Journal of Global Information Management

Volume 32 • Issue 1

E-Waste:
A Global Problem, Its Impacts, and Solutions
Jeffrey Hsu, Fairleigh Dickinson University, USA*
John Wang, Montclair State University, USA
Mel Stern, Fairleigh Dickinson University, USA

ABSTRACT

E-waste is a major global problem linked to the use, and discard of, electronic and electric devices.
While the volume of these obsolete devices continues to increase and accumulate, the means and
approaches currently used to reuse, dispose of, recycle, and address this continues to vary widely in
terms of availability, effectiveness, and value. The issues relating to e-waste management include
those emanating from managerial, environmental, labor, and health perspectives. This article aims
to present an overview of the key considerations related to the e-waste dilemma, and also proposes
issues, challenges, and solutions to addressing the problem. A focus on the factors and variables
affecting e-waste management, together with a global framework of e-waste management methods
and strategies, are then followed by recommendations and viable areas for future research.

Keywords
cultural differences, electrical and electronic equipment, e-waste, environmental impacts, global regulations,
impacts of technology, recycling, resource recovery, sustainability, waste management

INTRODUCTION

The growth of computer and electronic technology use has been linked to increased productivity,
the growth of global business, and a positive impact in terms of how we work and live our lives. In
addition, the increasing pace of new developments as they relate to technology enhancements has
been dramatic, as well as the availability and accessibility of these to many sectors of the population.
Unlike the earlier models of computing, where an organization would share the use of a mainframe
computer, the prevalence of computing power and technology on desktops through distributed
networked systems have truly increased our capabilities and global reach (Srivastav et al., 2023).
One of the results of this astronomical growth in technology (and electrical device) use, especially
for desktops, laptops, tablets, mobile phones, and personal (PC) computers is the fact that these
abandoned, used, and obsolete items have created an enormous problem with e-waste. Whether it be

DOI: 10.4018/JGIM.337134 *Corresponding Author

This article published as an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
([Link] which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and production in any medium,
provided the author of the original work and original publication source are properly credited.

1
Journal of Global Information Management
Volume 32 • Issue 1

computing, networking, or other communications equipment, the problem of e-waste disposal has
become a critical issue and one that is global in scope (Srivastav et al., 2023).
Combined with this are the types of waste which come from obsolete electrical devices appliances
(refrigerators, microwaves, washing machines, etc.), medical equipment, industrial devices, and
household small electronics. It could be said that within the broader category of “e-waste” electronic
and electrical items have been discarded because they are obsolete, no longer work, are an outdated
model, or are unrepairable (Srivastav et al., 2023)
While the basic underlying concept of e-waste management is straightforward, in that it is
concerned with how e-waste is collected, processed, and then recycled and disposed of, the myriad
of issues which results from this can be complex - involving technical, scientific, legal, regulatory,
environmental, health, and societal issues.
The purpose of this paper is to examine and analyze the critical issues which relate to the
management of e-waste, from which a framework or structure for research is proposed based on a
global perspective.
In short, given the extensive and growing use of electronic technologies and electric devices,
this is a critical area to examine, both in relation to the volume, and scope of the e-waste generated,
and the different issues and considerations which come into play.

DEFINITION AND ORIGINS OF THE PROBLEM

E-waste, also known more technically as WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) or EEE
(electrical and electronic equipment) for short, can be defined as “any discarded product that has a
battery and/or plug, contains hazardous substances, and can pose a severe risk to human health and
the environment (Forti et al., 2020). Another definition states that “e-waste encompasses a broad and
growing range of electronic devices ranging from large household devices and consumer electronics to
computers and devices which have been discarded by their users” (Shahabuddin et al., 2022; Puckett
et al., 2002). Simply put, it is waste that emanates from discarded, used, and otherwise unwanted
electronic and electrical devices. There are a wide range of items which can fit into this category,
and a rough categorization can be made using the categories ICT (Information and Communications
Technologies) and computer equipment and hardware, household appliances, consumer equipment,
and electronic accessories/components. Examples of these kinds of devices are found in Table 1.
While the problem of e-waste may not receive as much attention as other issues such as climate
change and global warming, for instance, the impacts of the increasing amount of e-waste generated
has far-reaching and profound implications regarding health, environmental impacts, and the
economies of many countries in the world. Part of the problem is that while there is an increasing
number of users of electronic and electrical devices, together with advances in technology leading
to upgrades and enhancements, at the same time there is wide variance worldwide in terms of proper
and effective management and disposal strategies and policies, and there does not appear to be a clear
and consistent global strategy for managing this problem. According to Forti (2020), 53.6 metric
tons of e-waste were generated worldwide in 2019, and the amount is expected to increase to 74
metric tons (or 38%) by the year 2030. Roughly one third of this is generated in Asia, the second third
about equally divided between Europe and North America, and the last third comprising the rest of
the world. To provide some perspective as to the scope of the problem and how various parts of the
world contribute, North America contributes per year approximately 13.3 kg of e-waste per person,
while in Europe the average is roughly 16.2 kg or e-waste per person (Forti et al., 2020; Hinchcliffe
et al., 2020). In general, it could be noted that while North and South America generate a moderate
to high amount of e-waste, a small amount is properly recycled, and while Asia generates roughly
twice as much, it recycles roughly the same % as in the Americas. Europe stands out as generating
a-moderate amount but recycling a large proportion of what is created may account for the greater
per capita e-waste. Other regions of the world generate smaller amounts, but also recycle only a

2
 Journal of Global Information Management
Volume 32 • Issue 1

Table 1. E-waste device categories

Category Device/Appliance
PC (laptop, desktop)
Printer
Monitor
Computer
Mouse and peripherals
Keyboard
Scanner
Copier
Modem
Networking / Office
Router
Fax machine
Cell phone
Mobile phones and related devices
Telephone
Refrigerator
Washing Machine
Household appliances
Air conditioner
Water heater
Home electronics Television
Medical equipment/devices
Other Industrial equipment/devices
Toys, leisure and sports equipment

small portion of it. Given the large amounts of-waste generated annually, roughly 70-80% of this is
shipped from developed nations to lower-income ones, which then is recycled there “informally” using
various means, often improper and unsafe, or alternately, dumped into landfills (Shahabuddin et al.,
2022; Gollakota et al., 2020; Pascale, et al., 2018; Balde et al., 2017). See Table 2 for a breakdown
of e-waste generation and recycling.
Unlike other forms of garbage and waste, whether it be household garbage, paper, or cans/bottles,
e-waste is comprised of multiple elements, often embedded within each other, which may include
various metals, plastic, glass, and other liquid and solid materials. Layered within the outer casings of
these devices can be toxic chemicals and substances, which can be released when recycled or disposed
of. Therefore, the task of disposal and recycling is a complicated, time-consuming, and potentially
hazardous task (Rautela et al., 2021). Additionally, because of the potential health and environmental
problems caused by -e-waste processing and disposal, it is typically done in countries and regions
far removed from where they were originally used, including China, India, Pakistan, as well as other

Table 2. E-waste generation in 2019

E-waste Generated
E-waste Generated E-waste Recycled (Volume/% of
Region (Total Volume in Mega
(Per Person) Total in Mega Tonnes (MT)
Tonnes (MT))
North and South America 13.1 Mt 13.3 kg 1.2 Mt (9.4%)
Europe 12.0 Mt 16.2 kg 5.1 Mt (42.5%)
Africa 2.9 Mt 2.5 kg 0.03 Mt (0.9%)
Asia 24.9 Mt 5.6 kg 2.9 Mt (11.7%)
Oceania 0.7 Mt 16.1 kg 0.06 (8.8%)
Source: Forti et al., 2020

3
Journal of Global Information Management
Volume 32 • Issue 1

areas of Asia and Africa. The approaches to handling and processing e-waste in these countries can
pose many problems, including the impact of toxic processing and disposal sites contaminating the
water, air, soil, in that area and the surrounding regions. The people working on e-waste are often
subjected to health hazards, inadequate protection, and unsafe working conditions (Rautela et al., 2021).
Other related issues include the transport, storage, and harmful effects on anyone coming into
direct, or even indirect contact with e-waste. There are also policy and government-related issues
in the countries which generate and in many cases export e-waste, and also in those countries that
process these obsolete or unwanted electronic devices.
Because this is such a broad topic, encompassing a broad range of issues and considerations, the
focus of this paper will be on defining and explaining in detail the problem of e-waste, discussing
the various impacts of the problem, and presenting several solutions which have been proposed,
suggested, and implemented. From here, a research framework is presented examining the components
underlying e-waste research, and also viable areas for future research in this area.

IMPACTS OF THE PROBLEM

The impacts of the e-waste problem are numerous and complex, and currently there are multiple
perspectives from which to evaluate them.
Many countries and regions in the world do not have clear and effective legislation, laws,
regulations, or guidelines to direct how e-waste is handled. Instead, in many cases the management
of e-waste is performed in an ad-hoc manner, delegated to local authorities, or implemented using
unregulated and unsafe informal methods (Rautela et al., 2021)
As mentioned, before processing and recycling can even start, often there is the need to transport
this waste to countries which can process it, most of which are located in Asia, Africa, or South
America. Of the over 50 metric tons of e-waste which was generated in 2019, roughly 10% crossed
country borders to be processed, and of this only 35% was managed in a controlled, regulated manner.
While there are a wide variety of hazards associated with e-waste and the potentially dangerous
materials contained within them (lithium ion batteries, for example), risks occur especially when
being stored and transported within confined spaces, such as ship containers, for example (Balde et
al., 2022; Rautela et al., 2021; Fiore et al., 2019; Elia, 2018). There are also risks to the personnel
handling e-waste products, such as the case of transformers which can expose workers to toxic levels
of PBCs due to a leak in transformer oils during transport (Naik et al., 2022; Balde et al., 2022;
Budnik et al., 2014).
In fact, there are regulations on the export of e-waste from developed nations to low-income
countries, in particular the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Wastes
and their Disposal (2001). However, a number of countries, including the United States, did not
ratify the convention, and hence were not obligated to follow its rules and guidelines, and continue
to export waste in whatever manner they saw fit.
Moreover, a common way to get around proper recycling methods, is to designate certain e-waste
as “functional second-hand/not for recycling”, making it exempt from the regulations. However, in the
end the e-waste itself must still be disposed of or processed, and so it doesn’t alleviate the problem,
but only temporarily masks it from scrutiny, and in many cases ends up in the same place and is
managed the same was as those not so designated.
The process of recycling e-waste is different from other kinds of waste, since there are many
toxic chemicals and substances which can be found in electronic and electric devices. In order to
safely recycle these, any toxic chemicals and substances need to be separated from its surrounding
and protective materials, then removed and discarded, while any useful material (metals, plastics) and
valuable elements (rare earth elements) should be retained for further recovery processing (Xavier et
al., 2023). Ideally, here should be guidelines and safeguards in place to control and prevent exposure
to these toxins, but often especially in informal recycling firms and settings, these safeguards are

4
 Journal of Global Information Management
Volume 32 • Issue 1

overlooked and not implemented whether for expediency, or to reduce costs (Lin et al., 2022; Rautela,
et al., 2021). Please see Table 3 for an illustration of the various e-waste components of a computer
and its peripherals, and both the processing and hazards which arise as a result of its recycling (Wath,
Dutt, & Chakrabarti, 2011).
The list of chemicals and toxins which are found in electronic and electrical devices are extensive
and pose a significant hazard to those who work with e-waste without adequate protection. Some
of the most hazardous to health include both inorganic (mercury, lead, cadmium, etc.) and organic
chemicals (PVC, PCBs). While some of these normally do not pose any risk enclosed within the
designed devices and used in normal ways, after they are discarded and recycled, they can be toxic
once removed and exposed. Here is where the hazard occurs, since without proper precautions,
workers engaged in recycling can be exposed to these kinds of substances (Lin et al., 2022). The
most common hazardous components of e-waste are listed in Table 4.
Whether because of age, upgrades, or because the devices no longer work, obsolete technological
and electrical devices pose a major problem in terms of collection, transport and disposal/recycling.
As in the case of appliances such as refrigerators and air conditioners, the presence of environmentally

Table 3. E-waste processing: A computer and its components/peripherals

e-Waste Source e-Waste Component Processing/Recycling Potential Hazards and Exposure

Laptop or Desktop Remove computer chips (de-soldering), Air pollution, also cadmium,
Circuit Boards
Computer burning and/or acid baths mercury, beryllium

Memory and other computer Computer chips (on circuit

Chemical stripping using acid, burning Lead, tin
chips board)

CRT (cathode ray tube)

Air and water pollution: Lead,
Computer Monitor/screen Flat screen monitors (prior Break/remove yoke, dumped/landfilled
Barium, Mercury
to 2009)

Cables and wiring Computer wires Burning and stripping Air, water, and soil pollution

System case, keyboards,

Plastic components Shredding, melting Air pollution
monitors, printers

Table 4. Selected list of hazardous substances found in e-waste

Hazardous Substance Found in Components Means of exposure Health Impacts and Effects

Circuit boards Blood, nervous systems, kidneys

Lead (Pb) Air, water, soil
Glass panels Child brain development

Circuit boards
Brain, skin, respiratory, heart, liver, kidney
Mercury (Hg) Switches and relays Air, water, soil
Children’s development
CRT monitors

Semiconductors Liver, kidney, neurological damage, bone

Cadmium (Cd) Air, water, soil
Batteries disease, lung cancer

Barium (Ba) CRT components Air, water Muscle, heart, blood pressure, liver.

