Recycling – the importance of understanding the complexity of the issue

Abstract

Natural resources and raw materials such as metals and minerals are often taken for granted in today’s society. Without them, the offerings of an enormous variety of modern conveniences, including computers and mobile phones, would not be possible. The production of these everyday items depends on a secure, sustainable, and reliable supply of critical raw materials. In addition, product development also requires new hybrid materials when targeting lightweight structures, etc. However, the mandatory recyclability of new products or materials is not obligatory or even prevailing practice in present manufacturing business. Therefore, the main research question in this article is: “how to solve the challenge of recycling in industrial system?” In this article, a comprehensive approach to recycling based on the findings of research projects is presented. Simplified, this involves moving the challenge from the end of the product’s life cycle to the beginning, to the design or even to material development phases. Life cycle and system thinking and material know-how in the design phase are found to be essential elements of a new approach to recycling. This approach stems from the material development and market economy perspectives. Furthermore, the vulnerability of the industrial system to create uncertainty to recycling is also demonstrated.

Keywords:

• Decision-making
• saving primary raw material
• material efficiency
• recycling
• life cycle thinking in design and development processes
• supply chain management

Introduction

Material efficiency means the efficient use of natural resources and the efficient re-use of waste and by-products. Much of the research in material efficiency has considered how waste from other processes can be used as valuable raw material elsewhere, for example in the case of the recycling of copper. This approach has lead to some unfortunate consequences, such as underestimation of the systemic nature of material efficiency and its complexity. An alternative way to look at material recycling is from a product centric viewpoint that incorporates all the systemic aspects, having at the core the material combinations present in any product. This viewpoint allows realization of the complexity of recycling in industrial systems. The drivers of the different actors and stakeholders are a vital part of this complexity and needs to be understood in order to improve material efficiency. The material efficiency of a system needs to be considered against the backdrop of modern industrial logic. This logic drives companies to strive for market share, increased sales and improved profits by offering competitive products through new innovations and improved technologies.

Modern smartphones are a good illustration of this where competition has rapidly developed a plethora of, from the standpoint of material efficiency, very complex devices using more than 60 elements in their manufacture. In addition to the virtues of a device’s operating system, the competition has focused on such things as display size, resolution, brilliance and sensitivity; which are all issues directly affecting material efficiency prospects. Worldwide mobile phone sales to end users totalled 1.75 billion units in 2012 and the sales of smartphones were around 650 million units (Gartner 2012, 2013a, 2013b). In 2013, expectations for worldwide mobile phone sales were forecast to total 1.82 billion units and smart phones around 850 million units (Gartner 2013a, 2013b). The material efficiency of most of the elements still remains low however (Hagelüken et al. 2010).

Another example is steel recycling, which is often erroneously equated to iron recycling. Modern steels form a family of about 6000 different alloys, most of which have some basic alloying elements in different quantities and can be well mixed with each other in obtaining recycled steel. However, there are a large number of alloys, where the minor alloying elements are lanthanides, cobalt, tungsten, etc. There are also a small number of metals having adverse effects on the quality of steel alloys, such as copper, tin and zinc. For example, tin and zinc are introduced into recycled steel from coatings used for corrosion prevention, etc. The increasing level of impurities due to recycling may lead to substandard metals unless primary virgin sources are utilized to dilute the level of impurities. These issues that directly affect the material efficiency of the aforementioned metals are completely obscured by the material centric point of view.

Most material cycles are rather complex and interconnected. For many metals, there are different types of processes, which in many cases separate a large number of elements at the same time with various degrees of efficiency. The mining of ores is the primary means of producing new metals for consumption. Ores are processed to concentrates with higher metal value and then processed into metals and alloys with desired properties. Most of the base metals are easily recycled in metallurgical plants after separation. Complex metal containing recyclable streams from man-made sources, such as end-of-life vehicles and waste electronic and electrical equipment, require complete shredding and an initial separation of the materials into general types. Then the individual metal-containing fractions can be further reprocessed to metals (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Product-oriented material cycle including primary and secondary sources.

As the global economy has grown, so more raw materials have been required: the World Trade Organization’s 2010 World Trade Report shows that natural resources represent about 24% of total global merchandise trade (World Trade Report 2014). As demand grows, uncertainty about the availability of future reserves is becoming an issue. The European Commission (EC) has identified 14 critical raw materials that are crucial for European Union (EU) industry and that are at high risk of being in short supply over the next decade (EC 2014). The increased use of the planet’s resources will result in major scarcities without major improvements in material efficiency (EUinsight 2011).

At present, the basic objectives of current EU environmental policy concerning waste are to prevent waste and promote re-use, recycling and recovery to reduce negative environmental impact (2008/98/EC). The long-term goal of the EU is to become a material efficient society. Although the environmental performance of the EU has been improved by implementing a mixture of policies, results remain unsatisfactory with regard to absolute reductions in energy and material consumption (Giljum et al. 2008). As argued by Reuter et al. (2006 and UNEP Metal Recycling 2013) recycling cannot solve this issue alone.

The EU is targeting sustainability and recycling society in member countries by way of directives and regulation. However, legislation is quite seldom touching everyday life from an individual’s perspective and scale. As with waste legislation in Finland, which gives a general framework for local authorities to guide residents of municipalities to treat their wastes properly (Aarnio 2006), the law does not stipulate any penalties should a citizen not sort waste into recyclable and non-recyclable fractions. Another example is in the area of producer responsibility; the new Finnish Waste Act (646/2011) stipulates that products should be amenable for repairing; however, if the price of a dvd player is less than €20 – it is obvious that there cannot be any serious intention to have it repaired if parts and labour cost more.

