A Circular Commons for Digital Devices
Tools and Services in eReuse.org
David Franquesa
Leandro Navarro
Xavier Bustamante
Universitat Politècnica de
Catalunya
Barcelona, Spain
Universitat Politècnica de
Catalunya
Barcelona, Spain
Universitat Politècnica de
Catalunya
Barcelona, Spain
david.franquesa@ac.upc.edu leandro@ac.upc.edu
xavierb@ac.upc.edu
ABSTRACT
Circular economies are particularly relevant in the context of
digital devices or electric and electronic equipment (EEE).
Many digital devices built using scarce and potentially toxic
materials have a too-short life, instead of being repaired or
reused. In addition, informal recycling of electronics in the
developed and developing world has emerged as a new global
environmental concern. We describe the dimensions of the
problem, the challenge to move to a circular economy, and
the ecology for digital devices as well as how this depends on
the traceability of devices and cooperation among all stakeholders locally and globally. Moreover we examine the need
for support mechanisms to facilitate, standardise, and reduce the transaction cost of the processes and increase their
added value. We present eReuse.org, a set of open-source
tools, procedures, open data, and services organised as a
common-pool resource (CPR) to reach the circular economy of electronics through promoting reuse and ensuring
traceability until recycling. Further, eReuse.org envisions
empowering and engaging people around the world to create local communities that bootstrap electronic reuse and
to support the development of a globally recognised reuse
quality and traceability standard.
CCS Concepts
•Human-centered computing → Social content sharing; •Networks → Location based services; •Hardware
→ Impact on the environment; •Social and professional topics → Governmental regulations;
Keywords
Digital devices; circular economy; reuse; WEEE; traceability
1. INTRODUCTION
In the world, there are more digital devices, such as desktops, laptops, tablets, and mobiles, than people. Electronic
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or
classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed
for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than
ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission
and/or a fee. Request permissions from permissions@acm.org.
LIMITS ’16, June 08-10, 2016, Irvine, CA, USA
c 2016 ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-4260-5/16/06. . . $15.00
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2926676.2926684
waste (e-waste) is the largest waste stream, most of it discarded in the general waste stream leading to a loss of secondary resources [2]. Additionally, e-waste is often shipped
illegally to developing countries [5]. In Europe, only 35% is
officially reported and collected [4]. The rest is handled by
informal workers, degrading the environment [19]. Landfills
are still the predominant means of disposal, which poses a
threat to the environment and to human health [21]. Although the volume of e-waste is growing three times faster
than other types, recycling plants in the EU collect less ewaste [3].
The current model of consumption of high technology is
clearly unsustainable. Mobile phones require many rare and
precious metals in their construction [17], leading to a potential irrecoverable loss of resources and an effect on other categories, such as global warming, human toxicity, and metal
depletion [11]. Moving towards a circular economy must go
beyond just recycling materials at a product’s end-of-life. A
circular economy is one that aims to keep products, components, and materials at their highest utility and value at all
times. Repair and reuse implies maintaining a product in
use, unlike recycling which indicates the death of the product.
These days, many technological devices restrict the way
users can repair the device or replace parts if hardware
breaks or becomes outdated. For example, special tools are
needed to open most smartphones, and replacing a battery is
not possible without risking the warranty on many phones,
tablets, and computers [20]. Maestri and Wakkary [12] argued that technology should be designed such that everyday
users can repair them – a vision that seems far-fetched given
that most products have gone the other direction in recent
years by restricting their repairability, disregarding durability in product design, and even artificially limiting the
useful life of a product (built-in obsolescence). This could
and should change entirely in a future of collapse.
The overall potential of reuse of digital devices can be
compared to the number of devices renewed annually, in the
range of billions, but a large fraction is dismantled well before the end of usable life. This results in most electric and
electronic equipment (EEE) being recycled too early, despite the demand for reuse coming particularly from social
organisations [10]. According to a survey by Flash Eurobarometer[8], on average, 50% of people in Europe would be
happy to buy second-hand electronic goods.
The reuse of digital devices consists of finding (by resale
or donation) a new user who wants to continue using devices
that are no longer needed. If products are repaired, they last
longer, reducing expenditure in new consumer goods, creating jobs, and strengthening digital skills [9]. Furthermore,
considering participation in digital society a human right
[6], reuse (donation to charities) can also help to reduce the
digital divide and strengthen institutions and projects for
social change.