Beryllium (Be) Motherboards Air, water Lung (Pneumonia), skin

BFR Electronic equipment housings

Air, water, soil Thyroid, nervous system
Brominated flame retardants Circuit boards

PVC Cabling
Air, water, soil Immune system.
Polyvinyl chloride Computer unit housings

PCBs Cancer, immune system, nervous system,

Batteries Air, water, soil
Polychlorinated biphenyls female reproduction.

Hexavalent Chromium Computer unit housing

Air, water, soil Cancer, respiratory, female reproduction.
(Chromium VI) components

5
Journal of Global Information Management
Volume 32 • Issue 1

unsafe and potentially hazardous chemicals and toxins (such as freon) makes the process difficult
(Lin et al., 2022).
Many countries around the world participate in one or more steps of the e-waste process whether
as producer, consumer, or disposer. Designers of electronic items are generally located in more
developed regions (North America, Europe), but outsource their manufacturing to Asia, including
China, India, as well as other developing and third world countries. Consumers include those in a
wide variety of nations, with volumes varying by region and country. Disposers are found mainly in
developing and third world countries including those in Asia and Africa. For instance, the United
States is a major consumer and designer, of electronic items. While there are a number of US tech
firms which manufacture these kinds of devices, much of the manufacturing and production is done
overseas, a substantial portion is exported to other countries for recycling or disposal. China, on the
other hand, can lay claim to the fact that it is a major consumer and producer of electronic devices
and is also involved with e-waste disposal and recycling (Murthy & Ramakrisha, 2022).

SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM (BENEFITS AND OPPORTUNITIES)

As discussed in previous sections, there are a number of impacts and consequences due to the volume
of, and continuing increases in, e-waste generation throughout the world. The goal of this section is
to examine the current and proposed solutions to the problem, with regards to proper management,
collection, followed by recycling, and disposal of e-waste.
Improved and Evolving Management Practices. There can be management and production-
oriented practices which can help to reduce the generation of e-waste, encourage effective re-use,
and manage properly the task of collection and proper recycling.
By effectively managing inventory levels both before and during the production process, it may
be possible to reduce waste and eliminate the need to store and dispose of excessive raw materials
used in the production of electronic and electric devices. This can be accomplished by improved
efficiency when ordering material, and ensuring that only the quantity needed is maintained by using
an inventory control system (Singh, Chauhan, & Sarkar, 2022; Chowdury & Patel, 2017; Rao, 2014)
There may be ways to enhance the production process, through a review of policies and procedures,
making efforts to reduce waste due to accidents, spillage, or equipment failures. Another option is
to consider replacing non-degradable components with more environmentally-friendly substitutes,
such as paper-based materials when manufacturing printed circuit boards (Sudheshwar et al., 2023).
Other methods include ensuring that less, rather than more, toxic chemicals are used; separating the
toxic from the non-toxic waste streams during processing and recycling; and the reuse of recycled
materials in the production of new product unit components (Pan, Wong & Li, 2022; Chowdhury &
Patel, 2017; Rao, 2014).
Finally, there are solutions inherent in the product design process. Products and devices can be
designed to use more renewable, and fewer hazardous materials. First, effective design may seek
to minimize the requirements for and quantities of hazardous materials. Materials and energy from
more natural sources may also prove to be possible, as well as greater emphasis on repair and re-use.
Currently, in the case of computers, for example, there is a market for refurbished devices, which
offer performance but at a lower price than new items (Shields, 2019; Bakhiyi et al., 2018; Jing, Jia,
and Bo, 2021; Rao, 2014).
Attention to design, particularly to encourage longer usage lives, is also an important aspect
to consider, since electronic products can become obsolete due to technical obsolescence (less
performance since the product lacks the latest features) or economic obsolescence (newer models
offer more at a lower price). The increased growth in technological advances therefore contribute to
more e-waste being generated (Shittu, Williams, & Shaw, 2021). There are also regulations which have
been introduced in various countries which cite guidelines for placing electronic items back into use,
whether directly, or after repair, refurbishing, repurposing, or remanufacturing (Anandh et al., 2021).

6
 Journal of Global Information Management
Volume 32 • Issue 1

Reverse Supply Chain. While there is overall familiarity with the concept of the supply chain,
which describes the processes beginning with raw materials and producing them as marketable
products, another concept has been discussed in relation to e-waste. This is the reverse supply
chain, which looks at the process from product acquisition to inspection/disposition, to disposal or
refurbishment and re-distribution of obsolete items. There are many aspects which come into play
for a reverse supply chain, and this is the subject of valuable research relating to e-waste (Doan et
al., 2019; Deng, 2022)
One area which appears to be lacking in many nations is an awareness and attention to the problems
of, and proper solutions for alleviating, the challenges posed by e-waste. There are countries which
implemented awareness campaigns, and which have led to calls for citizens to cooperate and do their
part to recycle obsolete devices in the proper way, and for producers and local municipalities to institute
programs to manage this problem. This has been more successful in some countries than others.
Often, there is a need for regulations and laws to be instituted to support the request for cooperation,
as well as funds allocated to initiate the program, such as paying for collection services to pick up
e-waste devices, such as which is done for household recycling (Sipka et al., 2021; Shields, 2019).
On the part of producers, the concept of EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility) provides a
proactive means for receiving back obsolete devices for recycling and processing, which are sometimes
referred to as “Take Back Programs.” Other variations include the ability for consumers to return
used devices through their retailers, drop them off to producer-arranged locations, and the like; and
in some countries a fee is paid by the consumer at the time of purchase to help cover the costs of
recycling and disposal (Halim & Suharyanti, 2019). Because some countries have little in the way of
awareness campaigns or organized programs, few means are available for effectively managing the
e-waste being generated. In these cases, old devices are stored until some means of disposal becomes
available, or alternately, sold to “waste collectors” who go around collecting these in the community
(LeClerc & Badani, 2021).
E-Waste Generation and Disposal Reporting. One area which deserves additional attention is the
effective and consistent reporting on the types and amounts of e-waste that is generated, recycled, and
disposed of. Since there are no established guidelines for this, the varying measures and approaches
often result in underestimation or misreporting (Shittu, Williams, & Shaw, 2021).
Waste disposal and collection. Another important aspect of the solution to the e-waste problem is
to examine the methods of waste disposal and collection. After an electronic or electric device reached
the end of its useful life, no longer works properly, cannot be repaired, or for some other reason is
no longer needed and desired, the important consideration is what to do with this unwanted device.
This can be a more involved issue than it appears, and can vary by country, culture, awareness,
or because of policies which have been instituted and promoted in the past or currently. In some
countries including those in Europe and North America, these devices are regarded more as “waste”
and the primary question is how to get rid of them (Veenstra et al., 2010). In other nations, including
China and others in Asia, many consider these obsolete or used devices to have value, and the goal
is to get the most value out of the resource (Hicks et al., 2005). In fact, attitudes towards fees can
be related to the mindset of a particular nation, region, or community. For some, in nations where
e-waste is thought of as having of little value, there may be a willingness to pay a fee for disposal, or
to personally deliver the devices to a collection site. On the other hand, where they are considered
to have some value, users will not part with them unless they are paid a disposal fee (Veenstra et al.,
2010; Hicks et al., 2005).
Awareness is a positive factor, since if there are policies or campaigns in place which have been
instituted to collect e-waste, citizens are more likely to follow the prescribed procedures for collection
and recycling. In some countries, the recycling of cans, bottles, and paper may be a good precedent
and example, from which to bring about an e-waste collection program. Switzerland is a country
where there is not only an organized and established program in place which is promoted and made
aware to citizens (Baxter & Gram-Hassan, 2016). On the other hand, there are nations where there

7
Journal of Global Information Management
Volume 32 • Issue 1

is little awareness or attention given to policies and procedures regarding e-waste, and therefore the
actions taken are largely ad-hoc, informal, or non-existent (Mozo-Reyes et al., 2016).
Producer versus Consumer Responsibility. As mentioned earlier, EPR (Extended Producer
Responsibility), is where producers of electric and electronic devices take on the responsibility for
reducing the impacts of e-waste while at the same time endeavoring to promote the profitability of
the firms participating and involved in the initiative. The goal is first to enhance and promote the
usage and lifespan of products either through repairing non-operating devices, and/or re-use them in
another capacity. Where this cannot be accomplished, the next option would be to disassemble the
devices and re-use the components in some other capacity, or for production of new devices. Finally,
in the case where none of these options are possible, the goal should be to dispose of the devices
(LeClerc & Badami, 2021; Khan et al., 2014; Afroz et al., 2013.)
This contrasts with what is known as ECR (Extended Consumer Responsibility) where
accountability for the management of e-waste rests with consumers, rather than producers. Under
ECR, consumers are encouraged to turn in their devices and “reuse and recycle” (Masud et al., 2022;
Lepawski, 2012; Kang & Schoenung, 2006).
It should be mentioned that one approach to e-waste, is the “out of sight, out of mind” approach
where consumers simply put their unused devices in storage and in effect, forget about them. This is
often done as a matter of convenience, and also when it is perceived that – they have some inherent
value and should be saved for “sale” to the highest bidder (Sengupta et al., 2022; Andeobu et al., 2021a).
Government and local policies and legislation. Another solution can come from global organizations,
individual governments, and state/regional and local authorities, instituting recommendations, policies,
laws, and regulations which are centered upon the effective management of e-waste. Because this is a
global problem and one which spans multiple continents, nations, and regions, the solution is complex
and varies widely from one area or country to another. The range of policies and laws is large and
involved and requires a detailed study to provide a fair and complete review.
One of the broadest sets of recommendations concerning e-waste is the Basel Convention, an
international United Nations treaty designed to regulate the transport of hazardous waste between
nations and reduce the export of e-waste from developed to less developed countries. The notion of
“hazardous waste” is extended to e-waste and therefore is one of the more important global regulations
that cover e-waste transport and export. It was signed in 1989, and took effect in 1992, and is overseen
by the consumer watchdog group, the Basel Action Network (BAN). (UNEP, 2011). Other important
policies include the WEEE Directive and the RoHS Directive developed by the European Union, the
Bamako Convention, and legislation created to address e-waste in China, India, Japan (Home Appliance
Recycling Law), and South Korea’s Waste Management Act (Shittu, Williams, & Shaw, 2021).
There can be local laws and regulations which require that e-waste devices be disposed of or
collected in a certain manner, and what incentives or penalties can apply based on compliance or
refusal to cooperate with these. In addition, there need to be programs in place to support these laws
and policies. For example, if you require that e-waste not be thrown in the trash but collected and
recycled in a certain manner, then there needs to be drop-off locations or collection methods.
Landfilling. One relatively simple, yet ineffective solution, is landfilling, where trenches are dug
and e-waste is buried, then covered again by soil. Depending on the facility, some secure landfills have
plastic or clay liners, or leachate collection basins, which direct the flow of leachate to wastewater
treatment plants. This is not an ideal solution, since soil contamination, and in the case of improperly
constructed landfills, water and environmental contamination, can occur. This could be deemed a
disposal method which contributes to land and soil pollution and poses health hazards to those living
in the area (Yaashikaa et al., 2022; Pramila, Fulekar, & Bhawana, 2012).
Incineration. Incineration uses high heat both to reduce the volume of the e-waste materials,
and generate power using the energy found in the e-waste materials. Of course, this process requires
special incinerators, designed to break down various forms of e-waste. A downside to incineration