The main research question in this article is: “what type of challenges for recycling exists in industrial systems and in society?” When tackling this issue, it is important to take into account, that a major barrier for developing recyclable products is a lack of demand and the willingness of customers to pay more for these kind of products, both in business to business and in by consumers. The work focuses on the drivers and barriers of these systems. The target of this study was to give an overall picture of the challenges to recycling in industrial systems by using three case examples: from the material development point of view, from the individual’s perspective and finally one showing the vulnerability of the industrial system.

The approach to the subject is to present the perspectives to recycling via different case studies. The research questions of the three case studies are, case by case:

(1)	New material development: at present, in material development process – is there a life cycle approach and recycling perspective?
(2)	Supply of recyclable product: is there demand of recyclable products?
(3)	Vulnerability of the industrial system: the complexity in decision-making – can we decrease the risk of one decision?

The definitions of key words in this study are as follows: incentive tools are called drivers and their opposite, those, which inhibit material efficiency, recycling and environmental friendly decision-making, are called barriers; the term industrial actors is used for all of the different operators in society, those companies in the supply chain, authorities, retailers, customers, etc. which have a role in industrial and especially in this case in the recycling system.

Literature review

Drivers for the design of recyclable products

Environmental legislation is designed to be one of the major drivers in improving material efficiency. However, the aim of increasing material efficiency by means of legal proceedings is much more obscure and often contradicting the legal definitions and required administrative actions for waste handling. The environmental legislation stipulates both environmental control instruments and fiscal means. These instruments focus on the prevention of emissions and waste (Ekroos et al. 2010; Hollo 2009; Kuusiniemi et al. 2001; Kuusiniemi et al. 2007). In particular, the potential of taxation is a major part of the reliance on the use of economic instruments in environmental policy. As stated by Bosquet (2000), the idea of taxation is shifting the burden from employment, income and investment towards pollution, use of raw materials and waste. Jordan et al. (2003) have shown that in the 1990s policy-makers began to experiment levying taxes on forms of spending in a few EU countries, including the Netherlands, Finland (e.g. on waste oil), France, Germany and the UK. As stipulated in the Finnish Waste Tax Act 1126/2010, tax is levied on all waste deposited at landfill sites, provided that its utilization is technically feasible and environmentally justifiable, and that by imposing the tax, waste can be made more commercially exploitable. However, it has also appeared that the effect of taxes is not as clear-cut as has been assumed (Vehmas 2005). It is unclear if environmental taxes will help the environment without adversely affecting the economy.

Whereas legislative approaches mainly consist of enforcements and restrictions, economic drivers can provide positive financial incentives to promote more favourable forms of production and consumption. Economic drivers, such as taxes as mentioned above, supply and demand, competition for market share and the prices of raw materials, may lead industrial companies to improve responsibility in the processes and make more environmental friendly decisions (Pajunen et al. 2012).

The economical and ecological way of thinking is already a routine for many companies. Saving raw materials and reducing waste production is a win–win situation for companies, their shareholders, the community and environment. However, the demand of sustainability in industrial processes often requires changes to the management and operations of the companies. Companies have to react to new regulations, which reflect increasing concerns about the socio-environmental impacts of business. Also drivers, such as green image values, the possibility to develop the process and increasing market share, are more or less related to business (Pajunen 2011; Pajunen et al. 2012). The challenge is to develop economic policy instruments, for example, financial support to recyclable product development or tax relief to become more incentive-based (Hiltunen 2004).

One possibility is to achieve the targets by using economic instruments to induce changes in business and consumers’ behaviour. Society plays a central role in creating and improving everyday habits both in business and in daily routines (LaFollette 2000). The problem is in consumption culture and attitude. The majority of people still evaluate traditional product attributes, such as price, quality, convenience and brand more than those of ecology, recyclability or material efficiency when making purchase decisions. At present, it might be also challenging for customer to find any material information, such as the quantities of metals contained in a mobile phone or recycling information for, even when they ask for it. An interesting point of view is also that consumers’ behaviour in purchasing is apparently not consistent with their reported attitude toward products with an ethical dimension (De Pelsmacker, Driesen, and Rayp 2005).

When talking about consumer goods and recycling, the challenge is in knowledge, understanding and values. Simple and basic material-based recycling works well, such as in the collection of waste paper, cardboard, glass, cans and bottles. However, there are no simple recycling solutions and collection schemes in place for more complex materials and devices, such as for computers and smartphones, which could be easily explained to a layman. One of the key problems is also a lack of good quality information regarding waste composition and its behaviour during treatment and utilization processes. This information is necessary when assessing the environmental benefits of raw material recycling and improving profitability (VTT Technology 60 2012). In addition, the recycling targets set by the EU are the responsibility of producer organizations and arrived at in consultation with the EC and the incentive to improve recycling systems is not very large. Nevertheless, increased public pressure has led many companies to improve their environmental performance voluntarily by environmental policies and management systems (Harding 1998), at present also including life cycle approaches.

The basic idea of a company is to run a profitable and sustainable business that increases its value to stakeholders. Environmental decisions are made from this starting point as a result of the interplay of complex legal, political, economic and other social factors, notwithstanding general moral and ethical considerations that strive to rank alternatives by assessing superiority. Due to this complexity, there are some applications available to assist management in decision-making (cf. e.g. GreenSCOR 2013; Kiker et al. 2005). The criteria of these applications, such as the distribution of costs and benefits, environmental impacts for different populations, safety, ecological risk or human values, cannot be easily condensed into a monetary value because environmental concerns often involve ethical and moral principles that may not be related to any economic value (Kiker et al. 2005; cf. BBC 2014). In addition, the social and cultural development and background of a particular nation also raises ethical questions that influence its approach to questions of economy, technology, politics, science and the environment. No matter which decision tool is selected, implementation requires complex tradeoffs. However, explicit and structured approaches will often result in a more efficient and effective decision process as compared with intuition-driven decision process (Kiker et al. 2005).