However, reuse is still a minority practice due to the lack
of structural support. In public institutions, more than 80%
of digital devices to be recycled are still operational (without
need for repair) [10]. Unfortunately, most of them, when depreciated or out of guarantee, are recycled instead of fixed,
upgraded, or reused. Civil society entities are willing to
promote the positive aspects of reuse of digital devices, but
there are no structured services large enough to handle digital devices for reuse. Therefore, they do not know where
to turn, as there are no circuits that allow the public administration to redistribute these devices without an extra
bureaucracy to decide who should prepare for reuse, who
should receive the devices, and how to ensure proper recycling after reuse, given that informal recycling of electronics
has emerged as a global environmental concern.
This paper describes the potential and challenges for reuse
of digital devices and the need for traceability and support
tools to facilitate the process, increase reliability, and reduce
cost. This is addressed by eReuse.org, organised as a circular
ecology commons. The work is supported by the experience
of a decade of field work at the UPC university in Barcelona.
During the last four years, more than 1,600 reused computers were donated to more than 900 projects in the area of
Catalonia. The tools and services described here have been
developed in that period, with a community of more than
10 entities making use of this ecosystem, resulting in more
than 10,000 computers processed per year.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents the requirements regarding preparation for
reuse and traceability of devices to ensure final recycling.
Section 3 presents the principles of the governing mechanisms. In Section 4, we discuss how reuse promotes the
model of computing as a service instead of a property. Section 5 introduces the software tools and services developed
to implement these principles and some of the implications.
Finally, conclusions are presented in Section 6.
2. CIRCULAR ELECTRONICS
Refurbishment, reuse, and the correct dismantling process
of digital devices effectively contribute to generating a circular economy on electronics. Guvendik [11] presented four
lifecycle analysis scenarios using the ReCiPe method over
Fairphone [13]. The baseline scenario is the three-year use.
Scenario 1 is used for two years, and Scenario 2 represents
the first step of Fairphone to create a circular system, which
is extending the product lifetime to six years with refurbishment activities. The third scenario (circular), in addition
to an extended lifetime of six years, is a dismantling process put into practice when the phone reaches the end of its
functional lifetime.
If Fairphone customers use their device for only two years
(scenario 1), there will be an increase in metal depletion by
21%, climate change by 18%, and human toxicity by 24%
when compared to the baseline (three years). In the refurbishment scenario (Scenario 2), the reductions over baseline
will be 35% in metal depletion, 16% in climate change, and
26% in human toxicity. A circular scenario (third) repre-
Figure 1: Comparison of smartphone specifications
and global warming potential [1, 7, 14, 16, 15].
sents significant reductions: 53% in metal depletion, 24% in
climate change, and 42% in human toxicity.
Under the preliminary taxonomy for sustainable computing by [22], today’s effect on the smartphone industry would
at Level 3 (adversely affects sustainability and increases the
rate of net resource depletion) even in the circular scenario
since their use is only growing.
Without a reuse quality standard and guarantee of traceability, it is uncertain whether non-functional EEE will be
exported and end up polluting the environment. Traceability consists of tracing the geographical places, reuse agents,
and receivers of digital devices until the collection and recycling points. Traceability is the key to ensuring that reuse
contributes to recycling and to avoiding an extended lifetime of a device resulting in uncontrolled waste. For now,
we cannot guarantee that a reused device is recycled (and
does not end up polluting) or where it has been recycled.
However, traceability is difficult; software tools are required
to keep track of EEE. It is difficult to uniquely identify digital devices and their components across a device’s life, as it
can change. It is also difficult to account for reuse and know
whether a device is finally counted twice when reused and
recycled. Donors fear that, after reuse, their electronic devices may not end up being recycled, and this could severely
affect their goals and image if such devices end up polluting
the environment. We claim that traceability in EEE requires
a universally unique identifier for each component.