8
 Journal of Global Information Management
Volume 32 • Issue 1

is air pollution and the impact of this on the population and the environment (Yaashikaa et al., 2022;
Pramila, Fulenar, & Bhawana, 2012).
Formal recycling. Formal recycling is performed in a regulated and controlled manner, often
in specially designated facilities set up to handle the various types of e-waste. Because e-waste is
composed of heterogeneous parts, including metals, plastics, and glass, together with potentially toxic
chemicals and substances, one of its most critical functions is the separation of these components, and
the recovery of useful resources (metals, minerals, rare earth elements). Some of the tasks involved
include sorting (taking a mixed waste stream and separating into separate component materials),
thermal treatments (using heat and combustion to alter or transform), biological treatments, and
reprocessing (add value to materials to make it more useful as a resource). These are general concepts
about the various kinds of recovery solutions and treatments based on the kinds of material being
processed (Rodriguez et al., 2020; Metropolitan Waste and Resource Group, 2018).
The extraction of useful materials requires some or all of the following processes, including the
removal of dangerous components which propose a hazard (such as batteries or mercury lamps),
processing by shredding and crushing, sorting from items in the waste stream into those possessing a
specific resource, and focused processing to obtain the desired resources (through a chemical, physical,
or thermal process). One of the thermal processes commonly used is pyrolysis, which is a form of
decomposition using thermal means (Andooz et al., 2022; Rodriguez et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2019).
Often, the recycling is tied into some form of collection program, where users of unwanted devices
bring these to a collection facility. Some countries have policies which are tied into these recycling
programs, so that there is an organized system for handling the waste beginning with receiving, and
then processing. In the EU, for example, there is the WEEE Directive, which is the European Union’s
legislation designed to ensure compliance with the EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility) model
for handling e-waste by producers and importers. This legislation had multiple iterations, and varies
in its implementation by country. However, it is notable that in the EU, there is a solid framework
for the management of e-waste, including the mechanisms and procedures for the recycling process
in particular (Andersen, 2021; Cole et al., 2019).
Notably, the countries with the highest rates of e-waste recycling (around 49%) are Sweden,
Switzerland, and Norway, which also have organized systems for managing e-waste (Balde et al., 2017).
Informal recycling. Informal recycling is the processing of e-waste using manual and simplistic,
processes which are neither regulated nor controlled, and this occurs primarily in Asia (most activity
in China, India, Thailand, and Vietnam), South America (Brazil, Chile, in particular), and Africa
(Ghana, Nigeria, and South Africa). The term informal means that the recyclers can be small
businesses (some family owned and run), where the operators frequently live at the recycling sites,
or have individuals working at large waste dump sites (Andeobu et al., 2021b). Often, there is little
or no attention given to the health and safety of workers, and the facilities are more primitive and
expose workers to the dangers of toxic chemicals and hazardous processing methods. Some of the
methods used include basic shredding and cutting of e-waste parts, burning items in open fires, and
use of chemical solvents. Children are often engaged in this kind of labor, which can be hazardous.
Some of these processes are performed in the workers’ homes further exposing them to risk and
poisoning (Andeobu et al., 2021a, 2021b).
Based on environmental, safety, and health risks, the least desirable approaches are landfilling
and incineration. The superior approach is recycling, with formal recycling more desirable than
informal recycling, due to the risks involved with the latter.
Other Recycling Methods. While the methods discussed already focus on what can be done to
process the collected e-waste, there are other approaches which are used to “clean up” and “restore”
soil and groundwater which has been contaminated by the toxic substances found in e-waste. These
methods suggest more “natural” approaches to managing the problem of neutralizing areas poisoned
and damaged by e-waste recycling processes.

9
Journal of Global Information Management
Volume 32 • Issue 1

Bioremediation uses natural processes to restore an environment (soil, air, water) to its original,
cleaner state. Bioremediation can include adding various microorganisms to the soil or groundwater
to achieve this effect; using enzymes to accomplish this; or adding nutrients to the soil and/or water
to stimulate this effect by microorganisms already present in the environment (Dasila et al., 2023;
Sharma et al., 2023; Pramila et al., 2012; Bollag & Bollag, 1995).
Phytoremediation uses plants to remove pollutants and restore an area to a cleaner, more pristine
state. These methods have been shown in studies to improve the state of soils by using plants such
as rice, alfalfa, ryegrass, and fescue grass together with specific types of bacteria (Pramila et al.,
2012; Brandl et al., 2000) in areas having been contaminated with PCBs and other toxic compounds
(Gunarathne et al., 2020; Xiezhi, 2008).
E-waste extraction. While most of the discussion concerning solutions centers around reducing the
hazards of, and the volume of, e-waste, another concerns the extraction of valuable metals, minerals,
and other substances from the e-waste. Often categorized under the term “urban mining” the recovery
or extraction of materials can yield valuable resources from e-waste. The e-waste generated in just
one year, 2019, can yield as much as 57 billion dollars of secondary raw materials (Forti et al., 2020).
These include rare earth metals (REMs) such as gold, silver, and copper, and various other materials
which are valuable, and can also be useful in manufacturing and production of various goods. While
the extraction of these valuable resources is a positive, there are also issues with removing them
from several types of e-waste, and whether the extraction and removal is worthwhile with regard to
return vs. the costs and efforts involved in the extraction process (Dutta et al., 2023; Chakraborty et
al., 2022; Islam et. al, 2020).
Bioleaching is a method which has received more attention recently, since it denotes a means for
recovering both valuable (and toxic) metals and mineral resources from e-waste, using microorganisms,
which shows promise of being an effective alternative for resource recovery (Yaashika et al., 2022;
Arya & Kumar, 2020).
See Table 5 for a list of recoverable resources from e-waste.

E-WASTE PERSPECTIVES IN SELECTED COUNTRIES

Asia and Oceania

Asia and Oceania play a key role in the global e-waste situation. Overall, Asia generates a large amount
of e-waste, among the main world regions. In addition, a large amount of the actual production and
manufacturing of EEE (Electrical and Electronics Equipment) devices occurs in Asia. Finally, much
of the world’s e-waste processing and recycling also occurs in Asia (Andeobu et al., 2021a).

Table 5. Recoverable resources from e-waste

Resource Sourced from E-waste Component(s)

Gold (Au) Integrated circuits, wires used for bonding, contacts
Silver (Ag) Switches, contacts, solders
Platinum (Pt) Connectors and capacitors, hard disks
Copper (Cu) Cables and wire connectors
Tin (Sn) Solders
Antimony (Sb) Flame retardants and used in CRT monitor glass
Cobalt (Co) Rechargeable batteries
Indium (In) Semiconductors, solders, flat panel monitors

10
 Journal of Global Information Management
Volume 32 • Issue 1

China. China plays an extremely important role when relating to e-waste. It’s not only a major
consumer and producer (including manufacturing) of EEE products, but the country also generates
a large amount of e-waste every year. It has been reported that China generated 7.2 megatons of
e-waste in 2016, and is expected to increase to 27.2 Mt in 2030 and 51.6 MT in 2050 (Li and Achal,
2020; Zeng et al., 2020). Most of the e-waste is in the form of mobile phones, followed by computers,
televisions, and household products (refrigerators, washer machines and air conditioners). It’s also
one of the major countries engaged in the recycling of e-waste. China’s approach to recycling e-waste
has previously been largely informal, which increases the potential for many risks to health and the
environment. However, there have been recent efforts to pursue regulated, formal recycling (Kumar
& Li, 2017; Lu et al., 2015; Lin & Ma, 2022; Salhofer et al., 2016).
In fact, two towns in China have gained notoriety as focal points for e-waste recycling. One is
Guiyu in Guandong, China in the Southeast, the other is Taizhou in the East in Zhejiang province.
These two cities form the main centers of e-waste recycling in China and are well known for pollution
due to illegal e-waste processing practices. Guiyu is sometimes referred to as the “e-waste capital
of the world” and employs in excess of 150,000 persons from several villages in the area (Andeobu
et al., 2021a). Aside from these, there are waste processing plants in 29 mostly Central and Eastern
provinces of China, with at least some using safer and more effective formal methods of processing
and recycling (Song et al., 2019).
India. India is one of the largest producers of e-waste in the world, in part due to its increasing
average annual growth rate, as well as a major consumer of electronic devices. Approximately 3
million tons of e-waste was produced in 2018, and this is projected to grow substantially. More
than 150 million computers are projected to become obsolete and need replacement in the future
and the electronics industry is expected to grow at an extremely high rate during this decade. While
the government has established regulations concerning e-waste procedures, especially in line with
environmental protection and goals, most of the e-waste processing is done through informal non-
regulated businesses. Due to the small, unregulated businesses, many owned and run by families,
the sophistication of equipment and facilities may be limited, with many of these firms employing
children and women. Because income can be obtained from the sale of used devices, much of the
e-waste in India is sold by individuals to kawariwalas, who go door to door buying old and obsolete
devices, with the general belief is that there is value in them (Sengupta et al., 2022; Andeobu et al.,
2021a; Arya & Kumar, 2020; Borthakur et al., 2017; Zeng et al., 2016; Chugh et al., 2016; Agarwal
et al., 2014; Dwivedy et al., 2012; Pandey et al. 2014).
Unlike some other countries, in India the majority of obsolete, non-working, and unused devices
are either stored and held, or disposed of primarily through some form of sale, rather than being
thrown away. Through the government, devices can be sold through auction, or alternately, to one of
the kawariwalas mentioned previously. To further illustrate this, roughly 3 out of every 4 obsolete
computers in India are stored and kept (Andeobu et al., 2021a; Ragupathy & Chaturvedi, 2013;
Ramachandra & Varghese, 2004), rather than their being sold or disposed of outright, often due to
a lack of knowledge about the various options available, or an unwillingness to quickly part with
something which is perceived to have value (Sengupta et al., 2022; Dwivedy et al., 2015).
Indonesia. There has been an increase in the use of electronic and electric devices in the country,
and therefore the increase in e-waste has been substantial. Overall, this was not previously regarded
as a major issue that received much attention, and e-waste recycling is mostly conducted by informal
businesses and individuals, which suggests that improper and unsafe procedures are being followed.
There were two sets of government regulations introduced for addressing e-waste, in 1999 and 2009.
(Kurniawan et al., 2022; Mairizal et al., 2021; Arya & Kumar, 2020; Santoso et al., 2019; Andarani
et al., 2014; Sembiring et al., 2010; Maherswari et al., 2019; Yoshido et al., 2016).
Malaysia. This country is expected to contribute to the increase of e-waste produced, considering
that the nation was listed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as being the 3rd largest economy
in Southeast Asia in 2019. The issue of e-waste has recently become a more major one, since in 2005

11
Journal of Global Information Management
Volume 32 • Issue 1

there was a law passed under the title of Environmental Quality Regulations 2005 where e-waste was
listed as a specific type of waste to be addressed (Yong et al., 2019; Ismail et al., 2019).
Japan. A major user and producer of e-waste, Japan has enacted regulations and laws concerning
e-waste, and has a relatively high percentage of e-waste being recycled, roughly 70%. Laws including
the Home Appliance Recycling Laws and others were enacted beginning in 2001. As a result, Japan’s
approach to e-waste resembles that of the EU in many ways (Dhir et al., 2021; Oguchi et al., 2012;
Zoeteman et al., 2010; Kirby & Lora-Wainwright, 2015). Because Japan requires consumers to pay
a transport and recycling fee when they turn in their obsolete devices, some have opted instead to
sell them to exporters as “second hand” items (Dhir et al., 2021; Zoeterman et al., 2010; Sugimura
& Murikami, 2016).
Korea. This nation requires a collection fee for e-waste recyclables, which can be avoided if a
new replacement product is purchased, whereby the retailer or producer would be responsible for the
collection fee. Some areas arrange for pickups of the e-waste items. The country’s e-waste devices
are perceived to have some inherent value even if they are obsolete or can no longer be used (Jang,
2010; Kim et al., 2013; Kahhat et al., 2008).
Vietnam. In this Southeast Asian nation, citizens attribute value to e-waste and therefore a larger
proportion of e-waste is stored and kept beyond its useful life. Therefore, it is not seen as an urgent
and immediate problem since the quantities being discarded are not that large. Since there aren’t that
many e-waste policies, this is a developing area at the moment. In recent years, recycling of e-waste
and extraction of metals has expanded greatly in the country (Brindadevi et al., 2023; Pariatamby &
Victor, 2013; Nguyen et al., 2009).
Thailand. More than half of households hold onto their obsolete devices in Thailand, both because
of their perceived value and due to lack of an organized collection system. If e-waste devices are not
sold or traded in, they are-offered for donation (Monomaivibool & Vassandumrongdee, 2012, 2011).
Australia. Australia is one of major contributors to e-waste in the world, given its high level of
consumption of electronics products. In fact, there has been steady growth of e-waste generation from
410 kilotons in 2010 to 554 kilotons in 2019 (Forti et al., 2020). While there were few regulations
and policies prior, in 2009 the National Waste Policy was established which dealt with approaches
to managing e-waste in the country. The goal of this policy was to follow international accords and
conventions, reduce the amounts created, and establish guidelines for ensuring that the recycling
methods employed were safe and effective (Islam et al., 2020; Ongondo et al., 2011; Golev et al.,
2016; Davis & Herat, 2015; Premaltha et al., 2014.)