Sinding (2000) argues that traditional environmental policy encourages companies to have an environmental strategy of their own and wants companies to apply an interorganizational environmental management approach. Products and product development has to take place through the entire supply chain, not only in one individual company. In addition, communication with stakeholders and customers emphasizes proactive environmental strategy. It keeps ahead of legislation and customer demands for improvement and participation in discussion regarding environmental issues (cf. Pajunen et al. 2012). As Clarkson, Richardson, and Vasvari (2011) have presented, companies that choose to improve their environmental performance tend to improve their financial performance as well. Alternatively, it is obvious that poor environmental strategy and performance can put a company at a massive competitive disadvantage (Konar and Cohen 2001; Peattie and Charter 1997).

Increasing environmental values in society might force companies to also reconsider supplier relationships since their total environmental impact and reputation is strongly influenced by the supply chain. Large corporations might also have a major impact on their smaller suppliers due to competitive bidding procedures (Sinding 2000; Interviews 2009–2013). If environmental criteria are asked for in procurement documents, these also have to be on tender documents (Alhola 2012). Within the supply chain there are many stakeholders, such as shareholders, authorities, banks, competitors, contractors, supply and service providers, insurance companies, the media, politicians and auditors, that may have an important role and might influence the motives and opportunities to achieve environmental improvements. However, as long as the most important barrier for radical innovations appears to be the cost of investment (Moors, Mulder, and Vergragt 2005), there are no more powerful incentives for change. In addition, business opportunities are typically not clearly observable. It is up to an individual company to create them, to see opportunity where its competitors do not (Salmi 2008; Schaper 2012).

Humankind is overusing natural resources, although the discourse on limits to growth (Meadows et al. 1972) has been ongoing on a global basis for almost half of a century. Concern over overpopulation and resultant over consumption of the limited resources of the earth has arisen at the same time (Olson and Landsberg 1975). Over the past 300 years, humankind has compiled an impressive record of pushing back the apparent limits to population and economic growth by a series of spectacular technological advances, as pointed out in the key work (Meadows et al. 1972) concerning our awakening on sustainability. However, even now, there are no substantial self imposed limits in sight either in terms of our use of raw materials or energy, which could be seen in the price structure, in demand of technology or in pollution control.

Challenges in designing recyclable products

In every part of a product’s life cycle, there is the potential to reduce resource consumption and improve the environmental performance of the product. From the design perspective, the six sustainability principles, “re philosophy”, mean: rethink the product and its functions; make the product easy to repair; replace harmful substances with safer alternatives; design the product for disassembly so that the parts can be reused; reduce energy, material consumption and socio-economic impacts throughout a product’s life cycle and select materials that can be recycled (UNEP Life Cycle Management 2007).

Typically, in an industrial design process, most of the environmental impacts are locked-in at an early phase when relatively major decisions are made and information on detailed design is still sparse. Early decisions are important later on in the life cycle of the product (Ammenberg and Sundin 2005). The opportunities to make changes in product design decrease with time as the cost of changes increases at the same time (Bergman and Klefsjö 1994). To succeed, every department of a company and all the important actors in the supply chain have to be involved and try to achieve the same target (Fiksel 2009; Vachon and Klassen 2008).

Products are becoming increasingly complex, mixing almost any imaginable materials (UNEP Metal Recycling 2013). Often the target of developing these new composite and hybrid materials is to find new lightweight solutions to reduce for example the carbon footprint of usage via saving energy. Composite materials having strong fibres – continuous or non continuous – surrounded by a weaker matrix material (Gay, Hoa, and Tsai 2003), are used for example in renewable energy industries, such as wind turbines (Yang et al. 2012); also in boats and aeroplanes due to the lightweight and resistance of the material. Composite materials also include large-scale building materials, such as ferroconcrete and small-scale high-technology applications such as chipboards. Hybrid materials combine the advantages of different materials and offer possibilities to have super-functions or new functions that the conventional materials did not possess (Hagiwara and Suzuki 2000). This might be the answer with multifunctional, durable and cost-efficient features. Hybrid materials can be used to give surfaces a range of desirable properties such as acoustics, lightness, hardness, softness, fire resistance, aesthetics or a pleasant touch. Such materials also enable, for example, functional and smart coatings, that sense and respond intelligently to their environment (Ruukki 2014). Thus, the development of new energy solutions and low-carbon footprint products may produce poorly recyclable materials due to their heterogeneous hybrid structures (Gay, Hoa, and Tsai 2003; Yang et al. 2012).

The challenge from the recycling point of view is balancing these different issues. The end of life (EoL) phase of such complex products becomes non-homogenous. Scrap may contain valuable resources that can be recovered and reused (Hagelüken and Corti 2010), but also parts that do not have economical recycling means (Yang et al. 2012). It is vital to take the recycling perspective into account already both in composite and hybrid material development and in the design phase of a product to achieve a balanced approach between the different aspects of sustainability.

Materials and methods

This article is based on three research projects, carried out at Aalto University. The research material includes statistical analysis, interviews and the results of workshops held in collaboration with process industry. The case studies presented are based on these research projects, the analysis of the marketing material and sales data, and collaboration with process industry (Figure 2). An overall picture of the challenges of recycling in industrial system will be given by using three case examples and different perspectives: from both the material development and the individual’s perspectives, and thirdly by showing the vulnerability of the industrial system.

Figure 2. Case studies and main findings.

Interviews¹ of industrial actors both in management, design and operations in various Finnish process industry companies were carried out in research project Pro-environmental Product Planning in a Dynamic Operational Environment Now and in Future – Methods and Tools (ProDOE 2010) by a team from the Aalto University in years 2007–2011. The theme of the project was industrial ecosystems and how to increase the use of industrial by-products. All the following case studies rest on the results of these interviews. The overall picture of the material efficiency in process industry is based on the interviews.