The life cycle of electronics, depicted in Figure 2, essentially contains these phases: production, manufacturing,
transfer (retail, donation), use, collection, recycling, and
preparation for reuse. We have three loops: product, waste,
and recycling (Figure 2). Preparation for reuse usually consists of identifying the product and refurbishing it (e.g., ensure correctness, upgrade, repair, and clean). The recycle
loop is the traditional loop where products are collected,
pre-processed, and end-processed to recover resources and
segregate hazardous waste. The product loop aims to keep
products and components alive as long as possible, performing basic preparation for reuse consisting of repairing, upgrading, or transferring by reselling or donating, avoiding
waste. The waste loop starts when a product reaches a ”collection” point, becoming waste, and it can only return to
being a product if it is prepared for reuse under a certified
process. This loop mainly has agents, such as reuse, recycling centres, and collection points.
Moreover, eReuse.org provides software tools to assist in
collecting data about devices and each step across its life
cycle to build a global log of device information. It also
advantage of common tools and services.
The fundamental principles of eReuse.org, defined at the
start to be fully inclusive, revolve around 1) the openness
of access (usage and contribution) and 2) the openness of
participation (development, operation, and governance) of
this resource system. These include a set of software tools,
services, and global open traceability data around the life
cycle of digital devices and its community.
Non-discriminatory open access. The access to this
resource system is non-discriminatory because the maintenance costs are shared among participants in a cost-oriented
manner (vs market-oriented), which means free in many
cases. It is open because everybody has the right to contribute and access data or use supporting software tools or
services to manage digital devices.
Open participation. Everybody has the right to join
the community. According to roles and interests, four main
groups of stakeholders can be identified.
Figure 2: Reuse loops in the life of a digital device.
provides software tools to assist in dealing with each device
by 1) collecting information about it; 2) managing inventories of devices; 3) preparing a device for reuse by uniquely
identifying it, reliably erasing its data, performing tests and
benchmarks, and re-installing the OS; 4) finding the next
actor in the chain matching the characteristics of the device
and its location (can be another end-user or an intermediary organisation preparing or refurbishing the device for the
next usage); and finally 5) registering the disposition of a
device for recycling.
Our contribution to the product loop is to enable direct
transfer of those digital devices to the next agent in the
life cycle. Our contribution to the waste loop is to certify
the process of preparation for reuse to distinguish an item
that is reusable. We provide tools for both cycles (product and waste) to map good-quality used devices and data.
In addition, we provide algorithms to determine the reuse
with the greatest potential and to allow traceability to ensure final recycling. Moreover, we provide tools for certified
data cleaning, communication of the social and environmental value of reuse, and establishment of a system to reward
donors and ensure the commitment of the receivers of reused
devices to final recycling.
3. THE EREUSE.ORG COMMONS
The eReuse.org commons represents a global federation of
local groups, organisations, and communities that deal with
the circular life of digital devices in their target communities under specific business models. They cooperate to share
information, methods, services, and tools under a common
governance constituting an ecosystem around circular electronics. For instance, Reutilitza.cat is a community that
coordinates direct donation of computers in good condition
to charities for free, while Andròmines is an organisation
that focuses on collecting a large number of computers from
organisations for refurbishment, customisation, and sale for
the cost of preparation. Both communities participate and
benefit from the eReuse.org commons, and their web portals
are federated with the eReuse.org data warehouse and take
i) Volunteers, organised in thematic communities (web portals), concerned with aspects such as environmental sustainability, governance of the resource system, software
development, repairing, protection of consumers’ rights,
protection of citizen’s rights, and protection of the environment. Volunteers can contribute in identifying and
promoting contribution (registering devices into the system), management, and allocation of digital devices to
future users according to needs or social support.
ii) Professionals, interested in added value services in order
to repair, refurbish, enhance, or recycle second-hand
devices, or (re-)manufacturers, interested in producing
or selling new components or devices. Professionals and
(re-)manufacturers can have their own web portals or
participate in one.
iii) Customers, interested in having reused devices or simply cheaper devices.
iv) Public administrations, interested in managing specific
attributions and obligations to regulate the participation of society, monitoring environmental effects and
data protection, and satisfying their own needs regarding devices.
A balance among these four groups must be preserved,
as every group has natural attributions that should not be
delegated or undertaken by any other.
Digital devices are rivalrous goods that typically can be
used by only one person at the same time and several across
each reuse cycle. Although the ownership of a digital device
is generally excludable through its acquisition cost, reuse initiatives can reduce that cost dramatically, even to zero economic cost for receivers involved in socially supported activities. In addition, participation in a circular economy of reuse
is non-excludable as a goal through many forms of reuse after
a significant event (e.g., donation, sale, repair, upgrade, and
refurbishment). Therefore, under a reuse framework, digital
devices can qualify as common goods (non-excludable and
rivalrous).