Africa
Africa is somewhat different from some of the other regions discussed, since while the continent does
not generate much e-waste compared with other regions, manufacturing of electronic and electrical
devices is also generally rather low, however the continent plays a major role in the processing
and recycling of e-waste. Most of the e-waste generated within Africa comes from South Africa,
Egypt, and Algeria, while the processing and recycling occurs in various nations, including Ghana,
Uganda, Nigeria, South Africa, and Rwanda. While a number of African nations have ratified the
Basel Convention, e-waste is imported in sizable amounts into the continent, with the predominant
attitude among the importing nations is that that the economic opportunities outweigh the risks to
the environment and the population. In addition, limited policies and infrastructures have resulted
in most of the e-waste to being recycled informally and using rudimentary methods, creating risks
to workers and the environment (Maes & Whyte, 2022; Lebbie et al., 2021; Maphosa & Maphosa,
2020; Gollakota et al., 2020, Asante et al., 2019).
Ghana. This country is well known for a large e-waste dumping site called Agbogbloshie in
Accra, together with others within the country, where a large amount of e-waste is dumped. Most of
the e-waste is collected by individuals who go door to door, paying for the devices to be collected.
At the same time, most e-waste is being dumped into landfills, causing an enormous health and

12
 Journal of Global Information Management
Volume 32 • Issue 1

environmental problem in the country (Owusu-Sekyere et al., 2022. Oteng-Ababio, 2012; Asante
et al., 2011).

North America
United States. The United States is one of the top generators of e-waste, while at the same time lacking
a national policy on this form of waste; it tends to delegate the management and handling of e-waste
to the state and municipal levels. There have been proposals to tie in state and regional efforts with
some form of national oversight, through the EPA’s Electronic Stewardship program (US EPA, 2016).
Currently, the disposition of e-waste in the US is divided between a portion which is stored, one part
which is disposed of, and a certain amount which is recycled. To provide a perspective on the volumes
involved, roughly 15-20% generated in the U.S. is recycled within the country, with the remainder
exported to Mexico, China and other parts of Asia, Latin and South America (Althaf et al., 2020).
Overall, responsibility is placed in the hands of consumers, rather than producers, and so the
concept of ECR (Extended Consumer Responsibility) is emphasized over EPR (Extended Producer
Responsibility). The attitudes and policies toward e-waste appear-to vary widely by region, familiarity,
and convenience. Roughly half of the states in the U.S. have laws addressing the management of
e-waste, but they do not form a unified whole, and the myriad of approaches and regulations actually
work to hinder an effective means of addressing the e-waste being generated (Schumacher, 2016).
Some states like California and Maine have established laws regarding e-waste management, with
specific kinds of collection and acceptance policies varying by both state and municipality. This
implies that what is allowed to be collected for recycling (including e-waste) can be quite different
based on where a consumer lives, and if fees are charged. Therefore, many consumers in the US store
their obsolete and electric devices for many years even though they are determined to be obsolete
(Althaf et al., 2021; Lepwasky, 2012; Wagner, 2009; Li, 2011; Kang & Schoenung, 2005).
Canada. This nation, which resembles the United States in certain ways with its emphasis on
ECR, has its own approach to “product stewardship” programs. Simply put, the emphasis of financial
responsibility is on consumers, however some public funds are used to run e-waste management
programs. In this latter case, these programs are established in specific Canadian provinces, and charge
consumers an Advanced Disposal Surcharge (ADS) which is collected on purchases of electronic
and electronic devices, and later used to cover the costs of collection and recycling of these devices
(Habib et al., 2023; Ali & Shirazi, 2023; Xavier et al., 2021; Lepawsky, 2012).

Europe and EU
European Union (EU). This group of European nations has a well-organized set of policies and
programs to address e-waste within its borders. Specified by the WEEE Directive (2012/19/EU)
it provides guidelines for the collection, processing, and recovery/recycling of e-waste. Having a
reasonably good track record of results, it has as its foundation the EPR structure for managing this
endeavor including the producer, manufacturing, and collection/processing sections. There are specific
devices covered under this directive, as well as effective assessment methods of the inflows and
outflows of e-waste. Much of the e-waste generated is processed within the EU rather than exported
to other countries (Gollakota et al., 2020).
Switzerland. This country is credited as being a nation with a formalized and organized system
to manage e-waste, based on the concept of EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility). Not only are
there guidelines and policies directed towards the collection of e-waste items, but also attention given
to who pays for the transport and recycling, while relying on cooperation from both producers and
consumers (Ali & Shirazi, 2022; Duygan & Meylan, 2015). Consumers pay an Advanced Recycling
Fee (ARF) at the time of product purchase, which pays for the costs of transport and recycling. The
system is coordinated by producers who arrange for the transport and processing (Khetriwal et al.,
2009). Consumers cooperate by bringing their obsolete e-waste items to collection locations or to
retail outlets set up to collect obsolete items. There are two organizations in charge of these take back

13
Journal of Global Information Management
Volume 32 • Issue 1

systems, SWICO and SENS which are designated as “Producer Responsibility Organizations” (Ali
& Shirazi, 2022; Savi et al., 2013).
Germany. Germany has a culture where it’s a household’s responsibility to dispose of e-waste at
specially designated collection locations. This is considered a more acceptable option than having it
collected for a fee. Contrary to established guidelines, in some cases, households simply dispose of
the unwanted devices in the trash. The establishment of the EAR project was designed to help monitor
and ensure compliance among municipalities and produces, so that the stated goals and procedures
can better be met (Manomaivibool & Vassanadumrondee, 2012; Sthiannopkao & Wong, 2013).
Spain. This nation has a recycling rate lower than many other European nations, with the majority
returned through retailers and local take-back systems. However, the majority of devices are discarded
together with other garbage, some of which are subsequently recycled or disposed of in landfills. As
of 2005, there has been new legislation which mandates that producers establish e-waste management
systems to collect and recycle obsolete and unwanted devices free of charge to consumers. In addition,
there has been a renewed emphasis on the recovery of raw mineral resources from e-waste (Torrubia
et al., 2023; Perez-Belis et al., 2015; Savi et al., 2013; Queiruga et al., 2012).

GLOBAL RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

While e-waste is a seemingly straightforward concept to understand, a broad range of issues, impacts,
and solutions exist, which vary by country and locale. Therefore, a global research framework/
categorization would be helpful for those attempting to manage the maze of variables, issues, and
studies which have been conducted. The differences by region and country also need to be accounted
for, since they vary widely and are yet another dimension added to the complexity of understanding
e-waste management and the research conducted on this area (see Table 6).

Table 6. Global research framework table

AREAS FOR
NORTH EUROPE ASIA AND SOUTH
ISSUE OPTIONS AFRICA FUTURE
AMERICA & EU OCEANIA AMERICA
RESEARCH

• Marketing • Emphasis on • Emphasis on • Varies by • Minimal in • Brazil has • More effective

and Awareness ECR EPR country these Areas EPR take back awareness and
Programs • US/ Canada • EU-WEEE • China program promotions
• Formalized State and Directive • India • Colombia • Culture
recycling province • Greater • EPR Japan also has • Circular
Awareness,
programs • Oriented emphasis on • EPR Korea programs/ economy
Information,Support
• Producer Programs this area in • Taiwan policy on • Reverse supply
sponsored Europe e-waste chain
programs • Recycle/
Refurbish
emphasis

• Point of • Regarded as • Varies by • Regards • Most- • Varies by • Innovative

purchase EPR “waste” to be country e-waste as e-waste country and programs for
• Take-back discarded. • Major having value, collected region collection
programs EPR • Most are Initiative to be “sold” from Egypt, • Cultural
Collection, Transport, • Curbside exported in EU South Africa, differences
Logistics collection overseas • Swiss Algeria • Automated
• Drop-off events Program methods –
• Pick-up buyers • Noted (EPR technology, AI,
and programs managed robotics, smart
program) cities

• Landfilling • Largely • EU countries • Major • E-waste • Export to • Sustain-able and

• Incineration Exported to collect and recycling imports other regions “green” Recycling
• Varying other regions recycle a large done; mostly • Recycling for recycle and methods
recycling for disposal amount of its informal done in processing • Biol-leaching
methods and Recycling own e-waste. Ghana, • Better urban
Processing,
(informal and • Some are Uganda, mining methods
Recycling, Recovery
formal) Exported to Rwanda
other regions Including
Much
Informal
recycling

14
 Journal of Global Information Management
Volume 32 • Issue 1

The research framework shown above presents e-waste from two perspectives: three general
categories of issues, and from the viewpoint of geographical differences. Basically, we take the
broader perspective by relating Awareness, Information, Support to cover the promotion, information
dissemination, and marketing about the importance of managing and recycling e-waste. Here we note
differences in terms of ECR in nations such as the United States and Canada, and a greater emphasis
on EPR for Europe, Asia, and South America.
As for Collection, Transport, and Logistics, the situation varies, with some countries having
loose, individual state-administrated rather than country-wide programs such as in the United States,
contrasted with well-organized initiatives such as those in Switzerland and the European Union. Other
countries such as many in Africa have little or no organized e-waste programs at all.
Finally, when reviewing Processing, Recycling, and Recovery, it was found that some more
developed nations like the United States export much of its e-waste to other nations to be recycled,
the European Union recycles a much greater percentage of its own e-waste, and developing nations
in Africa and Asia take on much of the recycling burden in terms of imported e-waste.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS

The need to understand and address the ever-increasing problem of e-waste is an urgent one, since
many parts of the world have been involved in the broad and increasing use of communications,
computing, and electronics devices. Even factoring out the broad use of computers to access the
Internet, the sheer number of mobile phones being used can by itself create a large problem with
the amount of e-waste generated. Together with electrical devices, household appliances and other
forms of e-waste, this represents a huge challenge that needs to be addressed. If the problem of
e-waste was given the attention of other health and environmental problems which exist in the world
today, perhaps more would have been done to address the ever-increasing e-waste problem. However,
this may not be the case, and a likely reason might be the perception that it is a problem akin to, or
bundled together with, other forms of waste and garbage recycling, which may not seem as an urgent
and pressing issue requiring the expenditure of efforts and resources. Also lacking are consistent
measurement guidelines and standards, which makes the comparison and analysis across nations to
be confusing and difficult.
Compounding the problem is that while the issues of processing, resource extraction, and disposal
exist, the need to establish policies and laws, to encourage recycling compliance, together with the
establishment of regulated and monitored collection and processing facilities which are safe and pose
little danger to workers, and also do not pollute the air, water, and soil are critical. Behavioral changes
to ensure that end-users participate in an effective and manageable program to safely discard or reuse
obsolete devices is another aspect of a complete and comprehensive management plan.
Overall, there appears to be little consistency in how e-waste is perceived across regions and
country borders. In some countries end users believe old devices are “junk” or “waste” and are eager
to dispose of them even if one is required to pay a disposal fee, or to deliver (or have collected) the
unwanted items. On the other hand, in some countries, e-waste is regarded as a “valuable commodity”
which ideally would be sold to the highest bidder. Therefore, understanding these beliefs and conditions
is fundamental to coming up with a more effective system that works for and benefits everyone.
While small, informal e-waste processing businesses can be hazardous both to the individuals
working there as well as residents who live in that region due to pollution, in many lower income
countries this is the primary means of recycling, and taking these away in favor of safer, regulated
processing facilities may be met by resistance and hostility.
When evaluating the future trends and challenges which are associated with e-waste, there are
several which are of importance and significance. Considering general approaches to e-waste, the
concept of a circular economy for sustainable e-waste management has become prominent, together
with proposals to use artificial intelligence (AI) to help manage and improve various aspects of the