Case study I, concerning materials development, is based on interviews and two research projects, funded by Fimecc Ltd: Environmental footprint, where the main focus was in new lightweight solutions in structures; and Hybrids, where the focus was in development work of hybrid and composite materials. Participant companies were: Metso Minerals, Metso Paper, Metso Corporation, Metso Power, Rautaruukki Ltd, Ruukki Metals, Cargotec Finland Ltd, Cargotec Corporation, Konecranes Plc., Outokumpu Ltd.

Main tasks in the participatory workshop held 4 November 2010 concerned life cycle thinking in relation to: industrial design; business opportunities; challenges; risks; new technologies and new materials; and communication. Main tasks in the participatory workshop hold 31 May 2012 concerned life cycle thinking in relation to: drivers and barriers; strategy, management and operational decision-making – importance towards sustainability; and cooperation inside the supply chain on environmental issues. As a conclusion, there will be a discussion about the subject: Life cycle thinking – not just another duty? Participants (approx. 20–25 persons) were mainly from industrial design, sales and marketing, communication and environmental departments.

Case study II concerning individuals’ perspectives is based on the analysis of sales data and marketing material for mobile phones. The marketing materials of the companies were analysed and recycling information sought from their webpages and sales pitches, where normally only the technological advantage and new applications are highlighted.

Case study III, concerning vulnerability of industrial systems, was based on the research project Material and financial resources flow in information network (EBIS). The research was carried out by a team from Aalto University (formerly Helsinki University of Technology during the study period) in years 2002–2004. The theme of the project was to increase recycling of cardboard in the food industry. Doctoral dissertation: Challenges in packaging waste management: a case study in the fast food industry (Aarnio 2006) was published concerning this study.

The approach of this article is more behavioural and philosophical than technical. The point of view is an economic and management one. Methodologically, the research work was based on participatory and case study research approaches (Alasuutari 1994; Denzin and Lincoln 2009; Eskola and Suoranta 1998). In participatory research (Cornwall and Jewkes 1995; Macaulay, Sirett, and Bush 2011), the participants have an active role in the research and laypersons are involved to generate knowledge about issues, drivers, benefits and challenges that affect them in their daily lives. The format of the interviews was more discussion based than enquiry. Interviews and workshops were held during the period 2009–2013.

Results

Case I: material perspective – challenge of recycling

The case is based on interviews and two research projects: Environmental footprint, where the main focus is in new light weight solutions in structures; and Hybrids, where the focus is in development work of hybrid and composite materials.

Composites are materials made from two or more distinct, structurally complementary substances, for example, metals, ceramics, glasses and polymers. Combining these materials produces a material, which has characteristics different from the individual components. The same applies also to hybrid materials. The difference between composites and hybrid materials is within the structure. In the finished structure of composites, the individual components remain separate and distinct and often visible in macroscopic scale, whereas in a hybrid material the constituents are blended on the molecular or nanometer scale. The design of new composite and hybrid materials is driven by several requirements, for example, to achieve stronger, lighter structures or less expensive materials.

Product design increasingly mixes a large variety of different materials within products. Many products contain several metals, their alloys and compounds. More advanced functions are achieved by other complex materials structures. These include combining metal alloys with ceramics and fibres for creating composites, gluing honeycomb structures, making metal foams, depositing thin films and creating nanoparticle structures (UNEP Metal Recycling 2013). In addition, functionality is often further enhanced by coatings for improving wear, corrosion or fire resistance, for safety and for improving aesthetic aspects. Some of the functionalities may be such that the use of the products may save energy compared to the earlier products. On the other hand, these products are more complex to recycle.

In the design phase, the process documentation is done based on economic interests where EoL phase aspects are usually not included except as depreciable value. In the manufacturing and operational phase, documentation is based on obligatory reporting, materials efficiency from the economic point of view and for marketing purposes. At present, there are few effective incentives or pressures to increase recyclability in products. Only those materials, which have monetary value, such as copper, are being returned to the process. EU recycling targets are set at national level and are based on percentage value of total weight of the material (2008/98/EC). Incentives for recycling should include financial pressures for manufacturers to produce recyclable products and for customers to buy those products and take care of recycling. This can be put into action via taxation: if the product is recyclable and the recycling system exists, the product could have tax relief during its life cycle. Tax relief and the desirable resultant reduction of the price should increase the demand of recyclable products.

The challenge is the lack of existing recycling systems and separation technologies. Additionally, economic incentives are also missing. Figure 3 illustrates the lack of drivers available to solve and document the EoL phase of a product’s life cycle.

Figure 3. Lack of pressure for recyclable product development.

It is essential for forthcoming material efficiency to include EoL in the design phase. It is the only way to solve recycling of different mixtures of materials in future. In a forthcoming research project the target is to increase: the know-how of how to apply advanced materials effectively in the right applications. It is the key success factor to guarantee high performance, cost-efficiency, safety and long service life for the products. Specific multifunctional hybrid materials and advanced manufacturing technologies are needed to meet the challenging requirements of future industrial applications in terms of performance and sustainability. This calls for high-level multidisciplinary competences and development of new solutions, which can be a crucial factor in renewing the Finnish manufacturing industry. (Hybrid material programme plan²)

The aim in this research work, which started in early 2014, is to include life cycle thinking and the recyclability of hybrid materials in the material development and product design process and integrate recycling and sustainability perspectives into decision-making at strategic, management and operational levels.

Case II: demand for recyclable products – do we have it?

This case study, modern smartphones are used as a good example of the challenge in recycling of mixed materials. Smartphones have conquered the market in only a few years with their touch-sensitive bright colour displays seen as marvels of engineering but a nightmare for material efficiency. The continuing development of new consumer and industrial devices has had the consequence that over 60 of the elements in the periodic table are now used in their industrial production, albeit to different degrees. This case is based on an analysis of the sales data and marketing material for mobile phones.