These fundamental principles, applied to a circular economy of digital devices, result in a resource system that is a
collective good, socially produced, and governed as a commonpool resource (CPR) [18].
The tools, services, and data are collective goods or peer
property in which participants contribute their efforts and
goods (data, tools, services, procedures, and certificates)
that are shared among all stakeholders to build the resource
system, which results in a peer property, provided that the
community rules, as a community licence, are respected by
all participants.
The development of this economy is a social production,
also called peer production, because the participants work
cooperatively at the local scale to deploy the tools and services to build local organised islands and at the global scale
to share knowledge, data, tools, services, and to coordinate
actions to ensure the interoperability of the resource system
deployed at the local scale.
The CPR is the model chosen to hold and govern the
resource system. The participants (individuals or organisations with their own rules) must accept the rules to join the
resource system and must contribute the required resources
to do it, but they keep the ownership of the data, services,
certifications, and tools they have contributed and the right
to withdraw.
Nonetheless, as any other CPR, the eReuse.org commons
is fragile. More precisely, it is congestion prone because the
pool of reusable devices is subtractable and subject to free
riding and abuse of the resource system due to competition
among different stakeholders because eReuse.org is intentionally non-excludable. Thus, efficient and effective governance tools are needed to protect the core resource from
depletion or congestion. The implementation is presented in
Section 5.
Analysing the design of long-enduring CPR institutions,
Ostrom [18] identified eight principles, which are prerequisites for a sustainable CPR. We now discuss their application
to our case.
1. Clearly defined boundaries. The fundamental
principles of open and non-discriminatory access and open
participation in the life of the community translate into prescriptions defined by the community licence and the specific
collaboration agreements with all stakeholders, implemented
by coordination software tools (applications and services)
in the eReuse.org web platform. Governance tools should
also regulate procedures for conflict resolution and economic
compensation among all participants, which may be required
to preserve the fundamental principles. These boundaries
should be respected by the rules of each participating reuse
community.
2. Rules regarding the appropriation and provision of common resources that are adapted to local
conditions. The congruence between appropriation (usage
of the resources: data and devices) and provision (contribution of information about devices) is mediated by the federation of asset management and allocation tools in each
local community that develops an eReuse federated portal
that assists in following up on devices across its circular life
cycle. These tools embody and implement the principles
defined by the eReuse community licence. Local reuse communities can have their own rules, procedures, and policies
as long as they are compatible with the common rules of
the federation (e.g., charges and policies for provision and
appropriation of devices). Diversity in this case is an added
value for adaptation to local conditions.
3. Collective-choice arrangements that allow most
resource appropriators to participate in the decision-
making process. Complexity and transaction costs grow
as the network grows (number of devices, communities, and
participants). This complexity should be managed by social structures that focus on each local community and on
a global organisation. Beyond participation in local reuse
communities, the governance of the federation naturally leads
to a representative structure with a smaller executive board,
a council with all stakeholders represented, and an advisory
board with a wide representation of all views.
4. Effective monitoring by monitors who are part
of, or accountable to, the appropriators. Monitoring is
performed with the assistance of software tools that provide
a common information base about the history and status of
the common inventory of devices and with the lead of local
trusted senior members that rely on open data to generate
local and global indicators that are reported to appropriators. Monitoring applies to the federation, which means
monitoring the contribution and usage of aggregated data
and the operation of participants regarding the compliance
of the community licence, while respecting the diversity of
local conditions. These monitoring activities could result in
audit certificates that increase trust in the federation from
third parties.
5. Graduated sanctions for appropriators who do
not respect community rules. The conflict-resolution
system, not yet implemented, should have clear and systematic methods to deal with users that negatively affect the
common resource system. Problems would typically arise
among diverse stakeholders competing for the supply or the
use of a set of devices or among participating organisations
that are not contributing data about the devices they manage or use. These sanctions are planned to affect a reputation score given to each participant.
6. Conflict-resolution mechanisms that are cheap
and easy to access. The conflict-resolution system should
provide a structured procedure with several stages of escalation and progressive levels of complexity and economic cost
to the parties, all driven by an expert (e.g., a lawyer or senior members) selected from a set of volunteers. Experience
from other digital commons indicates this scheme can be
cheap, easily accessible, efficient, effective, and scalable in
addressing conflicts.