15
Journal of Global Information Management
Volume 32 • Issue 1

e-waste management process. There are also some changes in the types of devices which are defined
as e-waste, based on evolution and obsolescence of what we are using and discarding.
The circular economy concept has as its emphasis the reuse and regeneration of products
and materials, including recycling, refurbishing, and reuse, with the goal of a sustainable and
environmentally-friendly approach to managing e-waste. This has become a general guiding principle
and theme from which a more preventive “upstream” solution can be proposed, rather than examining
it from improving collection and recycling methods, termed “downstream” solutions (Sipka, 2021;
UN EW Coalition, 2019; Bakhiyi et al., 2018).
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is an evolving technology, and has been used to solve problems
in various areas, and e-waste is one area where AI-based approaches have been proposed. The
implementation of AI has been looked at as an important component of the stages of the e-waste
management process, including organizing and planning the flow of waste and materials, finding
the most efficient routes for e-waste scheduling and pickup, and also in conjunction with robotic
technologies, the ability to allow for the effective automated pickup of e-waste items which can be
differentiated from other forms of garbage (Brazier & Prasetyo, 2023; Nafiz et al., 2023; Madhav
et al., 2022; Baker et al., 2021; Huang & Koroteev, 2021; Sipha, 2021; Li, Jin & Krishnamoorthy,
2021; Nowakowski et al., 2020).
Design for recycling. There have been proposals for adapting the production process away from
traditional materials, towards those which are more attuned to the concept of “designing for recycling.”
For instance, when making circuit boards, glass fiber, epoxy resins, and copper circuits which are
more difficult to recycle, can be replaced with a paper-based alternative which is far more recyclable
and sustainable (Sudheshwar et al., 2023).
“Green” cloud computing. One approach to reducing the amount of e-waste which needs to be
managed is to employ cloud computing as an alternative to setting up your own computer center, and
instead making use of computing technologies available through the Internet. This helps to alleviate
the e-waste problem at the source by requiring a minimum of hardware to be acquired and used.
(Onorgunesin et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021; Radu, 2017)
Evolution of e-waste. While the “traditional” definitions of what constitutes e-waste constitutes
electronic devices such as computers, mobile phones, and household electronic devices, this definition
may be evolving. First, there is an expansion in the types of products which involve technological
components, some of which come under the broad category of IoT (Internet of Things), which refers
to any device, machine, or gadget which can or is connected to the Internet (Fathi et al., 2022; Razip
et al., 2022). Also, there are e-textiles which contain electronic components, devices which are
designed to automate agricultural processes, clean energy technologies such as solar panels, and even
satellites and space rocket components which are no longer used and deemed obsolete. All of these
can contribute to the e-waste generated in the future (Shittu, Williams, & Shaw, 2021).
Electronics as a service. Expanding upon the themes of infrastructure as a service (IaaS) and
software as a service (SaaS), comes the concept of electronics as a service, where electronic devices,
such as mobile phone and televisions, can be leased or rented, rather than being purchased outright
and then discarded when it is no longer wanted. Coming under the umbrella of “dematerialization”
the emphasis is on electronic devices which are provided as a “ongoing service” where the customer
can enjoy the latest in innovative features and updated technology but is not tied into a long-term
ownership model. On the part of the companies offering these services, there is an emphasis on
extending the life of the products and doing repairs as needed for future customer use, which helps
to alleviate the e-waste crisis. (UN E-waste Coalition, 2019).
There are a number of recommendations which are suggested to improve the current state of
e-waste, and to move towards a more effective and sustainable solution. These recommendations are
summarized in Table 7.
In short, for many the current state of e-waste management across continents and the world
is highly variable, uncertain, informal, largely unregulated, and not firmly established within the

16
 Journal of Global Information Management
Volume 32 • Issue 1

Table 7. E-waste recommendations

LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS
Emphasis and promoting goals for recycling, reuse and refurbishment.
Learn from and partner with countries with established e-waste programs.
Awareness of e-waste issues and generation, recycling, effects on health and the environment, to
Awareness
business and citizens
Information,
Discourage manufacturing processes which supports obsolescence (and understand reverse supply
Support
chain, circular economy).
Encourage adoption of EPR principles.
Develop effective e-waste laws, regulations, and policies which can be enforced.
Monitoring, labeling, identification/tracking of e-waste using technology and online means.
Collection
Taking into account economic, resource, cultural, and social aspects.
Transport
Developing E-waste collection and management procedures and infrastructure.
Logistics
Use new technologies – AI, robotics, blockchain, Smart City concepts.
Creation of uniform and global standards for e-waste management.
Processing Reduction of use of toxic components; replace with non-toxic substitutes.
Recycling Regulations reducing exposure to toxic chemicals (including those resulting from e-waste processing).
Recovery Moving away from informal, to regulated formal recycling methods and facilities.
Employ new technologies such as bioleaching rather than traditional recycling methods.

sphere of attention. To properly address this problem, additional measures need to be proposed and
implemented so that the vast amount of e-waste generated can be managed and disposed of properly.

LIMITATIONS OF THIS RESEARCH

The goal of this paper is to explain the issues, considerations, proposed solutions, and future trends
related to e-waste management on a global basis. The scope of this subject is quite broad, and while
the main issues are described and discussed, there are some areas which may require a further and
deeper exploration. Among these are technical aspects of the e-waste recycling process, which require
an analysis of technical and scientific details which go into the details of how these processes work.
In addition, the constantly evolving policies and legislation which are being introduced by various
nations is also a topic which requires further detail and analysis to fully understand and interpret.
Both technical and policy-oriented issues need to be explored further, and given the broad scope
of this topic, additional research studies need to be done.

AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

There are a number of fertile areas for future research, given the multitude of technical and management
issues, societal impacts, policy issues, and the like.
Blockchain and IoT. There has been research emerging in the areas of “smart cities” which can use
a variety of technologies to support sustainable strategies and initiatives with an urban environment.
Since waste collection is one area of attention in any city, e-waste is also a viable area for investigation.
In particular, to help improve e-waste tracing and tracking, a blockchain-based technology which ties
in various stakeholders and IoT (Internet of Things) devices such as “smart waste bins” which can
recognize the type of waste being deposited. The advantages of using blockchain methods is that it
can help in the efficient management of recording electronic devices created, those sold by retailers,
and purchases by consumers. The tracking of these through to waste collection bins and centers,
then to recycling and disposal locations can be effectively managed (Khan et al., 2022; Sipka, 2021;
Buthelezi et al., 2022).

17
Journal of Global Information Management
Volume 32 • Issue 1

RFID as Waste. While much of the focus of the e-waste research and analysis has been on
electronic devices, the usage and disposal of a small, but widely used electronic item, the RFID tag,
is another area ripe for further research. While often overlooked and discarded as ordinary garbage,
these electronic devices also represent an area which deserves attention. The usefulness of tags to
track and manage e-waste transport, recycling, and status, as well as attention on how to recycle and
reuse RFID tags (as a form of e-waste), are topics which deserve attention (Condemi et al., 2019;
Sipka, 2021).
Bitcoin e-Waste. The process of Bitcoin mining is also research area which is worthy of research
attention, because of the fact that the process requires the use of computer hardware which may only
be used for a relatively short time, then discarded, due to the fact that Bitcoin operations often result
in degrading and overheating due to the intensive processing needed. As a result, this often results
in a shorter lifespan for computers used for Bitcoin mining, which adds to the e-waste problem
(DeVries & Stoll, 2021).
Interactive Online Maps. The need to track all aspects of e-waste management has often been
cited, and the use of online technologies such as interactive online maps has been proposed as one
viable solution. This can be tied into a “smart” e-waste collection system using Internet of Things
technologies, where the goal is to reduce vehicle emissions, monitoring local delivery services and
user requests, and optimizing the routes for e-waste pickups (Shevchenko et al., 2021)
Robotics and e-Waste. Another promising area of research has been studies proposing the use of
robotics in e-waste management, with attention placed on the areas of collection and recycling. This
includes the use of robotic arms and devices for collection of e-waste, and also automating some of
the hazardous aspects of recycling (involving heat, fire and other processes (Baker et al., 2021; Chen
et. al, 2021; Madhav et al., 2021; Sipka, 2021; Nowakowski et al., 2020, Brazier & Prasetyo, 2023)
Material Flow Analysis. There has been an area of work related to examining and analyzing the
flows and stocks of materials within product lifecycle systems. The use of material flow analysis
(MFA) is designed to assess the flows and stocks of materials, by connecting the sources, pathways,
and intermediate, and final disposition of the materials in question. This kind of analysis readily
lends itself to e-waste management, and assessments have been done both on the e-waste generated in
specific countries, and also on specific products such as mobile phones, computers, vacuum cleaners,
and batteries (Islam & Huda, 2019).
Smart Cities and Automated E-waste Collection. Expanding upon the robotics area mentioned
previously, there has been interest in the concept of developing e-waste programs for “smart cities”
where the process of initiating a pickup request, having the waste identified, picked up, and delivered
to a processing facility, is largely automated and controlled by artificial intelligence, machine learning,
and robotics. This seems to be a fruitful area for further research (Brazier & Prasetyo, 2023; Nafiz et
al., 2023; Lee, 2022; Baker et al., 2021; Li, Jin, & Krishnamoorthyl, 2021; Nowakowski et al., 2020).
E-Waste Forensics. There has been much focus on the health and safety aspects of e-waste,
particularly the risks involved with recycling and disposal. However, the fact that many e-waste
devices being discarded contain data, it brings up the issues of privacy, security, and a potential
treasure trove for cyber criminals. While there are countless sources of advice for how to “wipe” or
erase the data on a server or computer, these procedures are not always followed properly. As a result,
confidential information such as credit card numbers, bank information, and personal data can be
retrieved from discarded e-waste. In addition, there are electronic devices which have been purposely
installed with malware, which can then gain access to and collect information on the persons buying
these supposedly “refurbished” products (Kapoor, Sulke, & Badiye, 2021).
While this area of study is large overall, there are many opportunities for examining new
approaches to, and innovative methods for managing, collecting, and processing e-waste more
effectively. This, together with recovering, recycling, and extracting the elements which are most useful
and lucrative, should be investigated further. What means exist to undo some of the environmental

18
 Journal of Global Information Management
Volume 32 • Issue 1

damage that was done previously due to informal e-waste processing? How can e-waste processing
be better monitored, regulated, and managed on a global level?
Because of the wide and varied approaches to e-waste management, collection, regulation, and
recycling/processing, a great deal can be accomplished in this area, and research can be conducted
from a variety of different perspectives.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We wanted to give thanks to the Editor in Chief for his help and support of this paper during its
review and evaluation process. In addition, our appreciation to the three anonymous reviewers for
their insightful comments and suggestions for improving the manuscript.

