company operating worldwide and used by some retailers

operating in Finland is Clover Wireless. The company offers retailers trade-in

solutions, corporate buy-back services, OEM (original equipment manufacturer)

certified repair services, and recycling solution (Clover Wireless, 2019). Operators like

Clover Wireless makes it easy for the retailers to offer customers incentives for

trading in their old devices. Their closed loop trading and buyback solution is

presented below in Figure 3.

Figure 2 shows the flowsheet of the closed loop trade in service offered by Clover Wireless and other similar operators (Clover Wireless, 2019).

The economic benefits of refurbishing a phone is highly dependent on the model

but the difference in value between a refurbished device or device used as a

recyclate is vast. For example, according to a European Commission study and

report on WEEE recovery targets, preparation for re-use targets and on the method

for calculation of the recovery targets, a second-hand iPhone retains 48% of its

original value when being re-used, whereas the value of recycled materials is only

0.24%. (47)

Value of recycled components

Many of the components of a recycled phone can be reused. Still the most valuable

component by a great deal is the circuit board. Circuit boards can be reused as spare

parts if they are intact and not obsolete. Mikael Meffert an expert from Sony Mobile

explained that commonly circuit boards are removed from the device, shipped back

to the factories and repaired for reuse (Meffert, 2018). Other parts are reused if it is

economically possible and the rest sent to global recycling partners to handle. Antti

Kukkola from recycling company Kuusakoski also informs (Kukkola, 2018) that

components recovered from collected phones can be sold forward but indicates it

being a minor part of their business. Ari Jokilaakso, Aalto-yliopisto professor of

metallurgy, notes out a problem in re-use of mobile phone components. “The

problem is that components can not be re-used as such. Technology advances in such

a high pace that two-year-old components are no longer applicable”. The statement

is true but in some cases the components such as the main boards can be used as

spare parts in service centres or even applied from high-end to low-end models as

the time advances. Hu Zherui, a Service Delivery Manager in Finland and Baltics at

Sony Mobile Communications, explained that accredited service centres in Finland

and Baltics only re-use the main boards from the devices and even those in low

numbers.

Consumer Behaviour

Consumer behaviour plays an important role in managing the waste generated from

mobile phones. In 2010’s society a mobile phone is a part of everyday life of most

people globally. (1) The falling prices of entry level models have made the lower end

models easily disposable and this combined with manufacturing companies

encouraging customers to buy the latest versions at smaller intervals results in

increasing amount of waste due to consumer behaviour.

This section aims to answer the question why consumers switch between phones and

what is done to the previous devices. It also intends to give insight to the mindset of

the consumer on regarding the recycling of their handset. To answer these questions,

data and opinions were collected from recycling operators, surveys from existing

reports were examined but also a consumer survey was carried out. The survey was

done to customers shopping in major retailer stores in Finland.

Before reviewing the survey, a hypothesis was made by basis of existing material.

Even though the material reviewed varied greatly with place and time many common

themes and similarity in results occurred between them. To analyse the effect of

consumer behaviour it is valuable to understand the lifecycle of a mobile device.

Figure 4 demonstrates a simplified version of a lifecycle of devices and by this model

conclusions can be made how consumer choices effect the total lifespan of the device

and how it can be benefited of after reaching end-of-life phase.

Figure 3 A simplified model of mobile phone lifecycle. (Franklin-Johnson;Figge;& Canning, 2016)

A survey carried out In Finland by WDS Oy for the refurbishing company iTapsa in

2018 states that after purchase of a new device most (58%) people leave their old

model unused as a spare phone. At the same time however, most of the respondents

(56%) were willing to buy a used phone (iTapsa, 2018). According to Sakari Hietala

from Elker Oy, the most common reasons to keep the phone as a spare were the

intention to move data from the old device to the new and the feeling of insecurity

that the information from the phones ends up in wrong hands. The size of the device

also makes it easy to stockpile at home.

Nnorom, Ohakve and Osinbajo made a study (Nnorom;Ohakwe;& Osinbanjo, 2009)

on response of Nigerian population towards mobile phone recycling. The study was

carried out to include people from a mixture of environments, urban and rural,

different education level and from different income groups to balance the outcome

to fit the average population. It showed that the population is aware of the

environmental harm which the mobile phone waste is causing, and they are willing

to take part in recycling programs. Majority of the population were willing to recycle

their old phones and up to 80 % were willing to pay extra for phones with less toxic

components and favourable for the environment.

A survey conducted for students of five different universities in UK by Ogondo and

Williams (Ongondo & Williams, 2011), studied the student’s behaviour toward use

and disposal of mobile phones. The study was carried out between November 2008

and August 2009 and concentrated on six important aspects:

• Frequency of replacing mobile phones.

• Methods used to dispose of most recent unwanted mobile phones.

• Number of phones stockpiled (at home)

• Awareness of UK mobile phone takeback services.

• Whether the students had previously used UK mobile phone takeback

services.

• Students’ willingness to recycle mobile phones at potential university mobile

phone takeback services.

From a total number of 2287 completed questionnaires the results stated the

following. Even though most of the students declared that they do not replace their

phones annually, a substantial number of respondents (28%) replaced their phone at

least once a year. The most common reason for replacing the phone was breakage of

the previous device covering up to 57.7% of the cases. The methods used by students

to dispose of the most recent phone varied but by far the most common way was to

keep the phone as a spare (55.7%). 18,7 % of the students gave the phone away to a

family member or a friend as a gift. Other common methods were donation for

recycling (9,4%), trading in for a discount on a new model (5,2%) and selling to a

company or individual (3.1%). Only 1,4% sent the phone to an organization for safe

disposal.

As mentioned, most of the students stockpiled the phone and 61% of all students

reported owning extra mobile phones. In average at least 1 mobile phone per student

was reported to be stockpiled. The reason for stockpiling was mainly the possible

need of a spare phone. But still it is notable that over 30% answered that they did not

know what else to do with the phone and 23.5% did not think it is worth anything.

21.2% respondents also stated that there is valuable information stored on the

device.

The study also concluded that awareness was a major factor effecting recycling

habits. Among students who were aware of take back services 27% had used them.

The number is not high, but it shows willingness to use takeback services. The study

showed that the most important aspects effecting the willingness of using take back

services was the ease of use and the incentives given, with cash being the most

desirable.

A consumer behaviour-based study was conducted in Finland in the city of Oulu in

2015 (Ylä-Mella;Keiski;& Pongrácz, 2015). The study was based on a questionnaire

carried out in Oulu for consumers (total amount of 53 respondents) concerning

awareness and motivation towards, recycling and re-use of mobile phones. Despite

the relatively low number of respondents some common themes can be seen and

used to back up the information from studies mentioned above and as a hypothesis

for the survey carried out for this thesis.

The survey included some basic questions regarding the knowledge of consumers and

their willingness to recycle or buy used devices. 50/53 of the respondents found

recycling of mobile phones important and when asked to specify the reasons, most

answers where due to material recovery, re-use potential and environmental

protection. Almost all of the respondents (52/53) were also aware of the possibility

to return their end-of-life devices to a collection point free of charge but only 28% of

them had used this possibility. In 85% of the answers at least one end-of-life phone

was stored at home with most stocking from 2-5 phones. Selling the phone turned

out to be rare among the respondents since only 4% had sold their phone onwards

but 13% had benefited of the device by returning it to a store while buying a new one

for a discount.

The survey also asked how big a monetary benefit should be to motivate them to

return their old devices to a recycling system. 13% were satisfied with just 1€ and the

number increased up to 57% for 10€. Total of 70% stated to bring their devices for

recycling if given 20€ in return. All the operators in Finland have a takeback possibility

which offers discounts when purchasing a new device. The sums seen on the survey

are partially confirmed by an experienced operator DNA store manager Eero Pousi,

who was interviewed for this thesis (Pousi, 2018). He explained that DNA has a

minimum sum of 1€ cashback for a device brought to recycling which returns a steady

flow of devices to recycling but the effectiveness of the monetary compensation can

be argued. However, a significant increase in volume of phones brought to stores can

be seen in times when the minimum sum is between 20-40€, which are during

campaigns run a couple of times per year. Pousi continued that despite increase in

number if phones brought back to the stores the quality of the devices stays low and

the phones are mostly not re-useable and outdated.