Economic drivers are effective (Pajunen 2011; Interviews 2009–2013). A vital part of greening business is to have economical pressure towards sustainability. If the reward is somewhere else, business is not aiming in an environmentally friendly direction. Without possible economic benefit, business interest does not exist and without customer demand market pressure does not exist (Figure 4).

Figure 4. No demand for recyclable products.

At present, the most important driver in the mobile phone market is increase product sales. The target is to be the global market share leader. All companies are developing new models with new technical features and applications and competition is fierce and cost efficiency targets are high. The present situation in the mobile phone market, based on the statistics of Gartner (2012), is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Mobile phone market in year 2012, first two quarters.

Company	% (Q2/2012)	% (Q1/2012)
Samsung	32.9	30.6
Apple	17	24.2
Nokia	6.7	8.2
HTC	5.8	5.4
ZTE	5.2	3.4
RIM	5.1	7.6
Sony	4.9	5
Huawei	4.6	4.8
LG	4.2	3.8
Motorola	3.9	3.5

In this case study, we analysed the marketing material of the biggest smart phone companies (Table 1) and advertising materials of the retailers. The sales pitch of the high-end and most popular models of the top three smartphones manufactures are collated in Table 2. When we analysed the marketing material of the companies, it could be seen that the message was quite similar between companies. The technological advantage and new applications of phones were highlighted but none of the material contained any recycling information.

Table 2. Marketing of mobile phones.

Smartphone markets (August 2012)
Company	% (Q2)	% (Q1)	High-end model	Marketing	Most popular model	Marketing
Samsung	32.9	30.6	Nexus S Android Smartphone	1 GHz Hummingbird processor paired with 16 GB of internal memory makes Nexus S one of the fastest phones on the market. Menus open faster, tabs are more responsive, and web pages load quicker with virtually no lag time. Switch between apps effortlessly with true multitasking on Android. Nexus S has a dedicated Graphics Processing Unit (GPU). Playing mobile games, browsing the web, and watching videos are fast, fluid, and smooth. It’s like having a pocket-sized multimedia and game console	Samsung Galaxy III	If sharing is your thing, the Samsung Galaxy S III is your phone. With S Beam, you can share large HD files in seconds – just touch compatible devices back-to-back. S Beam takes full advantage of NFC (Near-Field Communication) and Wi-Fi Direct technology, making it quick and easy for you to share photos, videos, documents, calendars, contacts and more. And you don’t even need Wi-Fi or a cellular signal
Apple	17	24.2	iPhone 5	iPhone 5 is just 7.6 mm thin. To make that happen, Apple engineers had to think small, component by component. They created a nano-SIM card, which is 44% smaller than a micro-SIM. They also developed a unique cellular solution for iPhone 5. The conventional approach to building LTE into a world phone uses two chips – one for voice, one for data. On iPhone 5, both are on a single chip. The intelligent, reversible Lightning connector is 80% smaller than the 30-pin connector. The 8MP iSight camera has even more features – like panorama and dynamic low-light mode – yet it’s 25% smaller. And the new A6 chip is up to 2× faster than the A5 chip but 22% smaller. Even with so much inside, iPhone 5 is 20% lighter and 18% thinner than iPhone 4S
Nokia	6.7	8.2	Nokia N79 Mobile Phone	Nokia N79 is an attractive and trendy mobile phone with some new features that including WiFi, 5 MP camera, 3G and Bluetooth. The phone supports a dual band 900 and 2100 MHz of 3G but works on all the four GSM bands. The designing model will feature a 2.4 QVGA TFT screen capable of rendering 16 M colours. 5 MP camera with autofocus, flash and Carl Zeiss optics lets you take razor sharp photos even in dull lighting conditions. It also has the option of automatically tagging the location of your photo before you upload it on to Ovi share. The handy feature with N79 is the short range FM transmitter through which you can create your own broadcaster with your tracks around a short range. N79 provides an internal memory chip of 50 MB that allows it to multi-task of different apps without any lag. The handset can be uplifted with a microSD slot that supports up to 4 GB. It also supports A-GPS receiver with which you can explore new places and get voice guided navigation for free. The standard 1200 Li-Ion battery supports up to 5.5 h of talk time	Nokia Lumia 920	PureView technology with Carl Zeiss lens captures blur-free videos even if the camera’s shaking or in low light. Thanks to its Optical Image Stabilization. The PureMotion HD+ display is the world’s brightest, fastest and most sensitive touchscreen: enough to make every colour clear and sensitive enough to respond to your fingertips, even when they are covered up. With City Lens you can discover all your city has to offer by looking at your camera’s viewfinder. Now you don’t need to plug your Nokia Lumia 920 in to charge it. Just put it on a wireless charger and you’re good to go. Our new Lumia family comes with full versions of Microsoft Office and Outlook. Create and edit PowerPoint, Excel and Word documents with ease wherever you are with seamless sync. With Nokia Music you can stream unlimited music for free. Tap into the latest tracks. Create your own channels. Put on your headphones and play

When the hypothetical target of the study is responsible consumption, minimum waste production and functional recycling system and it is same for all of the actors, it can be seen based on this case that without demand from the customer the manufacturer does not promote recyclability in its products. All the actors of the industrial chain have their own targets and motives. In this case, the aim of the manufacturer is to sell more and the will of the customer is to obtain the latest phone technology and applications. Thus, it can be said at present that there is no demand for recyclable products in the mobile phone marketplace.