19
Journal of Global Information Management
Volume 32 • Issue 1

REFERENCES

Afroz, R., Masud, M. M., Akhtar, R., & Duasa, J. (2013). Survey and analysis of public knowledge, awareness
and willingness to pay in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: A case study on household WEEE management. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 52, 185–193. doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.02.004
Agrawal, S., Singh, R. K., & Murtaza, Q. (2014). Forecasting product returns for recycling in Indian electronics
industry. J. Adv. Manag. Res., 11, 102–114. doi:10.1108/JAMR-02-2013-0013
Ali, S., & Shirazi, F. (2023). The Paradigm of Circular Economy and an Effective Electronic Waste Management.
Sustainability (Basel), 15(3), 1998. doi:10.3390/su15031998
Anandh, G., Venkatesan, S. P., Goh, M., & Mathiyazhagan, K. (2021, June). Reuse assessment of WEEE:
Systematic review of emerging themes and research directions. Journal of Environmental Management, 287(1),
112335. doi:10.1016/[Link].2021.112335 PMID:33761368
Andarani, P., & Goto, N. (2014). Potential E-waste generated from households in Indonesia using material flow
analysis. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 16(2), 306–320. doi:10.1007/s10163-013-0191-0
Andeobu, L., Wibowo, S., & Grandhi, S. (2021a). A Systematic Review of E-Waste Generation and Environmental
Management of Asia Pacific Countries. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
18(17), 9051. doi:10.3390/ijerph18179051 PMID:34501640
Andeobu, L., Wibowo, S., & Grandhi, S. (2021b). An assessment of e-waste generation and environmental
management of selected countries in Africa, Europe, and North America: A systematic review. The Science of
the Total Environment, 792, 148078. doi:10.1016/[Link].2021.148078 PMID:34147806
Andersen T. (2021). A comparative study of national variations of the European WEEE directive: manufacturer’s
view. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. Mar 5:1–20.
Andooz, A., Eqbalpour, M., Kowsari, E., Ramakrishna, S., & Cheshmeh, S. (2023). A comprehensive review on
pyrolysis from the circular economy point of view and its environmental and social effects. Journal of Cleaner
Production, Volume 388. 10.1016/[Link].2023.136021
Arya, S., & Kumar, S. (2020). E-waste in India at a glance: Current trends, regulations, challenges and management
strategies, Journal of Cleaner Production, 271. 10.1016/[Link].2020.122707
Asante, K. A., Adu-Kumi, S., Nakahiro, K., Takahashi, S., Isobe, T., Sudaryanto, A., Devanathan, G., Clarke, E.,
Ansa-Asare, O. D., Dapaah-Siakwan, S., & Tanabe, S. (2011). Human exposure to PCBs, PBDEs and HBCDs
in Ghana: Temporal variation, sources of exposure and estimation of daily intakes by infants. Environment
International, 37(5), 921–928. doi:10.1016/[Link].2011.03.011 PMID:21470682
Asante, K. A., Amoyaw-Osei, Y., & Agusa, T. (2019). E-waste recycling in Africa: risks and opportunities.
Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry, 18. 10.1016/[Link].2019.04.001
Baker, N. A., Szabo-Müller, P., & Handmann, E. (2021). Transfer learning-based method for automated e-waste
recycling in smart cities. EAI Endorsed Transactions on Smart Cities., doi:10.4108/eai.16-4-2021.169337
Bakhiyi, B., Gravel, S., Ceballos, D., Flynn, M. A., & Zayed, J. (2018, January). Has the question of e-waste
opened a Pandora’s box? An overview of unpredictable issues and challenges. Environment International, 110,
173–192. doi:10.1016/[Link].2017.10.021 PMID:29122313
Baldé C.P., D’Angelo, E., Luda, V., Deubzer, O. & Kuehr R. (2022). Global Transboundary E-waste Flows
Monitor – 2022. United Nations Institute for Training and Research, UNITAR, Bonn, Germany.
Baldé, C. P., Forti, V., Gray, V., Kuehr, R., & Stegmann, P. (2017). The global e-waste monitor 2017: Quantities,
flows and resources. United Nations University, International Telecommunication Union, and International
Solid Waste Association.
Baxter, J., & Gram-Hanssen, I. (2016). Environmental message framing: Enhancing consumer recycling of
mobile phones. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 109, 96–101. doi:10.1016/[Link].2016.02.012
Bollag, J., & Bollag, W. (1995). Soil Contamination and Feasibility of Biological Remediation. In Bioremediation:
Science and Applications, Volume 43, ttps:// doi:10.2136/sssaspecpub43.c1

20
 Journal of Global Information Management
Volume 32 • Issue 1

Borthakur, A., & Govind, M. (2017). Emerging trends in consumers’ E-waste disposal behaviour and awareness:
A worldwide overview with special focus on India, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 117. 10.1016/j.
resconrec.2016.11.011
Brandl, H., Bosshard, R., & Wegmann, M. (2000). Computer-munching microbes: Metal leaching from electronic
scrap by bacteria and fungi. Hydrometallurgy, 59(2-3), 319–326. doi:10.1016/S0304-386X(00)00188-2
Brazier, J. P., & Prasetyo, J. (2023). Robotic Solution for the Automation of E-waste Middlesex University,
Dubai, United Arab Emirates JASA Journal of Applied Science and Advanced Engineering, 1. [Link]
[Link]
Brindhadevi, K., Barceló, D., Chi, N. T. L., & Rene, E. R. (2023). E-waste management, treatment options and
the impact of heavy metal extraction from e-waste on human health: Scenario in Vietnam and other countries.
Environmental Research, 217.10.1016/[Link].2022.114926
Budnik, L. T., Wegner, R., Rogall, U., & Baur, X. (2014). Accidental exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)
in waste cargo after heavy seas. Global waste transport as a Source of PCB exposure. International Archives of
Occupational and Environmental Health, 87(2), 125–135. doi:10.1007/s00420-012-0841-x PMID:23292295
Buthelezi, B. E., Ndayizigamiye, P., Twinomurinzi, H., & Dube, S. M. (2022). A Systematic Review of the
Adoption of Blockchain for Supply Chain Processes. Journal of Global Information Management, 30(8), 1–32.
doi:10.4018/JGIM.297625
Cemi, A., Cucchiella, F., & Schettini, D. (2019). Circular Economy and E-Waste: An Opportunity from RFID
TAGs. Applied Sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 9(16), 3422. doi:10.3390/app9163422
Chakraborty, S. C., Qamruzzaman, M., Zaman, M. M. U., Alam, M. M., Hossain, D., Pramanik, B. K., Nguyen,
L. N., Nghiem, L. D., Ahmed, M. F., Zhou, J. L., Mondal, I. H., & Hossain, M. A. M.A., Johir,A.H., Ahmed,
M.B., Sithi, J.A. Zargar, M., & Moni, M.A. (2022). Metals in e-waste: Occurrence, fate, impacts and remediation
technologies, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 162. 10.1016/[Link].2022.04.011
Chen, J., & Huang, S,. Bala Murugan, S. & Tamizharasi, G.S. (2021). Artificial intelligence-based e-waste
management for environmental planning, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Volume 87. 10.1016/j.
eiar.2020.106498
Chowdhury, A., & Patel, J. (2017, April). E-Waste Management and its Consequences: A Literature Review,
e-. Journal of Management Research, 4(1).
Chugh, R., Wibowo, S., & Grandhi, S. (2016). Environmentally sustainable information and communication
technology usage: Awareness and practices of Indian information and communication technology professionals.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 131, 435–446. doi:10.1016/[Link].2016.05.004
Cole, C., Gnanapragasam, A., Cooper, T., & Singh, J. (2019). An assessment of achievements of the WEEE
Directive in promoting movement up the waste hierarchy: Experiences in the UK. Waste Management (New
York, N.Y.), 87, 417–427. doi:10.1016/[Link].2019.01.046 PMID:31109542
Dasila, H., Maithani, D., Srivastava, P., & Kabdwal, M. (2023). Bioremediation: A Sustainable Way for E-waste
Management. Microbial Technology for Sustainable E-waste Management., doi:10.1007/978-3-031-25678-3_7
Davis, G., & Herat, S. (2015). Opportunities and constraints for developing a sustainable E-waste
management system at local government level in Australia. Waste Management & Research, 28(8), 705–713.
doi:10.1177/0734242X09343008 PMID:19710118
De Vries, A., & Stoll, C. (2021). Bitcoin’s growing e-waste problem. Resources, Conservation and Recycling.
10.1016/[Link].2021.105901
Deng, K. (2022). Research on Evaluation of Intelligent Manufacturing Capability and Layout Superiority of
Supply Chains by Big Data Analysis. Journal of Global Information Management, 30(7), 1–20. doi:10.4018/
JGIM.294903
Dhir, A., Malodia, S., Awan, U., Sakashita, M., & Kaur, P. (2021). Extended valence theory perspective
on consumers’ e-waste recycling intentions in Japan, Journal of Cleaner Production, 312. 10.1016/j.
jclepro.2021.127443

21
Journal of Global Information Management
Volume 32 • Issue 1

Doan, L., Yousef, A., Lee, S. H., Phuc, P. H. K., & Dat, L. Q. (2019). E-Waste Reverse Supply Chain: A Review
and Future Perspectives. Applied Sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 9(23), 5195. doi:10.3390/app9235195
Dutta, D., Rautela, R., Gujjala, L. K. S., Kundu, D., Sharma, P., Tembhare, M., & Kumar, S. (2023, February
10). A review on recovery processes of metals from E-waste: A green perspective. The Science of the Total
Environment, 859(Pt 2), 160391. doi:10.1016/[Link].2022.160391 PMID:36423849
Duygan, M., & Meylan, G. (2015). Strategic management of WEEE in Switzerland-combining material
flow analysis with structural analysis. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 103, 98–109. doi:10.1016/j.
resconrec.2015.06.005
Dwivedy, M., & Mittal, R. K. (2012). An investigation into E-waste flows in India. Journal of Cleaner Production,
37, 229–242. doi:10.1016/[Link].2012.07.017
Dwivedy, M., Suchde, P., & Mittal, R. K. (2015). Modeling and assessment of e-waste take-back strategies in
India. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 96, 11–18. doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.01.003
Elia, V., Gnoni, M. G., & Tornese, F. (2018). Improving logistic efficiency of WEEE collection through
dynamic scheduling using simulation modeling. Waste Management (New York, N.Y.), 72, 78–86. doi:10.1016/j.
wasman.2017.11.016 PMID:29146398
Fathi, M., Batoul, A. A., & Al Ansari, A. I. (2022). Threats of Internet-of-Thing on Environmental Sustainability
by E-Waste. Sustainability (Basel), 14(16), 10161. doi:10.3390/su141610161
Fiore, S., Ibanescu, D., Teodosiu, C., & Ronco, A. (2019). Improving waste electric and electronic equipment
management at full-scale by using material flow analysis and life cycle assessment. The Science of the Total
Environment, 659, 928–939. doi:10.1016/[Link].2018.12.417 PMID:31096423
Forti, V., Balde, C. P., Kuehr, R., & Bel, G. (2020). The Global E-waste Monitor 2020: Quantities, flows and
the circular economy potential. United Nations University/United Nations Institute for Training and Research,
International Telecommunication Union, and International Solid Waste Association.
Golev, A., Schmeda-Lopez, D. R., Smart, S. K., Corder, G. D., & Mcfarland, E. W. (2016). Where next on
E-waste in Australia? Waste Management (New York, N.Y.), 58, 348–358. doi:10.1016/[Link].2016.09.025
PMID:27687078
Gollakota, A. R. K., Gautam, S., & Shu, C. (2020). Inconsistencies of e-waste management in developing
nations- facts and plausible solutions. Journal of Environmental Management, 261, 110234. doi:10.1016/j.
jenvman.2020.110234 PMID:32148304
Gunarathne, V., Gunatilake, S., Wanasinghe, S., Atugoda, T., Wijekoon, P., Biswas, J., & Vithanage, M. (2020).
Phytoremediation for E-waste contaminated sites. In Handbook of Electronic Waste Management: International
Best Practices and Case Studies (pp. 141–170). Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-817030-4.00005-X
Habib, K., Mohammadi, E., & Vihanga, W. S. (2023). A first comprehensive estimate of electronic waste in
Canada. J Hazard Mater. Apr 15, 448:130865. doi: 10.1016/[Link]. (2023).130865. Epub 2023 Jan 27.
PMID: 36764257.
Halim, L. & Suharyanti, Y. (2019). E-waste: Current Waste and Future Perspective on Developing Countries.
International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IJIEEM), 1.
Hicks, C., Dietmar, R., & Eugster, M. (2005). The recycling and disposal of electrical and electronic waste
in China − legislative and market responses. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(5), 459–471.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2005.04.007
Hinchliffe, D., Gunsilius, E., Wagner, M., Hemkhaus, M., Batteiger, A., Rabbow, E., Radulovic, V., Cheng,
C., de Fautereau, B., Ott, D., Awasthi, A. K., & Smith, E. (2020). Case Studies and Approaches to Building
Partnerships between the Informal and the Formal Sector for Sustainable E-Waste Management. Solving the
E-Waste Problem (StEP). (StEP) Initiative. Vienna.
Huang, J., & Koroteev, D. (2021). Artificial intelligence for planning of energy and waste management, Sustainable
Energy Technologies and Assessments, 47. 10.1016/[Link].2021.101426