As already noted, the demand for used phones is relevant unlike in other EEE and it

should be the preferred use of end-of-life devices because of its resource efficiency.

The survey carried out in Oulu (Ylä-Mella;Keiski;& Pongrácz, 2015) showed

willingness from consumers to buy a used mobile phone. 51 % of the respondents

were willing to buy a used device which correlates well with the survey conducted by

WDS Oy towards Finnish consumers in which 56 % were willing to buy a refurbished

device. When asked about the pros and cons of buying a used device, lower price acts

as the main reason of motivation for purchase. On the other hand, according to the

survey suspicion towards reliability, short life span of phones and the existence of

new budget models discourage consumers away from used devices. Knowing the last

owner helped in decision making and counted as a positive attribute and was a key

prerequisite in 19 % of the answers. The financial part of re-use was addressed in the

economics of refurbishing section but from the consumer point of view the survey

found a consensus on the price compared to original value of the phone. 78 % of the

respondents protest paying over 50 % of the original value and only 15 % were willing

to pay up to 80 % or 300€.

A Sony Mobile expert Mikael Meffert estimated earlier and discussed later, an

average lifecycle of mobile phones is between 24-26 months (Meffert, 2018). Table

4 shows the prices of a two-year-old refurbished iPhone SE and it fits the consumer

criteria of being less than 50 % of its original value. At the same time in August 2018

as the average refurbished price of an iPhone SE was 174€ (35 % of the original value)

the device was sold new by retailers for 299€ (60 % of the original value). This is

interesting since the model was among the most sold by operators in Finland at the

same time (Pitkänen, 2018). The model iPhone SE is not an exception but rather a

typical example of the price difference with iPhones between launch price,

refurbished price and the price sold by retailers after two years. The same example

can be shown with iPhone 7 with the launch price of 649$ in October 2016 and the

retail price almost two years later in September 2018 being 449$ (69 %) (Beavis,

2019). At the same time the price of a refurbished device was around 260$ (40 %)

(Backmarket, 2018). The examples demonstrated here with iPhones since a vast

majority of the phones sold refurbished are iPhones (Kang, 2018); (ESS, 2018).

By studying the most sold lists, published by all Finnish operators and lately also by

the largest retailer Gigantti, the lists tend to contain models which are over 18

months old counting from day of launch. This indicates that a Finnish consumer is

happy to purchase mobile devices which are not state of the art if the price is right.

Also as already stated, over half of the population is willing to buy used devices so

combining these pieces of information with education over ecological benefits of re-

use should make the Finnish market fertile for refurbished devices.

To study the situation in Finland further a survey was carried out for this thesis aiming

to acquire knowledge why and when phones are updated, what is done to the end-

of-life phones and are the phones appropriate for the re-use market.

Consumer Survey

To acquire more data on consumer behaviour a survey was carried out for the thesis.

The survey was done by using Google Forms as a platform to gather answers from

consumers shopping in retailer and operator stores. To reduce the amount of local

dependence the survey was executed in several major Finnish cities (Helsinki, Espoo,

Tampere, Kuopio, Jyväskylä and Vaasa). The consumers answered to the questions

displayed below to the best of their knowledge with a possibility to leave some of the

questions unanswered if they did not remember the answer or felt uncomfortable

answering. A total of 200 individual responses were gathered with most questions

having full 200 answers.

The survey contained the following questions and answer options.

• When was the last time you switched your mobile phone?

o Less than a year ago

o 1-2 years ago

o 2-3 years ago

o 3-4 years ago

o More than 4 years ago

• How long did you use the device?

o Less than a year

o 1-2 years

o 2-3 years

o More than 3 years

• Why did you change the device?

o Old device broke

o It no longer met with my requirements

o Old device was stolen

o Reduced battery life

o I wanted to upgrade my phone

o I received a company phone

o Other with an option to define

• The brand of my device was

o Apple

o Samsung

o Huawei

o Sony

o Nokia

o Oneplus

o Other, define

• The model of my device was (optional)

o Free form answer

• What did you do to the old device?

o Sold it forward myself

o I gave it to my child, relative or a friend

o I returned it to the store towards a compensation

o I recycled it

o The phone is still at my possession

o The phone got stolen

o Other, define

• My age is

o Under 18 years

o 18 – 25 years

o 25 – 35 years

o 35 – 45 years

o 45 – 55 years

o 55 – 65 years

o over 65 years

To estimate the average age of a phone in use the first question of the survey was

about the last time the consumer had switched their mobile phone. As seen in figure

5, a major part (41 %) of the respondents had changed their device within a year and

75 % inside the past two years. According to the survey only 2 % of consumers have

used the same phone for over 4 years. The question did not specify if the phone of

the respondents was purchased as new, so the average age differs from the values

below, but the graph gives an overview on the age of the phones being used at the

moment.

Figure 4 shows the last time the respondents had changed their mobile phone. (Attachment 1)

The lifespan of phones has also been discussed in the thesis and how it affects the

amount of waste being generated from mobile devices. The most substantial factor

effecting the lifespan of a device is the frequency in which consumers switch their

phone to a new model. An alarming number of 17 % of the respondents had used

their previous device for less than a year but when the situation was analysed further,

the most common reason for changing the device was due to its breakage (6 %) or

receiving a company phone (6 %). Altogether, 74 % of those who used their device

for less than a year had had their phone brake, stolen or had received a company

phone which can be described as reasons non-dependent on the will of the

consumer.

The survey showed that most of the respondents had used their device for less than

2 years (71 %) with between 1 – 2 years being the most common answer (41 %). 12

% had used the device for more than 3 years. The average lifetime of a phone was

calculated from the answer by giving the time intervals values from the middle (less

than a year receiving the value of 0.5, 1 – 2 years equivalates to 1.5, 2 – 3 years to 2.5

41 %

34 %

17 %

6 %

2 %

When was the last time you switched your mobile phone?

Less than a year ago 1-2 years ago 2-3 years ago 3-4 years ago More than 4 years ago

and over 3 years to 3.5) and calculating the weighted average. By doing so the

average lifetime of a phone was determined as 1.86 years or around 22 months. The

number is slightly lower than the number estimated by Mikael Meffert earlier (24-26

months) (Meffert, 2018). The lower lifespan of a phone is not positive from

environmental point of view, but the information is interesting from the refurbishing

aspect. As acknowledged previously, Finns tend to buy phones which have launched

over 18 months ago and over half of the population is open to buy a second-hand

device. This information combined with the usage trend indicates that plenty of

desirable devices could enter the re-use and refurbished market even though most

of the phones are not bought at the time of launch.

Figure 5 shows how long consumers have used their previous device for. (Attachment 1)

Reasons behind consumer decision making was acquired by asking about the cause

of changing the device. 33 % of the respondents had changed their device due to

breakage of the old device. Out of the phones switched because of brakeage over 18

% broke within the first year. An interesting fact was also that out of the phones

17 %

41 %

30 %

12 %

How long did you use the device for?

Less than a year 1-2 years 2-3 years More than 3 years

broken within the first-year half were stored at home broken when presumably they

would still have value repaired. The second most common reason to switch the

device was the desire to upgrade the device for a newer model (22 %). The average

age of a phone upgraded by the respondent was 24 months but 58 % of the phones

left unused because of the upgrade were used for less than two years. This

equivalates to 13 % of all EoL devices. Obsolete technology (15 %) inside the phone

and the reduced battery life (12 %) were also common reasons to abandon the old

device. All the reasons are tabled below in Figure 7.