The marketing of new features and technical applications are also challenging the life cycle thinking in the electronics industry. An example of the phenomena is the Samsung Galaxy Tab, including e-reader. The previous version of the tablet was also cutting-edge; however, in the newer model, it is an advanced pen or stylus that enables writing notes and much more (Smartphones by Samsung 2013). Although one may have been a satisfied customer of a particular device, given time one may start to think that maybe additional features such as this are a next step to add something more. This is only one example of great marketing and there are hundreds more.

The challenge is in EoL phase of electrical devices. Recycling is difficult, even impossible in some cases, when the waste is not a homogenous scrap metal with at least partly known composition. Electronic devices contain a wide variety of materials, including different hazardous and toxic materials, for example arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium and brominated flame retardants, which are harmful to human health and the environment if not disposed of carefully (eWaste 2009). Moreover, some of the materials are valuable, for example, in the case of gold and silver (EPA 2012).

If at the EoL of a device, the scrap material goes to landfill or is not treated in environmentally responsible way, there is a high risk of environmental harmful damage. In addition, the scrap contains valuable resources that can be recovered and reused, reducing the need to use natural resources in the form of new virgin metals (Hagelüken and Corti 2010). At present, there is no functional recycling system for electrical devices able to separate different alloys, mainly due economic reasons. Recycling infrastructure for bulk metals, such as steel and aluminium, do exist, but the challenge is that the existing waste and recycling system cannot economically process non-homogenous scrap with minor amount of different elements and substances.

In the supply chain of mobile phone, there are many small-sized or medium enterprises or companies (SME). The importance of the demands of the larger company on the supply chain and their will to cooperate within supply chain with smaller companies has already been mentioned. If the larger manufacturer demands sustainability and environmental responsibility from its suppliers via procurement, smaller SME companies are required to comply out of necessity if they want to continue to cooperate in the future; they therefore have to respond to these demands (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Recycling perspective in mobile phones supply chain.

At the moment in an environment where the price of waste or raw material is increasing, it is important to react and to find new solutions and procedures to handle the issue (Interviews 2009–2013). In Figure 5, the most important driver is to recycle mobile phones and the target is to save raw materials. But then again, for example, currently there are no suitable separation and refining processes for recovering, for example, indium from screen display units, nor for the rare earth metals from the background illumination components. These substances have not been included in materials recycling so far (Buchert et al. 2012). However, there are some research openings for testing recovery in the zinc-refining process, where a traditional metallurgical plant could also work as a recycling unit (UNEP Metal Recycling 2013). However, as yet, no results can be presented here.

Nevertheless, transition towards sustainability in the mobile phone market might be closer than expected. A new smartphone, Fairphone (Fairphone 2014), has entered the market and at present there are more than 50, 000 people (16 May 2014) who have ordered this phone. On the webpages of the company they promise replaceable parts and recyclability for components. The first reviews of the phone are promising: it is not only a pilot version but also working one. Also a company called Phonebloks has an idea to develop a mobile phone concept worth investigating, one which would aid the existing industry steer away from manufacturing products that are sold as whole electronic device to products that are modular and hence easy to repair or upgrade without the need for whole widget replacement (Phonebloks 2014). Nevertheless, despite this kind of progress, about half of all consumers are still unaware that a mobile phone can even be recycled (UNEP Metal Recycling 2013).

Case III: vulnerability of industrial systems

Even though a material’s development includes the recycling phase, material might still be lost to waste. A case example of the vulnerability of the industrial system comes from the fast food industry. This simple example shows how a decision that seems to be small changed a whole recycling system.

In Finland, the fast food industry started to experience the effects of new stricter legislation (94/62/EC). There were demands for the recovery of packaging waste, but practical experiences showed challenges in packaging waste management (Aarnio 2006). The company in question conducted research and system development to improve recycling rates and reduce the production of waste. The work involved all stakeholders and ended in developing standardized packages, and a collection system encompassing all the restaurants of the company and a recycling system to match the high recycling targets (Figure 6). Target (1) in this research and development project was to increase recycling and reduce the production of waste. The driver (1) was legislation and the aim to decrease environmental impacts. The project reached the expected results (1); waste to landfill dramatically decreased and reuse increased.

Figure 6. Drivers and decision-making in food industry chain.

However, a single decision changed the whole system as depicted in Figure 6. The new manager of the fast food restaurant chain had as one of his targets and accordingly a prime driver behind his decision (2) the target to increase salad sales. His way to achieve this was to change the package and packaging material of a salad portion from liquid packaging carton to plastic. After the decision to change the packaging, the existing recycling system was unable to function efficiently since there was now no way to manage the new plastic waste fraction, which had the effect of disrupting the whole system. Due to this decision, the amount of mixed waste increased, waste fractions were sorted incorrectly with the result that all the material ended up in landfill (Aarnio 2006).

The presented example shows the sensitivity of the decision-making in the supply chain. It is important to understand, if one part of the supply chain does not cooperate and the set recycling targets are not the same through the supply chain, in every company within it, the recycling system collapses. It is crucial for success, such in a functional recycling system, that all of the actors have responsibility for the whole product’s life cycle, including the EoL phase.

Discussion

The main driver for environmental action in companies is very clearly economical (Pajunen et al. 2012; Interviews 2009–2013), firstly in the case of investments and secondly in relation to competitive advantage, new business opportunities and certainly cost savings (Interviews 2009–2013; Workshops 2010–2012). Other possibilities were more or less related to business: green image values, the possibility to develop the process and increasing the market share (Pajunen 2011; Pajunen et al. 2012). The costs are the most important single issue, which was mentioned in interviews in relation to drivers and barriers for more effective material use (Pajunen et al. 2012; Interviews 2009–2013). The price of the raw material is also important in decision-making (Pajunen 2011).