22
 Journal of Global Information Management
Volume 32 • Issue 1

Islam, A., Ahmed, T., Awual, M. R., Rahman, A., Sultana, A. M., Aziz, A. A., Monir, M. U., Teo, S. H., &
Hasan, M. (2020). Advances in sustainable approaches to recover metals from e-waste-A review, Journal of
Cleaner Production, 244. 10.1016/[Link].2019.118815
Islam, M.T. & Huda N. (2019). Material flow analysis (MFA) as a strategic tool in E-waste management:
Applications, trends and future directions. J Environ Manage.10.1016/[Link].2019.05.062
Islam, M. T., & Huda, N. (2020). Assessing the recycling potential of “unregulated” e-waste in Australia.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 152. 10.1016/[Link].2019.104526
Ismail, H., & Hanafiah, M. M. (2019). Discovering opportunities to meet the challenges of an effective waste
electrical and electronic equipment recycling system in Malaysia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 238. 10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.117927
Jang, Y. C. (2010). Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) management in Korea: Generation,
collection, and recycling systems. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 12(4), 283–294.
doi:10.1007/s10163-010-0298-5
Jing, L., Jia, W., & Bo, Z. (2021). Are Industrial Structure Adjustment and Technical Progress Conducive
to Environmental Improvement? Journal of Global Information Management, 30(6), 1–17. doi:10.4018/
JGIM.290828
Kahhat, R., Kim, J., Xu, M., Allenby, B., Williams, E., & Zhang, P. (2008). Exploring E-waste management
systems in the United States. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 52(7), 955–964. doi:10.1016/j.
resconrec.2008.03.002
Kang, H. Y., & Schoenung, J. M. (2005). Electronic waste recycling: A review of US infrastructure and technology
options. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 45(4), 368–400. doi:10.1016/[Link].2005.06.001
Kang, H. Y., & Schoenung, J. M. (2006, September 21). Estimation of future outflows and infrastructure needed
to recycle personal computer systems in California. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 137(2), 1165–1174.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2006.03.062 PMID:16704906
Khan, A. U. R., & Ahmad, R. W. (2022). A Blockchain-Based IoT-Enabled E-Waste Tracking and Tracing
System for Smart Cities. IEEE Access : Practical Innovations, Open Solutions, 10, 86256–86259. doi:10.1109/
ACCESS.2022.3198973
Khan, S. S., Lodhi, S. A., Akhtar, F., & Khokar, I. (2014). Challenges of waste of electric and electronic
equipment (WEEE): Toward a better management in a global scenario. Management of Environmental Quality,
25(2), 166–185. doi:10.1108/MEQ-12-2012-0077
Khetriwal, D. S., Kraeuchi, P., & Widmer, R. (2009). Producer responsibility for E-waste management: Key
issues for consideration−learning from the Swiss experience. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(1),
153–165. doi:10.1016/[Link].2007.08.019 PMID:18162284
Kim, M., Jang, Y. C., & Lee, S. (2013). Application of Delphi-AHP methods to select the priorities of WEEE for
recycling in a waste management decision-making tool. Journal of Environmental Management, 128, 941–948.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.06.049 PMID:23892135
Kirby, P. W., & Lora-Wainwright, A. (2015). Exporting harm, scavenging value: Transnational circuits of E-waste
between Japan, China and beyond. Area, 47(1), 40–47. doi:10.1111/area.12169
Kumar, A., & Li, J. (2017). Management of electrical and electronic waste: A comparative evaluation of China
and India. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 76, 434–447. doi:10.1016/[Link].2017.02.067
Kurniawan, T. A., Othman, M. H. D., Hwang, G. H., & Gikas, P. (2022). Unlocking digital technologies for waste
recycling in Industry 4.0 era: A transformation towards a digitalization-based circular economy in Indonesia.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 357. 10.1016/[Link].2022.131911
Lebbie, T. S., Moyebi, O. D., Asante, K. A., Fobil, J., Brune-Drisse, M. N., Suk, W. A., Sly, P. D., Gorman,
J., & Carpenter, D. O. (2021, August 11). E-Waste in Africa: A Serious Threat to the Health of Children.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(16), 8488. doi:10.3390/ijerph18168488
PMID:34444234

23
Journal of Global Information Management
Volume 32 • Issue 1

Leclerc, S. H., & Badami, M. G. (2020). Extended producer responsibility for E-waste management: Policy
drivers and challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, 251. 10.1016/[Link].2019.119657
Lee, W. S. (2022). Analyzing the Evolution of Interdisciplinary Areas: Case of Smart Cities. Journal of Global
Information Management, 30(1), 1–23. doi:10.4018/JGIM.304062
Lepawsky, J. (2012). Legal geographies of E-waste legislation in Canada and the US: Jurisdiction, responsibility
and the taboo of production. Geoforum, 43(6), 1194–1206. doi:10.1016/[Link].2012.03.006
Li, H., Jin, Z., & Krishnamoorthy, S. (2021). E-Waste Management Using Machine Learning. In Proceedings
of the 6th International Conference on Big Data and Computing (ICBDC ’21). Association for Computing
Machinery. doi:10.1145/3469968.3469973
Li, J. P. (2011). Opportunities in action: The case of the US Computer TakeBack Campaign. Contemporary
Politics, 17(3), 335–354. doi:10.1080/13569775.2011.597147
Li, W., & Achal, V. (2020). Environmental and health impacts due to e-waste disposal in China – a review. The
Science of the Total Environment, 737, 139745. doi:10.1016/[Link].2020.139745 PMID:32516663
Li, Z., Liang, H., Wang, N., Xue, Y., & Ge, S. (2021). Efficiency or Innovation? The Long-Run Payoff of Cloud
Computing. Journal of Global Information Management, 29(October), 1–23. Advance online publication.
doi:10.4018/JGIM.287610
Lin, B., & Ma, R. (2022). How Does Internet Development Affect Green Technology Innovation in China?
Journal of Global Information Management, 30(1), 1–21. doi:10.4018/JGIM.309081
Lin, H. T., Yamasue, E., Ishihara, K. N., & Hideyuki, O. (2019). Waste shipments for energy recovery as a
waste treatment strategy for small islands: The case of Kinmen, Taiwan. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste
Management, 21(1), 44–56. doi:10.1007/s10163-018-0760-3
Lin, S., Ali, M.U., Zheng, C., Z., & Wong, MH. (2022). Toxic chemicals from uncontrolled e-waste recycling:
Exposure, body burden, health impact. J Hazard Mater.10.1016/[Link].2021.127792
Lu, C., Zhang, L., Zhong, Y., Ren, W., Tobias, M., Mu, Z., & Xue, B. (2015). An overview of E-waste management
in China. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 17(1), 1–12. doi:10.1007/s10163-014-0256-8
Madhav, S., Rajaraman, R., Harini, S., & Kiliroor, C. C. (2022). Application of artificial intelligence to enhance
collection of E-waste: A potential solution for household WEEE collection and segregation in India. Waste
Management & Research, 40(7), 1047–1053. doi:10.1177/0734242X211052846 PMID:34726090
Maes, T., & Preston-Whyte, F. (2022). E-waste it wisely: Lessons from Africa. SN Applied Sciences, 4(3), 72.
doi:10.1007/s42452-022-04962-9 PMID:35155992
Maheswari, H., Yudoko, G., & Adhiutama, A. (2019). Government and intermediary business engagement for
controlling electronic waste in Indonesia: A sustainable reverse logistics theory through customer value chain
analysis. Sustainability (Basel), 11(3), 732. doi:10.3390/su11030732
Mairizal, A. Q., Sembada, A. Y., Tse, K. M., & Rhamdhani, M. A. (2021). Electronic waste generation, economic
values, distribution map, and possible recycling system in Indonesia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 293.
10.1016/[Link].2021.126096
Manomaivibool, P., & Vassanadumrongdee, S. (2011). Extended producer responsibility in Thailand prospects
for policies on waste electrical and electronic equipment. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 15(2), 185–205.
doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00330.x
Manomaivibool, P., & Vassanadumrongdee, S. (2012). Buying back household waste electrical and electronic
equipment: Assessing Thailand’s proposed policy in light of past disposal behavior and future preferences.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 68, 117–125. doi:10.1016/[Link].2012.08.014
Maphosa, V., Maphosa, M. & Tan, A.W.K. (2020). E-waste management in Sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic
literature review. Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, 7(1).
Masud, M., Mourshed, M., Mahjabeen, M., Annano, A., & Dabnichki, P. (2022). Global Electronic Waste
Management. In A. Das, B. Debnath, B. P. A. Chowdary, & S. Bhattacharyya (Eds.), Paradigm Shift in E-waste
Management: Vision for the Future. CRC Press. doi:10.1201/9781003095972-3

24
 Journal of Global Information Management
Volume 32 • Issue 1

Metropolitan Waste and Resource Recovery Group (MWRRG). (2018). Advanced Waste and Resource Recovery
Technologies. Victorian Government.
Mozo-Reyes, E., Jambeck, J. R., Reeves, P., & Johnsen, K. (2016). Will they recycle? Design and implementation
of eco-feedback technology to promote on-the-go recycling in a university environment. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, 114, 72–79. doi:10.1016/[Link].2016.06.024
Murthy, V., & Seeram, R. (2022). A Review on Global E-Waste Management: Urban Mining towards a Sustainable
Future and Circular Economy. Sustainability (Basel), 14(2), 647. doi:10.3390/su14020647
Nafiz, M. S., Das, S. S., Morol, A., Juabir, A. A., & Nandi, D. (2023). ConvoWaste: An Automatic Waste
Segregation Machine Using Deep Learning. 2023 3rd International Conference on Robotics, Electrical and
Signal Processing Techniques (ICREST). IEEE. doi:10.1109/ICREST57604.2023.10070078
Naik, S., & Eswari, J. S. (2022). Electrical waste management: Recent advances challenges and future outlook.
Total Environment Research Themes, 1–2. 10.1016/[Link].2022.100002
Nguyen, D. Q., Yamasue, E., Okumura, H., & Ishihara, K. N. (2009). Use and disposal of large home electronic
appliances in Vietnam. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 11(4), 358–366. doi:10.1007/
s10163-009-0264-2
Nowakowski, P., Szwarc, K., & Boryczka, U. (2020). Combining an artificial intelligence algorithm and a
novel vehicle for sustainable e-waste collection. Science of The Total Environment, Volume 730. 10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2020.138726
Oguchi, M., Sakanakura, H., Terazono, A., & Takigami, H. (2012). Fate of metals contained in waste electrical
and electronic equipment in a municipal waste treatment process. Waste Management (New York, N.Y.), 32(1),
96–103. doi:10.1016/[Link].2011.09.012 PMID:21963338
Ongondo, F. O., Williams, I. D., & Cherrett, T. J. (2011). How are WEEE doing? A global review of the
management of electrical and electronic wastes. Waste Management (New York, N.Y.), 31(4), 714–730.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2010.10.023 PMID:21146974
Onurgunesen, M., Ibis, M., Kazancoglu, Y., & Singla, P. (2021). Cloud Computing: A Systematic Literature Review
and Future Agenda. Journal of Global Information Management, 29(6), 1–25. doi:10.4018/JGIM.20211101.oa40
Oteng-Ababio, M. (2012). Electronic waste management in Ghana—Issues and practices. Sustainable
Development–Authoritative and Leading Edge Content for Environmental Management. Intech.
Owusu-Sekyere, K., Batteiger, A., Afoblikame, R., Hafner, G., & Kranert, M. (2022, February 15). Assessing
data in the informal e-waste sector: The Agbogbloshie Scrapyard. Waste Management (New York, N.Y.), 139,
158–167. doi:10.1016/[Link].2021.12.026 PMID:34971903
Pan, X., Wong, C., & Li, C. (2022). Circular economy practices in the waste electrical and electronic equipment
(WEEE) industry: A systematic review and future research agendas. Journal of Cleaner Production, 365.
10.1016/[Link].2022.132671
Pandey, P., & Govind, M. (2014). Social repercussions of E-waste management in India: A study of three informal
re-cycling sites in Delhi. The International Journal of Environmental Studies, 71, 241–260.
Pariatamby, A., & Victor, D. (2013). Policy trends of E-waste management in Asia. Journal of Material Cycles
and Waste Management, 15(4), 411–419. doi:10.1007/s10163-013-0136-7
Pascale, A., Laborde, A., & Bares, C. (2018). E-waste: environmental and health challenges. Encyclopedia of
the Anthropocene, 5, 269-275.
Perez-Belis, V., Bovea, M. D., & Simo, A. (2015). Consumer behaviour and environmental education in the
field of waste electrical and electronic toys: A Spanish case study. Waste Management (New York, N.Y.), 36,
277–288. doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.10.022 PMID:25488733
Pramila, S., Fulekar, M. H., & Chawana, P. (2012). E-Waste- A Challenge for Tomorrow. Research Journal of
Recent Sciences, ISCA, 1(3), 86–93.