Figure 6 shows the reasons behind consumers changing their device. (Attachment 1)

The intent was also to examine if the brand of the device influenced consumer

behaviour and most importantly the lifespan of the device. It is impossible to draw a

straight line between the results and the brand, but a few details stand out from the

33 %

11 %

15 %

22 %

3 %12 %

1 % 1 % 2 %

Why did you change the device?

Old device broke Reduced battery life

It long longer met with my requirements I wanted to upgrade my phone

Old device was stolen I received a company phone

I received a new phone as a gift Unresistable offer for a new device

Other

data. When examining the number of devices used less than a year and taking out

the instances which included thievery or shifting to company phone the results are

the following.

Figure 7 Shows the number of phone broken inside the first year divided by brands. (Attachment 1)

When comparing these numbers to numbers seen on Figure 9 some conclusions can

be made based on the number of phones abandoned during the first year compared

to the total number of devices. Nokia stands out with the sake that none of the 22

phones were used less than a year. Also, Apple and Samsung users rarely switch their

device within the first year when compared to other brands. Huawei had the most

phones brake inside the first 12 months which could correlate to the typically lower

price point of the device.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Doro

Apple

Sony

Huawei

Samsung

Nokia

LG

HTC

Figure 8 Displays the brand of the respondent’s device. (Attachment 1)

As mentioned earlier the model of the device was also sought-after. The question

received 145 answers which helped to define the devices into two categories

depending on the purchase price, over and under 400 euros. The categorisation was

done by defining the launch price of the model and estimating the purchase price

from that. Also, all the Apple products without a specific model were categorised as

over 400€ devices, since Apple has not launched any product with a lower price tag.

The two categories are only formed by estimates of price and are not the watertight

truth, but they serve the purpose of studying the difference in consumer behaviour

depending on the price paid for the device.

When examining one of the most important factors, the lifespan of the device, the

difference between the two categories is relatively small but a difference can be seen.

Defining the age of phones as done previously the average lifespan of a phone priced

over 400€ is 22.4 months and in the under 400€ category 20.5 months. The almost 2

months or 10 % difference in lifespan suggests that quality of the phone has in impact

on the consumer behaviour as could be expected. The difference between phones

5327 %

2714 %

4523 %

3719 %

2211 %

21 %

53 %

10 %

10 %

10 %

42 %

10 %

The brand of my device was?

Apple Sony Samsung Huawei Nokia Xiaomi

Oneplus Htc Elephone Blackberry LG Doro

changed because of the device braking in the two categories also favours the more

expensive group by a small difference (5.8 % of more expensive phones compared to

6.8 % in the less expensive category). The respondents also changed the device more

frequently in the lower category because of the phone did not meet with users’

requirements (18.2 % in the lower and 15.5 % in the higher category).

A factor affecting the total lifespan but more importantly the return rate of the

phones is what is done to the phone when it is no longer used by the consumer. This

question was asked from the consumers in the survey and the results are tabled in

the Figure 10 below. As seen, most of the devices (53 %) are left unused and stored

at home for number of reasons already discussed in the thesis. The percentage

matches the study carried out to students of five different universities between 2008

and 2009 in UK by Ogondo and Williams (Ongondo & Williams, 2011) in which keeping

the phone as a spare counted for 55.7 % of the answers. 5 % of the respondents sold

the device onward themselves which matches the result of 4 % of the survey

conducted in Oulu (Ylä-Mella;Keiski;& Pongrácz, 2015) and is also close to result of

3.1 % received in UK. A more significant difference was seen between the results in

by the number of respondents returning the phone to a store for a monetary benefit

(7 % compared to 13 % seen in Oulu and slightly over 5 % in UK). Altogether, 40 % of

phones are either re-used or recycled with recycling being the most common solution

(15 %) and passing it on to a friend or relative coming close behind (13 %). The

equivalent numbers from the survey carried out in UK were 9.4 % and 18.7 %. Only 2

respondents out of the total 200 admitted of trashing the device. All the reason and

their popularities are tabled below in Figure 10.

Figure 10 displays what is done to the EoL devices by the consumers.(Attachment 1)

To obtain a better understanding who this survey was answered by the age of the

respondent was enquired. The question received 178 answers and the answers are

tabled in Figure 11. Because of the respondents age centralized between 25 – 35

years (41 %) precise conclusions cannot be made. A point of consideration could be

that 17 out of 72 respondents of age between 25 to 35 have last switched their phone

to a company device. This stands for 71 % of the cases where a phone is abandoned

due to receiving a phone from the employer which is significantly higher than the 41

% which the age group represents in the survey.

5 %13 %

7 %

15 %53 %

1 % 3 % 3 %

What did you do to the old device?

Sold it forward myself

I gave it to my child, relative or a friend

I returned it to the store towards a compensation

I recycled it

The phone is still at my possession

The phone got stolen

I returned it to my company

Other

Figure 11 displays the age-group of the respondents. (Attachment 1)

Future and Current Trends

The concern of the public has also made the manufacturers to pay more attention to

the environmental aspects of mobile phone manufacturing and recycling. Even

though sometimes accused of greenwash the trend among manufactures seem to be

promoting ecological values.

For example, Apple’s vice president of environment Lisa Jackson announced that the

target in the future for Apple is to manufacture all its mobile devices out of recycled

materials. The target is bold since to manufacture the phones launched in the fall

2018 only a minor fraction of the materials used were recycled, such as the tin parts

(Tianen, Puhelin palasina, 2018). This is noted also from the manufactures side as Lisa

Jackson narrated that the best thing an iPhone user can do environmentally is to keep

using their current device.

1 %

20 %

41 %

17 %

12 %

6 % 3 %

My Age Is

Under 18 18 - 25 25 - 35 35 - 45 45 - 55 55 - 65 Over 65

Apple’s vision among other manufacturers to use more recycled materials in their

devices is already plausible but far easier to achieve in the future. As the waste

streams from EoL devices increase urban mining is becoming progressively relevant.

The process of urban mining is the extraction and purification of precious metals

taken from waste streams. A joint study done by Beijing’s Tsinghua University and

Macquarie University in Sydney examined data from eight recycling companies in

China to estimate the costs between extracting metals such as copper and gold from

electronic waste compared to mining from ore. The results were staggering since the

cost of an ingot of pure metal could be as much as 13 times more expensive

compared to an ingot recovered from e-waste. The example was based on recycled

TV sets and included subsidies of Chinese government for recycling, but it also

included the expenses of the costs of waste collection, labour, energy, material and

transportation, as well as capital costs for the recyclers' equipment and buildings. As

said by Macquarie University professor John Mathews, “The mining of e-waste, and

production of pure metal ingots from it of copper or gold, promises to be a very

profitable business” (Zeng;Mathews;& Li, 2018). The situation seems to be that the

problem is not the profitability but the accessibility and availability of recyclable

waste.

As the study indicates as mentioned earlier in the thesis, business opportunities for

WEEE recycling will increase. The potential to apply methods used for recycling TV

sets across a broader range of WEEE sources such as mobile devices and to wider

range of metals extracted promises positive impact on waste disposal and mining

activity as the circular economy strengthens its position compared to linear economy

and primary production.

Pressure towards WEEE and mobile phone recycling is also put on by China by

restricting waste imports into the country since beginning of 2018 (Landbell Group,

2018). This means that areas such as the EU, the US, Australia and Japan must

improve methods of their own and find new solutions for handling WEEE instead of

shipping it to China to be treated. Inside EU the union has funded a project named

Prospecting Secondary Raw Materials in the Urban Mine and Mining Wastes which is

designed to aid commercial companies to track materials available for reuse from

scrap vehicles, dead batteries and waste electronic and electrical equipment. "We

are now at the experimenting phase in Europe," says Dr Kees Baldé, of the United

Nations University. "There are many new entrepreneurs starting new businesses

based on new “urban mining” business models - for instance, bringing supply and

demand for recyclables closer to each other by novel technologies and virtual

marketplaces”. The technology is also used for planning purposes, for instance

knowing the fractions which does not end up in recycling plants, states Dr Kees Baldé.