Green driving forces have effects both in visible and invisible ways (Peattie and Charter 1997). Formal drivers, in this research defined as visible, such as legislation, are mostly very clear. Informal drivers, in this research defined as invisible, like brand or image, are more complicated. The first mentioned driver arising in conducted interviews in relation to sustainability and at the same time increasing recycling is legislation. Subsequently, many of the invisible drivers were discovered when reading between the lines. Occasionally, it was even hard to determine whether a particular issue acted as a driver or barrier, such as where a change in a process might have an effect in both directions. Drivers, which were mentioned many times by interviewees, included support from the (local) government, research funding, long-lasting cooperation with industrial companies and tax relief to recyclable industrial residues (Pajunen 2011; Pajunen et al. 2012). Usually, the material efficiency is often a question of business and money, through raw material savings, reduction of losses and saving in landfill cost (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Formal (visible) and informal (invisible) driving forces.

Lack of knowledge both in administrations and companies was one of the obstacles for increase the recycling (Interviews 2009–2013). In addition, the world economy has an influence on larger process and manufacturing industries. During recession, management level makes decisions to reduce research and development money and public research funding might also decrease in the same time.

The industrial system is complex, its products are also complex and so it is not easy to create a one-size-fits-all recycling system. At present, recycling is based on specific material streams and cycles. In the future there may be the need to change this to a product-centred approach. There will also be the need for new different kinds of recycling processes. Nevertheless, it is important to note that recycling must be both environmental, including energy and material perspectives, and economic reasonable.

Much of the development work for new devices is driven not only by the drive to fulfil the needs of consumers but also to decrease production costs by easier mass production methods. It can be said that the development of more sophisticated products has consequently strengthened the systemic interaction between all the elements when concerning material efficiency.

When developing new lighter structures, the metal industry is interested in life cycle assessment (LCA) of the product to convince the market and customers of the product’s environmental friendliness, especially possible energy savings during the use phase. Lifetime savings of a new product is important marketing information: the price of a new product might be higher, but with impending energy savings there will be a win–win situation for the customer and the environment. A new production method may change the constraints of the product design. That may have influence also on the material choices and also on the whole supply chain.

Continuous product development affects not only product design, components and weight, but also changes in composition and volume for waste-recycling streams (UNEP Metal Recycling 2013). From the material perspective recycling, systems for bulk metals exist and recycling of these is cost and energy efficient. The real challenge is in composite and hybrid materials recycling. Typically, there is only a small amount of high-technology metal in the hybrid material contained in one component. It is therefore unprofitable to separate it and there is no economic incentive to resolve this problem. At present, the metals and alloys arriving at recycling operations are almost always mixed with other materials and compounds, including plastics and other modern materials, such as composites, fillers and paints. This mixing of materials makes it possible to achieve functionalities that are not possible by using single substances. However, diversity of metals present and complexity of metal–metal and metal–non-metal associations may also negatively affect their recycling in a physical and chemical sense. The aim of the recycling is to prevent loss of potentially useful materials by recovering all the valuable materials from the waste or by changing waste materials into new products. Certainly, there will always be a slight loss of materials and, whilst great improvements are possible in the recycling of metals, a fully “closed” recycling system cannot exist due to thermodynamical and physical limits (UNEP Metal Recycling 2013).

The separation of valuable materials into different metal fractions from complex structures is not straightforward. The challenge is the non-existence of this kind of recycling processes, for example for the recovery of metals from waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), such as computers, TV sets, fridges and mobile phones (Tuncuk et al. 2012). The challenge lies in the variety of products. In terms of the type, size and shape of components and materials, WEEE is significantly heterogeneous and complex (Cui and Forssberg 2003). It may contain hazardous materials that cause environmental problems during the waste management phase if it is not properly pretreated (Cui and Forssberg 2003). WEEE is also one the fastest growing waste streams in the EU. Around 9 million tonnes were generated in 2005, and it is expected to grow to more than 12 million tonnes by 2020 (WEEE 2014). The EU has been serious in addressing this and legislation has been put in place with the Directive on WEEE (2002/96/EC) which provided for the creation of collection schemes where consumers return their WEEE free of charge.³ The aim is to increase the recycling of WEEE and/or re-use (2002/96/EC). The Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment also requires heavy metals such as lead, mercury, cadmium and flame retardants to be substituted by safer alternatives (2002/95/EC).⁴

In the industrial design process, business opportunities and financial issues have key roles. It is important to evaluate ideas from the technology and business points of view but only viable plans are proceeding. The design process can be divided in different phases (Table 3). The aim of the design process is to make development work and resource management possible over the organizational borders and to promote networking. One of the main challenges for designers or environmental experts is the availability of the information in the early phase of decision-making. In addition, according the interviews, arranged during 2009–2013 as part of this case study, the scheduling of the industrial design phase is tight.

Table 3. Phases of the industrial design process.

Phase	Information for decision-making
Phase 1: idea	Suitability for the strategy, profitability, implementation, risks
Phase 2: business case	Target, analysis of different sections (technical, competence, supply chain, market etc.), budget
Phase 3: project plan	Present state, target, technical details, resources, budget, risks, needed contracts, schedule
Phase 4: design plan	Product, process, solutions, investments, costs, co-operation, schedule
Phase 5: verification	Results are compared with plans (phase 3 and 4)/solution, final product
Phase 6: validation	Results are compared with project plan (phase 3)/profitability
Phase 7: final report	Process description
Phase 8: business case	Evaluation: realization of business, strategic targets, risks, incomes and costs, learning process

The design procedure should also include the main environmental aspects in different phases of the process. Ecodesign or design for sustainability is the first step for greening production and for creating new greener, or in other words, more environmentally friendly products. LCA method can be used also in the design process. It is possible to create different scenarios when testing environmental impacts of various solutions with LCA method. Table 3 shows the important steps to consider environmental issues in different phases of the process in general. Development of new materials and production methods are key elements, when designing recyclable products (Figure 8).