25
Journal of Global Information Management
Volume 32 • Issue 1

Premalatha, M., Tabassum-Abbasi, T., & Abbasi, S. A. (2014). The generation, impact, and management of
E-waste: State of the art. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 2014(44), 1577–1678. do
i:10.1080/10643389.2013.782171
Radu, L. (2017). Green Cloud Computing: A Literature Survey. Symmetry, 9(12), 295. doi:10.3390/sym9120295
Raghupathy, L., & Chaturvedi, A. (2013). Secondary resources and recycling in developing economies. The
Science of the Total Environment, 461, 830–834. doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.05.041 PMID:23768896
Ramachandra, T. V., & Saira, V. K. (2004). Environmentally sound options for waste management. Journal of
Human Settlements, 3(4), 34–40.
Rao, L. N. (2014). Environmental Impact of Uncontrolled Disposal of e-waste. Intl. Journal of ChemTech
Research, 6, 2.
Rautela, R., Arya, S., Vishwakarma, S., Lee, J., Kim, K.H. & Kumar, S. (2021). E-waste management and its
effects on the environment and human health. Sci Total Environ.10.1016/[Link].2021.145623
Razip, M. M., Savita, K. S., Kalid, K. S., Ahmad, M. N., Zaffar, M., Rahim, E., Baleanu, D., & Ahmadian, A.
(2022). The development of sustainable IoT E-waste management guideline for households, Chemosphere, 303.
10.1016/[Link].2022.134767
Rodriguez, D. J., Serrano, H. A., Delgado, A., Nolasco, D., & Saltiel, G. (2020). From Waste to Resource:
Shifting Paradigms for Smarter Wastewater Interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean. World Bank
Group. doi:10.1596/33436
Salhofer, S., Steuer, B., Ramusch, R., & Beigl, P. (2016). WEEE management in Europe and China—A comparison.
Waste Management (New York, N.Y.), 57, 27–35. doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.11.014 PMID:26626812
Santoso, S., Zagloel, T. Y., Ardi, R., & Suzianti, A. (2019). Estimating the amount of electronic waste generated
in Indonesia: Population balance model. IOP Conference Series. Earth and Environmental Science, 219, 1–7.
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/219/1/012006
Savi, D., Kasser, U., & Ott, T. (2013). Depollution benchmarks for capacitors, batteries and printed wiring
boards from waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Waste Management (New York, N.Y.), 33(12),
2737–2743. doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.08.014 PMID:24035727
Schumacher, K. (2016). Electronic Waste Management in the U.S: Practice and Policy. [PhD Dissertation,
University of Delaware].
Sembiring, E., & Nitivattananon, V. (2010). Sustainable solid waste management toward an inclusive society:
Integration of the informal sector. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54(11), 802–809. doi:10.1016/j.
resconrec.2009.12.010
Sengupta, D., Ilankoon, I. M., Kang, K. D., & Chong, M. N. (2022). Circular economy and household e-waste
management in India: Integration of formal and informal sectors. Minerals Engineering, 184, 107661. https://
[Link]/. [Link].1016/[Link]
Sharma, H., Debbarma, P., Kumar, S., Suyal, D. C., & Soni, R. (2023). Bioremediation strategies for sustainable
e-waste Management. In Microbial Technology for Sustainable E-waste Management. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-
3-031-25678-3_5
Shevchenko, T., Laitalam, K., & Danko, Y. (2019). Understanding Consumer E-Waste Recycling Behavior:
Introducing a New Economic Incentive to Increase the Collection Rates. Sustainability (Basel), 2019(11), 2656.
doi:10.3390/su11092656
Shevchenko, T., Saidani, M., Danko, M. Y., Golysheva, I., Chovancová, J., & Vavrek, R. (2021). Towards a
Smart E-Waste System Utilizing Supply Chain Participants and Interactive Online Maps. Recycling, 6(1), 8.
doi:10.3390/recycling6010008
Shields, K. (2019). Going Circular: How Global E-Business is Embracing the Circular Economy. Newsweek
Advantage. pp. 1-22.

26
 Journal of Global Information Management
Volume 32 • Issue 1

Shittu, O., Williams, I., & Shaw, P. (2021, February). Global E-waste management: Can WEEE make a difference?
A review of e-waste trends, legislation, contemporary issues and future challenges. Waste Management (New
York, N.Y.), 120(1), 549–563. doi:10.1016/[Link].2020.10.016 PMID:33308953
Singh, K., Chauhan, A., & Sarkar, B. (2023). Supply Chain Management of E-Waste for End-of-Life Electronic
Products with Reverse Logistics. Mathematics, 11(1), 124. doi:10.3390/math11010124
Song, S., Duan, Y., Zhang, T., Zhang, B., Zhao, Z., Bai, X., Xie, L., He, Y., Ouyang, J., Huang, X., & Sun, H.
(2019). Serum concentrations of bisphenol A and its alternatives in elderly population living around e-waste
recycling facilities in China: Associations with fasting blood glucose, Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety,
169. 10.1016/[Link].2018.11.101
Srivastav, A. L., Markandeya, , Patel, N., Pandey, M., Pandey, A. K., Dubey, A. K., Kumar, A., Bhardwaj, A.
K., & Chaudhary, V. K. (2023). Markandeya, & Patel, N. (2023) Concepts of circular economy for sustainable
management of electronic wastes: Challenges and management options. Environmental Science and Pollution
Research International, 30(17), 48654–48675. doi:10.1007/s11356-023-26052-y PMID:36849690
Sthiannopkao, S., & Wong, M. H. (2013). Handling E-waste in developed and developing countries:
Initiatives, practices, and consequences. The Science of the Total Environment, 463, 1147–1153. doi:10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2012.06.088 PMID:22858354
Sudheshwar, A. Malinverno, N., Hischier, R., Nowack, B. & Som, C. (2023). The need for design-for-recycling of
paper-based printed electronics – a prospective comparison with printed circuit boards, Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, 189. 10.1016/[Link].2022.106757
Sudheshwar, A., Malinverno, N., Hischier, R., Nowack, B., & Som, C. (2022). The Need for Design-for-
Recycling of Paper-Based Printed Electronics– a Prospective Comparison with Printed Circuit Boards Resources,
Conservation and Recycling Volume 189, February 2023, 106757. 10.2139/ssrn.4208558
Sugimura, Y., & Murakami, S. (2016). Problems in Japan’s governance system related to end-of-life electrical
and electronic equipment trade. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 112, 93–106. doi:10.1016/j.
resconrec.2016.04.009
Torrubia, J., Valero, A., Valero, A., & Lejuez, A. (2023). Challenges and Opportunities for the Recovery of
Critical Raw Materials from Electronic Waste: The Spanish Perspective. Sustainability (Basel), 15(2), 1393.
doi:10.3390/su15021393
UN E-Waste Coalition. (2019). A New Circular Vision for Electronics: Time for a Global Reboot. World
Economic Forum.
UNEP. (2011). Basel Convention. United Nations Environmental Program.
U.S. EPA. (2016). Electronic Products Generation and Recycling in the United States. Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery.
Veenstra, A., Wang, C., Fan, W. J., & Ru, Y. H. (2010). An analysis of E-waste flows in China. International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 47(5-8), 449–459. doi:10.1007/s00170-009-2356-5
Wagner, T. P. (2009). Shared responsibility for managing electronic waste: A case study of Maine, USA. Waste
Management (New York, N.Y.), 29(12), 3014–3021. doi:10.1016/[Link].2009.06.015 PMID:19620000
Wath, S., Dutt, P. & Chakrabarti, T. (2011). E-Waste Scenario in India, its management and implications,
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Environ Monit Assess., 172(1-4), 249-62. .10.1007/s10661-010-
1331-9
Xavier, L. H., Ottoni, M., & Abreu, L. (2023). A comprehensive review of urban mining and the value recovery
from e-waste materials, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 190. 10.1016/[Link].2022.106840
Xavier, L. H., Ottoni, M., & Lepawsky, J. (2021). Circular economy and e-waste management in the Americas:
Brazilian and Canadian frameworks, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 297. 10.1016/[Link].2021.126570
Xiezhi, Y. (2008). Assessment and bioremediation of soils contaminated by uncontrolled recycling of electronic
waste at Guiyu China. Hong Kong Baptist University.

27
Journal of Global Information Management
Volume 32 • Issue 1

Yaashikaa, B., Priyanka, P., Kumar, P. S., Karishma, S., Jeevanantham, S., & Indraganti, S. (2022). A review
on recent advancements in recovery of valuable and toxic metals from e-waste using bioleaching approach,
Chemosphere, 287.10.1016/[Link].2019.03.205
Yoshida, A., Terazono, A., Ballesteros, F. C. Jr, Nguyen, D. Q., Sukandar, S., Kojima, M., & Sakata, S. (2016).
E-waste recycling processes in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam: A case study of cathode ray tube TVs
and monitors. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 106, 48–58. doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.10.020
Zeng, X., Ali, S. H., Tian, J., & Li, J. (2020). Mapping anthropogenic mineral generation in China and its
implications for a circular economy. Nature Communications, 11(1), 1544. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-15246-4
PMID:32214094
Zeng, X. L., & Li, J. H. (2016). Measuring the recyclability of E-waste: An innovative method and its implications.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 131, 156–162. doi:10.1016/[Link].2016.05.055
Zoeteman, B. C. J., Krikke, H. R., & Venselaar, J. (2010). Handling WEEE waste flows: On the effectiveness of
producer responsibility in a globalizing world. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
47(5-8), 415–436. doi:10.1007/s00170-009-2358-3

Jeffrey Hsu is a Professor of Information Systems at the Silberman College of Business, Fairleigh Dickinson
University. He is the author of numerous papers, chapters, and books, and has previous business experience in
the software, telecommunications, and financial industries. His research interests include knowledge management,
human-computer interaction, e-commerce, IS education, and mobile/ubiquitous computing. He is Editor in Chief of
the International Journal of e-Business Research (IJEBR) and is on the editorial boards of several other journals.
Dr. Hsu received his Ph.D. in Information Systems from Rutgers University, a M.S. in Computer Science from the
New Jersey Institute of Technology, and an M.B.A. from the Rutgers Graduate School of Management.

John Wang is a Professor in the Department of Information Management and Business Analytics at Montclair
State University, USA. Having received a scholarship award, he came to the USA and completed his Ph.D. in
operations research at Temple University. Due to his extraordinary contributions beyond a tenured full professor,
Dr. Wang has been honored with two special range adjustments in 2006 and 2009, respectively. He has published
over 100 refereed papers and seventeen books. He has also developed several computer software programs
based on his research findings. He serves as Editor-in-Chief for ten Scopus-indexed journals, such as Int. J. of
Business Analytics, Int. J. of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management, Int. J. of Information Systems
in the Service Sector, Int. J. of Applied Management, Int. J. of Information and Decision Sciences, Int. J. of Data
Mining, Modelling and Management, etc. He is the Editor of Encyclopedia of Business Analytics and Optimization
(five volumes), Data Warehousing and Mining: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (six-volume),
and the Editor of the Encyclopedia of Data Warehousing and Mining, 1st (two-volume) and 2nd (four-volume). His
long-term research goal is on the synergy of operations research, data mining, and cybernetics.

Mel Stern was a Senior Lecturer at the Silberman College of Business, Fairleigh Dickinson University. He taught
graduate and undergraduate courses in Operations Management and Information Systems. His previous experience
spanned decades of involvement in the manufacturing and information systems industries. His research interests
include IS education, applications for supply chain and manufacturing systems. He received his B.S. from the City
University of New York and M.S. in Industrial Engineering from New York University.

28