(Woollacott, 2018)

Recycled phones are a worthy subject for urban mining due to their concentration of

valuable metals. The problem is the complexity of the device which makes it hard to

disassemble and extract metals. A solution for the problem could be in automating

the process which is currently done mostly manually as Mr. Kukkola from recycling

company Kuusakoski Group Oy mentions (Kukkola, 2018). According to Mr. Kukkola,

Kuusakoski had also explored the possibility to use robots in dismantling the devices

but the waste proved to be too heterogeneous to be beneficial. He puts the ball at

the manufacturers end to design the products to be more suitable for recycling which

has proven to be a proven method (Lindholm, 2003).

One of the companies often criticised of products being difficult to recycle is Apple.

To counter the criticism Apple has created a robot called Daisy which can disassemble

up to 200 iPhones per hour. Daisy separates parts and useful components from nine

different iPhone models (Woollacott, 2018); (Apple, 2019). The possibility of re-use

and recycling of the materials should be made more appealing also for the

manufacturers. Professor Mathews flashes a possibility in which an incentive could

be paid to manufacturers to produce their devices to be easier to recycle (Woollacott,

2018). A specific component which meets vast amount of criticism and awakes

concern in recyclers is the battery and it being non-replaceable. This leads to

situations were a device is discarded because of its low battery life and situations

were batteries create fire hazards when collected among other WEEE as explained

earlier in the thesis.

Lisa Jackson, Apple’s vice president of environment, spoke at GreenBiz's VERGE

conference shortly after Apple's launch event for iPhone X in the fall of 2017 and

provided insight into the manufacturing processes applied to the current iPhone

(GreenBiz, 2017). When asked about the state of the batteries she replied that closing

the loop is not all about interchangeable batteries. She noted that retrieving cobalt

and lithium from the batteries requires the batteries to be effectively collected and

this is more likely to happen when the battery is changed through an authorized

repair centre. Another approach to the problems caused by dying batteries is to

prolong the lifespan of a single battery. Sony Mobile tackles this problem with

algorithms provided by a Qnovo™. The Qnovo™ Adaptive Charging measures real-

time charging data and damage and uses algorithms to adjust the rate of charge via

a feedback loop. The system aims to maximize the amount of charging current that

the battery can sustain at any point in the charge cycle without causing additional

damage to the battery (Triggs, 2015). Sony also aims to avoid times when the battery

of the device is fully charged but still plugged in which can damage the battery. This

is done by a technology called Battery Care which during the night charges the battery

to 90% and the last 10% is charged just before users wake up time. These

technologies aim to reduce the need for replacing the battery within the phone’s

lifecycle. (Sony Mobile, 2018)

Not only the manufacturers are changing their habits but also retailers are detecting

the trends. A Nordic operator Telia brought recycled phones to their portfolio from

April 2019 with their Telia Recycled pilot. The first phones in the portfolio are mainly

iPhones but also one Samsung device has made it to the list. The pilot brings

consumers the same benefits that the operators normally offer to new devices which

lowers the threshold of buying second-hand devices. According to Telia, a significant

number of flawless devices are returned to them yearly from enterprises and take-

back campaigns and these phones are now utilized in their own portfolio. The phones

go through a thorough security and condition test before being sold to consumers.

(Telia, 2019).

These positive trends contribute to the target of increasing the consumer knowledge,

lifespan of devices and return rate which desirably should lead to decrease in

environmental damage done by manufacturing and waste discarded improperly. The

new business opportunities and a image upgrade also work as an incentive towards

retailers to shift from low-cost upgrade campaigns to more sustainable solutions.

Propositions

As mentioned in the future trends section a movement towards closed-loop recycling

must happen to attain more sustainable level within the industry. Closing the loop

means that the materials and components of the phone should be easier to separate

and to be used in new devices. It also demands that the EoL devices are brought

within reach of recycling and refurbishing companies. This section aims to deliver

ideas and practises which could be implemented to reach the targets.

Preparation for re-use

As discussed, re-use of the devices can be a very successful way of decreasing the

amount of waste generated. The problem of re-use is the complexity of the devices

if it is not used as a refurbished model. To tackle this, preparation for re-use is often

brought up as a solution. The questions that needs to be answered are who could be

responsible for preparations for re-use, what should be the conditions to meet and

most importantly, is it profitable.

In a paper written in 2012 (Kissling, ym., 2012) the success factors and barriers

concerning re-use of EEE was discussed and the main problems were identified by

examining case studies and carrying out a survey to recycling partners. A list of 13

factors were given to the partners who were asked to rank them in order of

importance. The results are shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12 Generic barriers affecting re-use in order of importance. (Kissling, ym., 2012)

The results shown in Figure 12 are for WEEE in general but same issues effect the re-

use inside the mobile phone industry. When inquired of this question, Antti Kukkola

from Kuusakoski brought up similar problems (Kukkola, 2018). He noted that

legislation, in many cases, does not support the model of re-use and sometimes the

party managing the waste does not allow its re-use. Third problem he mentioned is

the poor collection rate and heterogenous waste outside the B2B sector, in which the

waste is more homogenous due to more developed collection methods. All these

issues also rank high in the survey and are ranked significantly higher than the

ignorance of re-use in product design which manufacturers are often accused of. A

request which Kukkola has for the manufacturers concerning the design is to make

the battery easily removable. He also suggests a procedure to be established for

testing of WEEE when collected and prior to any further transfer.

On an economical side, preparation for re-use could bring significant revenues and

savings for the economy. Studies (European Commission, 2015) show that

preparation for re-use would create jobs and effect unemployment rates while

cutting down on cost of waste management. The European Commission also states

in their report that to achieve these benefits the public awareness regarding re-use

services and benefits must be increased. The target of this is to preserve the re-use

potential of the device by having the consumer directly return the device to re-use

organisations. In addition, the commission keeps pressure on manufacturers to save

the potential of re-use already in the product’s design phase.

Table 6 Obstacles vs. Drivers for re-use and preparation for re-use. (European Commission, 2015)

Table 6 displays obstacles mentioned by the European Commission (European

Commission, 2015) for preparation for re-use. These obstacles should be tackled to

increase the percentage of WEEE re-used or prepared for re-use which was shown

earlier in Table 1. The percentages inside the whole EU are very low with only 2 % (0-

8 % depending on the country) of WEEE being re-used or prepared for re-use but

these numbers are inaccurate since the specification of activities considered as re-

use and preparation for re-use are not well determined. The commission concludes

that what can be said based on the numbers is that the re-use process in undeveloped

at EU level. The same can be said about the situation concerning mobile phone re-

use.

Targets for re-use and preparation for re-use

On the other hand, setting a separate target for preparation for re-use would require

good knowledge of the quantities of WEEE that could be prepared for reuse in the EU

and of the economic feasibility of changing logistics, to ensure that the potential for

re-use of WEEE can indeed be realized. In particular, in Member States where

preparation for re-use is under-developed, it would require changes to the collection

structures and establishment of procedures for the testing of WEEE when collected

and prior to any further transfer. It would also require the development of a reporting

system to eliminate the risk of double counting as WEEE might be collected and

prepared for re-use several times before recycling. The reporting system should also

distinguish between the real flows of WEEE prepared for re-use and equipment that

is re-used without being waste. In addition, if a separate target on preparation for re-

use target is put in place, there is a risk that producers of EEE contribute unequally to

the achievement of the target since the demand for second hand products is not the

same for all the EEE categories and in some cases different even for different brands

of the same type of equipment. While the risk of contributing unevenly also exists

under a combined target, it nevertheless provides for more flexibility to compensate

the differences in demand for second-hand products that exists between the EEE

categories.