7. Self-determination of the community recognised by higher-level authorities. We plan the community licence to be examined by lawyers and written to be
valid and enforceable under the local legislations where local
eReuse member communities are deployed. That probably
requires the establishment of local and global legal entities
representing the community, probably in the legal form of a
foundation.
8. In the case of larger CPRs, organisation in the
form of multiple layers of nested enterprises, with
small local CPRs at each base. There are plans to establish a legal entity, probably a foundation, to mediate among
local members (such as individuals, professionals, and public entities), the many local CPR communities at the base,
providing a federated CPR (second layer organisation) with
many aspects in common that can interact with external
organisations in the local and global scope.
4. COMPUTING AS A SERVICE
One key contribution from eReuse.org commons is the potential for a change of focus away from the property of de-
vices to just using their services and to its standardisation.
While, in some cases, owning a specific type of computer
may be linked to social status, preference, or emotional attachment to a brand or model, many organisations have a
functional view of computing, and computers are a standardised commodity that is counted in the number of work stations according to functional categories. Additionally, there
is the long existing concept of distributed computing with
lightweight client or terminal devices combined with network
servers. In most cases, computer units become commodity
boxes that can be easily replaced.
This particular context defines a business model where
computer devices are reused and replaced to ensure the continuous operation of a number of workplaces. Organisations
can adopt a simpler renting model where a payment is made
for the temporary use of replaceable (not necessarily new)
devices of specific characteristics, maintained and replaced
by a third party, and therefore representing a fixed periodic cost. Cost sharing (collective purchase) schemes may
allow reducing the initial cost of acquisition of new devices
for the first user, even including any gain from the final recovery of materials. Incentives to maintain devices in good
condition and promote other good practices, such as reporting transfers or final recycling, can be implemented through
reputation scores or economic deposits that are returned at
the end of each cycle of use. This model can help organisations achieve their environmental sustainability goals at
much lower economic and environmental costs.
5. IMPLEMENTATION
The eReuse.org architecture defines a distributed system,
instantiated by multiple organisations and implemented as
software services, tools, and data repositories (Figure 3). It
has the main objectives of 1) managing reuse and recycling
actions, 2) ensuring the reuse and recycle processes by contributing to traceability, 3) facilitating third parties to join
local eReuse communities (portals) by using, extending, and
integrating the system, 4) generating inputs for indicators
that measure circularity, and 5) maximising the performance
of devices and their usage time. The architecture follows the
governance principles presented in Section 3.
Device Diagnostic and Inventory: A set of tools to
support the process of preparing for reuse and the inventory
of digital devices. Preparation for reuse essentially consists
of visual inspection, product safety (insuring voltage and
other sector safety requirements), functionality tests (units
must meet the ordinary use for which the item was originally placed), data deletion, generating meta data about
traceability, and providing signed documents.
These tools include Hardware Discover, which obtains information from the computer and its components and generates a unique Hardware ID (HID) for each component and
for the computer itself. The HID is a universally unique
identifier, generated as a sequence of the serial number of a
component and the manufacturer and model names. Eraser
securely erases hard-drives and generates certificates. Benchmark performs quality tests to guarantee the capacity of the
machine to correctly operate in a given workplace, including performance tests for the CPU or hard drive. Diagnosis
performs diverse tests like 1) testing for failed sectors in the
hard drive, estimating remaining life time, 2) testing RAM,
hard-drive speeds, graphic capabilities, and CPU power with
a real operating system. PXE server DeviceInventory is of-
fered with a companion virtual image of a server that can be
used simultaneously to massively register many computers
connected to an Ethernet switch.
After executing all the desired tools, the Device Diagnostic and Inventory toolset generates a signed non-modifiable
report with the results of the preparation for reuse process,
ensuring that the process is kept totally automatic, and data
cannot be modified by error or a malicious user. If the previous requirements are met, a certificate is issued and the
item can be considered reusable (REEE). This report can
be uploaded to a compatible IT asset management system
(ITAMS) like DeviceHub.