Figure 8. A decision path of design recyclable products.

As an example, LCA was used to study the effects of the possible modifications in the product development in the research project Environmental footprint. The case of the Lokotrack LT106 crusher (Metso 2014), the effects of improving the duration of wear parts was studied in detail. The studied improvements proved to be beneficial regarding the overall environmental impacts of the crusher: environmental impacts were decreased in all studied impact categories; with the new design, the consumption of non-renewable resources could be decreased by over 50% compared to the traditional product design by improving the wear parts’ life time.

Environmental impacts are connected to flows of materials and energy, and the most important flows, at least for manufacturing companies, are closely linked to products (Interviews, 2009–2013; Workshops 2010–2012). Therefore, it is urgent for management systems to encompass material and product development procedures (Ammenberg and Sundin 2005). The vulnerability of the system is in critical path when developing the recycling society. It is vital to understand that every decision has an influence. Vulnerability might also become apparent with availability of critical materials. Worldwide, concern has been expressed over the independence of some critical minerals, such as those used in the defence industry or in other strategically important industries. The importance of organizing the recovery of different materials and reducing their loss to landfills is also important in this sense.

Conclusions

The target of this article was to point out, via three different cases, the challenge of recycling at present. The main challenges of recycling are lack of demand, lack of understanding the whole life cycle of the product and willingness to adopt the challenge of new hybrid materials or widely mixing materials from the recycling point of view. The importance of design phase of the product and material development was also highlighted.

It is clear that early phase decisions play a significant role in the product’s life cycle. If the aim is to improve a product, then a LCA study should be carried out as early as possible, already when the design process begins (Rebitzer et al. 2004). The opportunities to make changes in the product design then decrease over time (Ammenberg and Sundin 2005). This concerns both recyclable product design and material choices in design.

Currently, the quality of recycled metals is often maintained through the addition of high-purity primary metals since recovery without impurity dilution reduces the quality (or quantity) of recycled metals. In many cases, the recycled products contain valuable and rare elements in such small quantities and so tightly bound that profitable processing is not possible. In a worst-case scenario, industry may be heading into an era where certain high-technology elements can be used only once instead of forming part of traditional large-scale recycling systems of base metals. One of the big challenges is adopting new product design philosophy and the use of alternative materials and constructions that make recycling possible. This will allow product-oriented materials sustainability, where end-of-life products are dismantled and recycled, and only in exceptional cases need to be discarded.

Today’s industry is facing significant change, from process-related environmental thinking towards one of product-based environmental thinking. This change is already seen in the EU product policy. New strict environmental legislation is guiding industry to reduce waste; but from a business perspective, stricter rules are always a question of profitable business. A life cycle approach facilitates cooperation between companies in order to understand, identify and manage risks, opportunities and trade-offs associated with products, technologies and services over their entire life cycle, from material acquisition, manufacturing and use, to EoL management. The shift to proactive life cycle-based product strategies requires changes in business and operating policies and practices (Fawa 2006). Customers and individuals, little by little, are also asking about the environmental impacts of the products and production processes.

Engineers have an important role to play in environmental friendly decision-making processes. They have to make decisions which have lifelong influence and even longer on environment and society. Life cycle thinking and ecodesign procedure are courses of action towards more sustainable production, as well as a means of increasing the demand for recyclable products via informing customers. However, one must face the fact that as long as there are industrial actions, there will be some materials that need to be managed as waste. There is therefore a need to improve both recycling waste treatment and management side by side. In addition, recycling is not recycling if there are no customers for the used material and material is just stored.

There are therefore still challenges in moving towards the recycling society. At present, society is rightly called a throwaway society with even those who are environmentally aware knowingly buying consumer electronics although in full knowledge that there are no recycling systems for them. In this sense, an individual’s desire for new applications, a novel technical solution or just a strong brand and image are overcoming rational reasons against purchases. There is a major need for knowledge and understanding of life cycle thinking, both on the customer and manufacturing sides. A market economy is based on plain rules: supply and demand; profitable business; and economic growth. Consequently, if there are few pressures from the market and customers, and no incentives to develop recyclable products, little will change quickly. Alternatively, if there are few available recyclable products and committed producers, customers and the market will never learn to demand them.

Future studies need to cover the critical aspects of material losses after the use phase in industry, society and households. In addition, it is important to research the attitudes of individuals who produce and/or use electronic devices to determine what could influence their behaviours, since changes in values is the only way to achieve real transition towards sustainability.

Acknowledgements

The research has been supported by the Academy of Finland (http://www.aka.fi/eng) Ketju Program, research project ProDOE (2007-2010) and Finnish Metals and Engineering Competence Cluster Fimecc Ltd (http://www.fimecc.com/en/index.php/Main_Page), research project Environmental footprint (2010-2013). These organizations, projects and companies behind these projects are gratefully acknowledged.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Interviews 2009–2013. Companies: Boliden Kokkola Ltd, OMG Kokkola Chemicals Ltd, Metsä-Botnia Ltd, Yara Suomi Ltd, Kokkola Industrial Park Service, Stora-Enso Ltd, Outokumpu Ltd, Rautaruukki Ltd, Solidium Ltd. Other organizations: The Finnish Forest Industries Federation, Parliament, The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation, The Confederation of Finnish Industries EK, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of the Environment.

2. Programme plan for the Breakthrough Materials theme for 2014–2018, funded by FIMECC Ltd.

3. In December 2008, the EC proposed to revise the Directive in order to tackle the fast increasing waste stream. The new WEEE Directive 2012/19/EU entered into force on 13 August 2012 and became effective on 14 February 2014.

4. In December 2008, the EC proposed to revise the Directive. The RoHS recast Directive 2011/65/EU became effective on 3 January 2013.