Takeback campaigns

The importance of awareness and incentives have been discussed and underlined in

this thesis. Accomplishing these two usually consumes capital but since end of life

phones have value, especially when intact and separated from other WEEE,

economically plausible campaigns could be organized to promote mobile phone

recycling.

In the years 2008-2009 Nokia launched an e-waste management campaign in India in

which it took back phones, chargers and accessories at Nokia Care Centres and at

priority dealers. The campaign was advertised on front pages of major newspapers in

pilot cities and it received extremely positive feedback. Pranshu Singhal, at the time

the head of sustainability operations with Nokia, claimed that their e-waste collection

grew from 3 tonnes in 2009 to 65 tonnes in 2012. (Sohail, 2015).

Such campaigns could be introduced especially in areas with low recycling rates to

increase the amount of waste treated responsibly. This would also have a positive

effect on the quality of the collected material since mobile phones would be collected

separately leading to more homogenous waste stream.

Takeback campaigns also work as a marketing tool for the manufacturers to push

sales. According to employees of two major operators in Finland (Telia and Dna) extra

credits to the store are often offered by the manufacturer when returning an older

device in while purchasing the latest model. This kind of practise might have a small

negative impact by shortening the interval in which a new device is purchased but

results in a higher return rate of old devices.

Monetary incentives given towards consumers are challenging since the recoverable

value of materials inside a phone is relatively low, approximately 2 dollars, as seen in

Table 3. Even a minimal sum of 1€ might have a slight impact on the consumer

willingness to recycle old devices as discussed earlier (Ylä-Mella;Keiski;& Pongrácz,

2015) but to receive more significant results more valuable or meaningful incentives

are needed.

Service

Due to short lifespan of phones, lower price of entry level models and expensive price

of service the willingness to repair devices among consumers is relatively low.

Lowering the threshold of service could generate an increase in the lifespan of

devices.

As mentioned many times earlier, batteries are a major concern inside the devices

because of their content (Lithium, Cobalt and Nickel) which could be recovered and

their explosion hazard during the recycling process (Tianen, Puhelin palasina, 2018).

According to the consumer survey reduced battery life also counts as a major reason

to abandon the phone being the reason in 11 % of the time with 43 % being done

with in the first two years. By making the swap of batteries more compelling to

consumers through repair centres could result in increased lifespan but also the

recovery of old batteries would be more efficient. As Lisa Jackson from Apple noted

that to retrieve cobalt and lithium from the batteries the batteries must be effectively

collected, preferably by authorized repair centres.

Hu Zherui, a Service Delivery Manager in Finland and Baltics at Sony Mobile

Communications, was also interviewed for the thesis regarding service cases (Zherui,

2019). He answered question regarding service with the best of his knowledge built

working for several years in the role for both Sony and Huawei. Concerning batteries,

he mentioned that battery replacement is already the most common repair done to

phones outside the warranty period together with screen fixes and it is a popular

reason to bring the phone to service also inside the warranty period. However, the

length of the period depends on the manufacturer from 12 to 24 months. He also

specified that service done outside of warranty typically highly depends on the resell

price of the device with inside and outside of warranty service case ratio varying from

75% / 25 % for Huawei and 95 % / 5 % for Sony. The repairs done inside warranty

concentrate on power and display issues.

Legislation

Tighter legislation is often seen as a part of a solution in better waste management

and thus is an important factor to consider. As seen earlier the situation on the

playing field is so complex that specific targets for re-use and recycling are almost

impossible to set and follow. As a proposition, the legislation should concentrate in

the areas which are simple to execute and have the most effect. A study published in

2016 (Mishima;Rosano;Mishima;& Nishimura, 2016) examined the end-of-life

strategies in Japan for mobile phones using material flow modelling. Table 6 shows

the effects of different strategies in reducing material consumption in the mobile

phone industry. As seen below and noted earlier in the thesis increasing re-use and

collection rate of the phones has the most effect in reducing material consumption.

According to the study (Mishima;Rosano;Mishima;& Nishimura, 2016) the same

actions also reduce the most carbon dioxide emissions. With this information, these

are the factors which the legislation should also promote and favour.

Table 2 shows effects of end-of-life options on material reduction. Rreuse = Collection of used mobile phones for second-hand use in domestic market. Rn = Collection of used mobile phones by the MRN. Rhn = Collection of hibernated phones by MRN. Rcomp = Collection of used mobile phones for component reuse. Rr = Technological development to increase material recycling rate. Rm = Collection of used mobile phones for municipal waste landfill. Re = Collection of used mobile phones by non-MRN agencies for any purpose. (Mishima;Rosano;Mishima;& Nishimura, 2016) MRN is the official Mobile Recycling Network in Japan.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

Extended producer responsibility can be described as an environmental protection

strategy that makes the manufacturer of the product responsible for the entire

lifecycle of the product. The manufacturer is required to take care of the take back,

recycling and final disposal of the product. EPR has two main functions, first to ease

the burden of recyclers and secondly to incite the producers to use secondary

materials, to reduce resources and to invest in design for recycling. Different

countries have different type of EPR programs implemented in different ways. Below

are introduced the targets for liability’s set by Finnish authorities.

Besides being responsible of arranging and covering the cost of recycling, reuse or

waste disposal of the products placed on the market, the manufacturer or importer

is also obliged to manage the product design and manufacturing with certain criteria.

The product cannot be deliberately designed to make the repair, re-use, update or

dismantling of the product more complicated unless overwhelming environmental or

safety benefits are gained. (Oikeusministeriö, 2019)

Producers are also responsible for looking after the collection rate of the waste and

to meet the minimum criteria. From the beginning of 2016 the target was that 45 %

of the waste is collected which rose to 65 % from the beginning of 2019. Collection

rate is counted by dividing the weight of collected WEEE inside a calendar year by the

total weight of the products put into the market counted from the last three-year

average (Oikeusministeriö, 2019). The collection must be organized in a manner in

which the collection points retain a possibility for the re-use and refurbishing

companies to examine the quality of the waste and an option to purchase the

products. However, this does not include the collection done inside the retailer

stores. The collection and transport of the waste should also retain the possibility for

re-use and recycling and to eliminate hazardous compounds and components from

the matter. The main purpose of all of this is to minimize WEEE being treated as

heterogenous community waste and to ensure proper management for the waste

collected separately. (Oikeusministeriö, 2019).

All the liability’s set by the Finnish authorities were sought also after by Mr. Kukkola

form Kuusakoski (Kukkola, 2018). In addition, they serve as solutions for the

obstacles concerning preparation of re-use seen in Table 5. It seems that the

legislation in Finland backs up and favours re-use to a justifiable degree, but the

operations done in practise are still underdeveloped and are not equal across the

global scale which hampers the local organizations.

Conclusions

This thesis has addressed issues regarding environmental aspects of the

manufacturing, re-use and recycling of the world’s most common electronical device,

the mobile phone. Through thorough investigation of pre-existing literature and

reports, expert interviews, consumer survey and calculations some decisive key

factors can be pointed out to which attention should be paid. The factors mostly

concern the Finnish market but can be applied to other similar markets world-wide.

According to market researcher Gartner 1.5 billion smartphones were sold in 2017

(Sharmila, 2018). When divided by the world’s total population approximately every

fifth person has bought a new device during the same year. This makes the way of

manufacturing and lifecycle of the devices highly relevant. The amounts of metals

needed to be mined to manufacture the devices is so vast that better management

of the EoL products and secondary materials is needed. Also, especially Europe is

highly dependent of primary material import so an efficient recycling system for EoL

mobile phones could help to reduce this dependence.

One of the most crucial factors unveiled in the thesis affecting the outcome was low

collection rates of mobile phones. According to the conducted survey 53 % of the

Finnish consumers keep their old device at their possession and based on the survey

carried out in Oulu (Ylä-Mella;Keiski;& Pongrácz, 2015) earlier, most people stack

more than one (between 2-5) EoL -phone at home. These devices contain substantial

amounts of valuable metals and these devices should be pushed into reach of re-use

and recycling companies. How the phones are collected is also highly relevant since

ideally, they should not be mixed with other waste to maintain material as

homogenous as possible and to make the recycling easier and more efficient but also

to keep the possibility of re-use of the device or components. The experts from

recycling companies also suggest that the separation should start from the collection

points to retain the value of the collected material.

The collection points should be easily reachable by the consumers and as seen in the

thesis, to reach the best collection rate an incentive towards the consumer is

presumably needed. The take-back campaigns offered by retailers have had

encouraging results in number of phones collected by offering monetary incentives

when purchasing a new device. This with the results from the survey conducted in

Oulu (Ylä-Mella;Keiski;& Pongrácz, 2015) also suggest that a deposit system would

potentially increase the collection rate of devices. However, these sorts of scenarios

where financial benefit is offered to recycle the device is unlikely to encourage re-use

of the products or to prolong the lifespan of the device which are seen in the thesis

as most effective ways to decrease the environmental effects of mobile phone

industry.

To reach a higher level of re-use the business should also be supported by the

manufacturers and thus should not substantially cannibalize the profits of the

companies. It is important that the devices are also designed to favour re-use and

recycling, so the manufacturers also play an important role in the outcome. Apple as

one of the leading manufacturers has a return program of their own and claim that

they recover more materials from a phone than other recyclers. This is due to their

already mentioned disassembly robot Daisy. In addition, Apple states that more than

two-thirds of all devices returned through Apple Trade In are passed on to new

owners (Apple, 2019). These sorts of robots are positive news for the future but since

currently most of the waste is disassembled manually more attention is needed

towards product design to favour EoL treatment. Especially the recyclability and

removability of the batteries should be paid attention to since the batteries cause

hazards in collection, logistics and separation. Also, the most common lithium-ion

batteries contain cobalt which has been a point controversy being linked to human

rights violations in mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo (The Washington Post,

2016). Better accessibility of batteries could also increase the lifespan of the device

since, according to the survey carried out, 11 % of the respondents changed their

device due to reduced battery life.

Consumer behaviour also has a significant effect on the amount of waste generated

and collected. The consumer survey revealed that one third of the phones are left

unused due to the breakage of the device which is the most common reason for the

user to switch the device. The number was even higher (57.7 %) among the university

students in the UK between 2008 and 2009 (Ongondo & Williams, 2011). The survey

conducted for the thesis noted that 18 % of these brake inside the first year. It is

difficult to determine how major part of this is influenced by consumer behaviour but

as most of the smartphones have at least 24-month warranty it is the minimum age

which they are expected to last. What can be said though, is that these phones would

have had a longer lifespan without the breakage. Also, a notable fact which occurred

in the survey is that half of the phones breaking within the first 12 months from

purchase are kept at home broken. This is harmful since these are the devices which

would presumably have value repaired and refurbished on the second-hand market.

The interview (Zherui, 2019) with Hu Zherui, Service Delivery Manager of Sony Mobile

in Finland & Baltics and a former employee of Huawei, also revealed the relatively

low service rates of phones broken outside of warranty. He commented that the

tendency to bring the phone to service correlated highly on the resale value after

service. The reasons behind the phone breaking and the cost of repair could be

studied further and seek if there would be potential in prolonging the lifespan of the

devices.

Positive news concerning consumer behaviour is that according to the surveys carried

out most respondents deny of trashing the device. However, stockpiling the phones

at home is not an ideal option either. As seen from Table 6 re-use should be promoted

for being the most effective option in reducing material consumption. According to

the survey 13 % of the respondents had given their phone to a relative or a friend and

5 % have sold them forward personally which are actions that directly prolong the

lifespan of the device. Also returning the phone to a store might result in the device

being refurbished and re-used. Recycling the EoL device counted for 15 % of the

responses. As a proposition, the decision if the phone should be recycled or re-used

Kommentoinut [SR4]: You do not need to include the whole title of the references, only authors and year… the title is then found in the Reference list… make sure this is consistent in all your thesis

should not optimally be made by the consumer but at the collection points where the

phones are returned by experts sorting out the devices.

To promote re-use of the devices, demand for the phones is also needed. According

to Counterpoint’s Refurbished Smartphone tracker (6) in 2017 globally the re-used

phones counted already for almost 10 % of the total mobile phone market. The

growth can be partly explained by the slowdown in innovation which makes the

slightly older refurbished flagship models more desirable with a modest price tag.

This is also backed up by a survey conducted by WDS Oy for Finnish consumers. It

states that over half of the respondents (56 %) were willing to buy a refurbished

phone. Besides price, the ecological values of buying a refurbished phone were seen

beneficial (iTapsa, 2018). This demand is now seen also by the operators. Telia was

the first operator to enter the refurbished market in Finland during the spring 2019

by also offering same benefits (warranty and credit) to refurbished models.

Refurbishing and re-use are key factors in preventing waste but with the

overwhelming number of phones produced per year, the materials used in

manufacturing and the material intensity should be a subject of further studies.

Attention should be paid towards recyclability and recoverability of the materials but

also to the environmental damage done by primary production. Navazo, Mendez and

Peiró in their report from 2013 (Navazo;Mendez;& Peiro, 2013) compared the required

amount of energy between metals extracted from discarded mobile phones to primary

production. In their study they found out that in the case of copper the energy

consumption is cut to half when extracting copper from collected devices compared to

primary production. Similar or even greater savings were also noted for other metals.

In addition to energy savings, value to recycling also is added by the reduction of

hazardous waste generated, lessening of environmental and social problems but also

as a solution to scarcity of some materials.

To benefit from the higher concentration of valuable metals the habit of stockpiling

phones at home must be changed. To solve the problem, manufacturers and retailers

must work closer with the consumer to evade the fears consumers have towards

recycling their device. Data security must be assured, relevant data made easy to

transfer to a new device or other storage and the unlikely need of a backup device

addressed by other options. Also, consumers should be educated of the need for EoL

devices. From the consumer point of view, environmentally the best thing to do with

the EoL device is to bring the device to a mobile phone collection point were the phone

can be re-used or recycled with homogenous material consisting of only mobile

phones. This will also reinforce the development of EoL treatment. Metals inside the

devices are well suitable for recycling by maintaining their character provided that they

are purified to pure metals.

References

Apple. (2019). Environment. Retrieved from Truly innovative products leave their mark on

the world instead of the planet.: https://www.apple.com/environment/

Arola, H. (2015). Suomessa myydään 2,2 miljoonaa puhelinta, Samsung ja Apple yhä

suosikit. Helsingin Sanomat.

Backmarket. (2018). Refurbished iPhone 7. Retrieved from

https://www.backmarket.com/refurbished-iphone-7.html

Beavis, G. (2019, April 2). Techradar. Retrieved from iPhone 7 review:

https://www.techradar.com/reviews/phones/mobile-phones/iphone-7-

1327947/review

Clover Wireless. (2019). Clover Wireless. Retrieved from Company Overview:

http://cloverwireless.com/

Compound Interest. (2014). Compound Chem. Retrieved from Elements of a Smartphone:

http://www.compoundchem.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/The-Chemical-

Elements-of-a-Smartphone-v2.png

Elker. (2019). Elker. Retrieved from What does producer responsibility mean?:

http://www.elker.fi/en/producers/producer-responsibility/producer-responsibility

ESS. (2018, September 17). Talous. Retrieved from Erityisesti opiskelijat ostavat fiksattuja

älypuhelimia – iPhonet myyvät käytettyinäkin:

https://www.ess.fi/uutiset/talous/art2485253

EUR-Lex. (2019). EUR-Lex. Retrieved from Access to European Union Law; Document

52017DC0173: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?qid=1492585958652&uri=COM:2017:173:FIN

European Commission. (2015). Study on WEEE recovery targets. European Commission.

Europpean Commission. (2019, 8 2). Environment. Retrieved from The RoHS Directive:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_eee/index_en.htm

Fishbein, B. (2002). Waste in the Wireless World: The Challenge of Cell Phones. Inform.

Franklin-Johnson, E., Figge, F., & Canning, L. (2016, May 4). Resource duration as

managerial indicator for Circular Economy performance. Marseille, France.

Gartner. (2018). Newsroom. Retrieved from ID 3876865:

https://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3876865

Geyer, R. (2009). The economics of cell phone reuse and recycling. Springerlink.com.

GreenBiz. (2017, December 13). GreenBiz. Retrieved from GreenBiz Webcasts:

https://www.greenbiz.com/video/leveraging-leadership-transforming-markets-lisa-

jackson-apple

iTapsa. (2018, August 28). ePressi. Retrieved from Käytetty entistä houkuttelevampi

vaihtoehto – nuorista kaksi kolmesta on valmis ostamaan käytetyn puhelimen:

https://www.epressi.com/tiedotteet/kauppa/kaytetty-entista-houkuttelevampi-

vaihtoehto-nuorista-kaksi-kolmesta-on-valmis-ostamaan-kaytetyn-puhelimen.html

Kang, T. (2018, March 7). Counterpoint. Retrieved from The Surprising Growth of Used

Smartphones: https://www.counterpointresearch.com/surprising-growth-used-

smartphones/

Kissling, R., Coughlan, D., Fizpatrick, C., Boeni, H., Luepschen, C., Andrew, S., & Dickenson, J.

(2012). Success factors and barriers in re-use of electrical and electronic equipment.

Kukkola, A. (2018, September 18). (J. Martela, Interviewer)

Landbell Group. (2018, March 6). Landbell Group. Retrieved from CHINA RESTRICTS WASTE

IMPORTS – AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE EUROPEAN ECONOMY?:

https://www.landbell-group.com/china-restricts-waste-imports-opportunity-

european-economy/

Lindholm, M. E. (2003). Toward environmentally conscious product design - a

comprehensive DfE implementation in new generation cellular phones. IEEE, 19-22.

Manis Kumar Jha, A. K. (2013). Recovery of lithium and cobalt from waste lithium ion

batteries of mobile phone.

Martela, J. (2017). Re-Act dismantling report.

Meffert, M. (2018, 6). Expert Sony Mobile. (J. Martela, Interviewer)

Metalbulletin. (2008). Chromium prices tighten as ore costs rise. Retrieved from

https://www.metalbulletin.com/Article/3586680/Chromium-prices-tighten-as-ore-

costs-rise.html

Mishima, K., Rosano, M., Mishima, N., & Nishimura, H. (2016). End-of-Life Strategies for

Used Mobile Phones Using. Yokohama: Keio University.

Mobilemuster. (2018). Mobile phone manufacturing. Retrieved from

https://www.mobilemuster.com.au/media/35528/factsheet3_mobile_phone_man

ufacturing.pdf

Navazo, J. M., Mendez, G. V., & Peiro, L. T. (2013). Material flow analysis and energy

requirements of mobile phone material recovery processes. The International

Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

Nnorom. (2009). Survey of willingness of residents to participate in electronic waste

recycling in Nigeria – A case study of mobile phone recycling.

Nnorom, L., Ohakwe, J., & Osinbanjo, O. (2009). Survey of willingness of residents to

participate in electronic waste recycling in Nigeria - A case study of mobile phone

recycling in Nigeria - a case study of phone recycling. J Clean. Prod 17, 1629-1637.

Nogrady, B. (2016, October 18). BBC. Retrieved from There’s gold, platinum and other

valuable materials in every phone – the hard part is getting it out.:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161017-your-old-phone-is-full-of-precious-

metals

Nokia. (2006, April). Integrated product policy pilot project: stage 3 report: evaluation of

options for improving life-cycle environmental performance of mobile phones.

Oikeusministeriö. (2019). Finlex. Retrieved from Finlex.

Oiva, L., Oppermann, W., Middendorf, A., Zuber, K. H., & Stobbe, I. (2000). Case study on

the environmental impacts of a mobile phone. Berlin: EGG.

Ongondo, F. O., & Williams, I. D. (2011). Greening academia: use and disposal of mobile

phones among university students. Waste Management, 1617-1634.

Ongondo, F. O., & Williams, I. D. (2011). Mobile phone collection, reuse and recycling in the

UK. Waste Management, 1307-1315.

Pitkänen, M. (2018). Näitä puhelimia suomalaiset ostavat – Uudet iPhonet eivät

aiheuttaneet ryntäystä. Puhelinvertailu.

Polak, M., & Drápalová, L. (2012). Estimation of end of life mobile phones generation: The

case study of the Czech Republic.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0956053X.

Pousi, E. (2018). Store Manager. (J. Martela, Interviewer)

Scharnhost, Scharnhost, W., Althaus, H. J., Classen , M., Jolliete, O., & Hilty, L. M. (2005).

The end of life treatment of second generation mobile phone networks: strategies

to reduce the environmental impacts. . Environ Impact Asses, 540-566.

Scott, A. (2014, September 30). The Guardian. Retrieved from Innovations in mobile phone

recycling: biomining to dissolving circuit boards:

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/sep/30/innovations-

mobile-phone-recycling-biomining-dissolving-circuit-boards

Seiffi. (2019). Seiffi. Retrieved from https://seiffi.fi/

Sharmila, N. (2018, February 26). The Star. Retrieved from Gartner: 1.5 billion smartphones

were sold in 2017: https://www.thestar.com.my/tech/tech-

news/2018/02/26/1point5-billion-smartphones-were-sold-in-2017/

Sohail, S. (2015, July 4). Down to Earth. Retrieved from E-waste management: Nokia sets

example: https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/ewaste-management-nokia-sets-

example--41799

Sony Mobile. (2018, September 3). Sony Mobile. Retrieved from Battery and Processor:

https://www.sonymobile.com/global-en/products/phones/xperia-

xz3/battery/#gref

Statcounter. (2019, May). Mobile Operating System Market Share Europe. Retrieved from

http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe

Statista. (2016, November). Statista. Retrieved from

https://www.statista.com/statistics/274774/forecast-of-mobile-phone-users-

worldwide/

Statista. (2019). Statista. Retrieved from Number of Mobile Phone Users in Finland from

2013 to 2019: https://www.statista.com/statistics/274756/forecast-of-mobile-

phone-users-in-finland/

Swappie. (2018). Swappie. Retrieved from IPhone: https://swappie.com/fi/iphone/

Taloussanomat. (2019). Raaka-aineet. Retrieved from

https://www.is.fi/taloussanomat/porssi/raaka-aineet/

Tanskanen, P. (2013). Management and recycling of electrnonic waste. Acta Materialia,

1001-1011.

Telia. (2019). Telia. Retrieved from Kierrätyspuhelimet:

https://www.telia.fi/kauppa/puhelimet/kierratyspuhelimet?intcmp=etusivu-split2-

recycled

The Washington Post. (2016). Congo - Cobalt mining for lithium ion battery. The

Washington Post.

Tianen, A. (2018). ”Ihmisille alkaa kertyä museoita, kun laitteet jäävät pöytälaatikoihin” –

Näin laitat vanhat läppärit ja kännykät kiertoon maksutta ja tietoturvasta

huolehtien. Helsingin Sanomat.

Tianen, A. (2018). Puhelin palasina. Helsingin Sanomat.

Triggs, R. (2015, March 30). Android Authority. Retrieved from Qnovo Adaptive Charging:

https://www.androidauthority.com/qnovo-adaptive-charging-597410/

Tukes. (2014, July 3.). Valtioneuvoston asetus sähkö- ja elektroniikkalaiteromusta.

Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (2011). The Life Cycle of Materials in Mobile Phones. A UL

White Paper.

Valkonen, N. (2019). Elisa. Retrieved from Näin kierrätät vanhan puhelimen:

https://yksityisille.hub.elisa.fi/puhelimen-kierratys/

Viestintavirasto. (2016). Traficom. Retrieved from Matkaviestintäverkon

kokonaisliittymämäärä pysyi ennallaan vuonna 2015:

https://www.viestintavirasto.fi/tilastotjatutkimukset/katsauksetjaartikkelit/2016/m

atkaviestinverkonkokonaisliittymamaarapysyiennallaanvuonna2015.html

Vihreäomena. (2018). Mresell. Retrieved from iPhone: https://mresell.fi/webshop/iphone/

Woollacott, E. (2018, July 6). BBC Business. Retrieved from E-waste mining could be big

business - and good for the planet: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-

44642176

Wright, L. (1999). Product life cycle management. Guildford: University of Surrey.

Ylä-Mella, J., Keiski, R., & Pongrácz, E. (2015). Electronic waste recovery in Finland:

Consumers' perception towards recycling and re-use of mobile phones. Oulu:

Nortech Oulu.

Zeng, X., Mathews, J., & Li, J. (2018). Urban Mining of E-Waste is Becoming More Cost-

Effective Than Virgin Mining. Environmental Science & Technology.

Zherui, H. (2019, April 16). Service Delivery Manager . (J. Martela, Interviewer)

Notes

Interview with Mikael Meffert

1. Re-using components from recycled phones. – Yes and no, Boards we

recycle, they are shipped back to factory for repair and sent back. Other

parts are used if possible others are recycled at global recycle partners

2. How spare parts are delivered to the service centers? – Shipped in from Asia,

differs from shipment. Both land, sea and air depending on parts are how

urgent it is. But few is by air

3. Can recycled phones be used as spare parts? – Yes, boards as above is

reused as much as possible, some minor parts are re-used

4. How are store front units handled after they reach EoL? – Most Is not

collected today (only a few), from customer perspective we would love to

collect and recycle these units

5. What is the estimated value of a recycled phone? – Depending on age,

model and grading. A working two year -old phone could be around 15-35%

of original value

6. Average lifespan of a phone? – It used to be 15-18 month a few years ago,

now we are above 24-26 month

Inrerview with Hu Zherui, Service Delivery Manager, Finland&Baltic at Sony Mobile

Communications

1. What is/are the most common reason of repair inside the warranty period? // Can't

power on/On&Off/Display issue

2. What is/are the most common reason of repair outside the warranty period?

//Display replacement, Battery swap

3. What is the typical warranty time of the phone’s battery? //12m,24m depending on

manufacturer.

4. Do consumers often bring the device to service because of decreased battery life? //

Yes, both IW and OOW cases

5. Are components re-used from older devices for repairs. // Only mainboard, very

small percentage

6. What is the approximate ratio between phones coming to service inside and outside

of warranty? // again, varies by brand. 75%/25% for Huawei, 95%/5% for Sony. Reason

is resale value of device after repair.

Kuusakoski Antti Kukkola interview

1. Kuinka jäte saapuu Kuusakoskelle?

a. GDPR – vaikuttanut tilanteeseen. Seiffi-palvelun mukana osa mutta

suurin osa kuluttajilta. SER-romun joukossa. Yrityksiltä

homogeenisempaa materiaalia tietoturvan takia. Poliisin auditoimat.

b. Puhelinkeräyslaatikot eivät ole Kuusakosken mutta muiden toimioiden

2. Erottelutmenetelmät

a. Manuaaliset, on kokeiltu myös robotteja. Todella vaikeaa robotisoida

sillä jäte on heterogeenistä. Akut poistetaan manuaalisesti. Piirikortit ja

muovi saatetaan poistaa. Harvinaiset maametallit ovat keskustelun

aiheena. Markkinat eivät ole valmiita vielä suurempaan käsittelyyn sillä

kustannukset nousisivat tuloja suuremmiksi. Muovia on myös hyvä olla

romun joukossa, sillä se toimii energiana kuparisulattamoilla. Yleinen

tapa on nykyään – akku pois ja murskaksi ja siitä kuparisulattamoon.

Muovi on suuri ongelma muualla. Ennen sitä myytiin mutta nykyään se

on tappiollista tai kukaan ei suostu sitä ostamaan.

b. Ensimmäinen vaihe täysin manuaalinen. Murskaustekniikoita,

upotuskellutus, ilmaerottelu, hydrometallurgisia menetelmiä, hopeitu

alumiini voidaan erotella alumiiniksi ja hopeaksi.

3. Jätteen ominaisuudet

a. Tulipalotilastot kertovat nousevasta tulipalotrendistä johtuen akuista ja

keräystavasta. Re-use mahdollisuuksia on mutta keräys tapahtuu usein

niin, että tuotteet heitetään lavalle jolloin tämä mahdollisuus

menetetään. Koko Ser-ketju pitäisi saada alkamaan kaupan pihasta.

Yhteistyötä tuottajayhteisön kanssa, joka hallinnoin materiaalia. Pitäisi

olla alusta loppuun asti tarkoin harkittu koko ketju. Esisorttaus pitäisi

tehdä jo kaupan pihoissa jolloin myös jätteen käsittely olisi

tuottavampaa.

4. Omistussuhteet

a. Kuusakoski ostaa jätteen tuottajayhteisöltä.

b. Muovi muuttaa osto/maksu-suhteita. Esim putkitelkkareista

tuottajayhteisö maksaa Kuusakoskelle.

5. Akut

a. Akuille löytyvät markkinat. Jokaiselle merkille omat prosessit.

6. Arvo

a. Integroidut akut ovat ongelma. Millä ne purkaa niin että toimitaan

oikein. Aiheuttavat haasteita.

7. Mitä uudistuksia valmistukseen?

a. Virtalähde helposti poistettavaksi ja turvalliseksi. Suuri tulipaloriski

jätteen joukossa konteissa tai akkua poistettaessa. Oikosulkuriski.

b. Yleisesti ottaen jäte pitäisi saada mahdollisimman pieneen muotoon

logistiikkakustannusten pienentämiseksi mutta elektroniikassa asia

menee toisin päin. Jätettä ei pitäisi painaa kasaan vaan tuotteen tulisi

olla mahdollisimman ehjä erottelua varten ja arvon säilyttämistä varten.

8. Re-use

a. enimmäkseen B2B osastolta. Yritetään lisätä. Tuotteet huudatetaan

asiakaslistan mukaan. Usein ulkomaille kehittyviin maihin toimivia

laitteita, joita heillä ei olisi uutena mahdollisuutta ostaa. Komponentteja

hyvin vähän mutta jonkun verran.

b. Re-use todella toimiva ratkaisu. Välillä vain lainsäädäntö on myös

esteenä. Keräily kuntoon. Toimipisteitä, joista pystytään myymään ja

testaamaan että määrätyt komponentit ovat ehjiä.

c. Jätettä hallinnoivat tahot saattavat estää uudelleenkäyttöä.

9. Jätteen ikä

a. huonosti tiedossa eikä kiinnosta tällä hetkellä. Materiaalin arvo

kuitenkin määräytyy paljon iän myötä.

10. Muuta

a. asiakas haluaa jätteen joukkoon välillä orgaanista materiaalia, jota

pystytään käyttämään energiana

b. Oikeanlainen kierrätys haastaville tuotteille pitäisi tehdä mahdolliseksi.

Haastattelu Eero Pousi Dna

a. Puhelimista saa vaihdossa minimissään yhden euron ja kampanja aikoina

20-40€ minimissää riippuen onko DNA:n asiakas.

b. Palautettavat puhelimet minimihinnoissa ovat lähinnä todella vanhoja

laitteita, jotka eivät ole käyttökelpoisia muuten.

c. Kampanja-aikoina, kun kampanja on hyvin näkyvillä, on selvä piikki

palautuneissa laitteissa.

Attachments

Consumer survey questionnaire results spreadsheet