DeviceHub: An ITAMS is focused on efficiently managing the circular life cycle of devices. It allows organisations to manage their hardware more effectively, avoiding
unnecessary asset purchases (reduce), promoting the harvesting of existing resources (internal reuse), and interacting with external systems to manage the different processes
involved in reusing and recycling, like disposal, external
reusing, tracking, etc. These systems can be other ITAMS
(like other DeviceHubs) or other solutions and traceability systems (like the global record of devices (GRD) global
traceability database of eReuse.org). DeviceHubs are federated and autonomous. After the device is registered in
a DeviceHub, the preparer or giver tags the computer by
printing its identifier and a QR code that points to the uniform resource locator (URL) where the device description is
stored. An example of instantiation of a DeviceHub is the
Devicetag.io service (see Figure 4).
eReuse.org App: The eReuse.org app is a smartphone
and tablet client for DeviceHub. It performs certain actions, like geolocating or visualising devices, that benefit
from portability, camera, and geolocation features of smartphones and tablets and from registering them to a DeviceHub using a subset of Device Diagnostic and Inventory functionality. The main features are 1) registering new geolocated places into DeviceHub and assigning devices to them,
2) shortcuts to actions that change the state of devices (e.g.,
receive, recycle, and locate), and 3) obtain information about
a device by scanning a printed QR code. The code is the
URL of the device in the DeviceHub where it has been registered. Some of these actions require geolocation data, as
they register where actions have been performed (Figure 5).
With DeviceHub and its client app, we can control different aspects that affect the reuse and recycling process.
It uses an ID system that uses QR codes for identification
and tracking purposes. After the device is registered, the
preparer or giver tags the computer by printing its identifier
and QR code that points to the URL where the device’s description is stored. Then, with the eReuse.org app, a smartphone can be used to geolocate and visualise the information
of any device.
Assurance of global traceability of devices is performed using two databases: the directory of collection points (DCP)
and the global record of devices (GRD).
Directory of Collection Points (DCP): To guarantee
final recycling of digital devices, the eReuse.org community
geolocates all authorised collection points (see Figure 6) and
asks their users to perform a geolocation action once they
send devices to collection for recycling. If the last recorded
geolocation has been done within the geographical area of
known collection points, we can say with some certainty that
the devices have been collected to be recycled. When that
Figure 3: eReuse.org software components.
Figure 4: DeviceHub Client front-end.
Figure 5: eReuse.org Android application.
Figure 6:
Recorded recycle collection points of
Barcelona with DCP.
action is performed by registered employees of a collection
point, the certainty will be higher.
Global Record of Devices (GRD): An online log that
maintains a global list of traceability information about devices, so it can assist if a device or component is lost or
if there are similar problems. The GRD works with open
data and is designed to be used with external users who
want to report traceability information. At the same time,
it aggregates traceability data with the goal to input the
data for measuring circularity indicators. The GRD provides a REST API to allow ITAMS, as DeviceHub, to report
about the life cycle of devices, environmental responsibility
for organisations, etc. From each device, it collects the approximate geographical path it has followed (not in detail to
preserve privacy), the DeviceHub where it has been stored
(URL), the collection points where it was located before its
final recycling, and the list of components in the case of
computers.
TransferHub: TransferHub is a system that manages the
distribution channel, focused on simplifying matchmaking
and transferals in the reuse process. It announces receivers
and givers, so they can find each other easily. Optionally,
it can add regulation or transaction mechanisms. TransferHub does not manage the donation itself; it interacts with
DeviceHub or similar ITAMS to acknowledge transfers and
to retrieve the available devices. TransferHub can support
three main transfer schemes:
1. Peer-to-peer, which enables transfers across individuals without any regulation scheme.
2. Social platform, which supports donation of devices to
excluded collectives and to projects for social change.
A social platform is an umbrella that federates specific
DeviceHubs from donors, receivers, and other platforms, building an electronic reuse ecosystem. The
main features are capturing offer (donations) and demand (social projects) to trade with reuse professional
service providers (preparation, installation, and maintenance), a donation service (legal advice), a payment
system, a social support crowdfunding, and a recommendation or reputation system.
3. Commerce, which adds the necessary mechanisms to
get paid by the transferal, such as an online store.
Reutilitza.cat is a working prototype of a TransferHub
with social platform functionality. In Catalonia, there are
several successful experiences of public organisations, private companies, reuse centres, and social recipients exchanging services and goods. This platform is in close cooperation
with the public waste agency, social enterprises that repair
and refurbish equipment, and consumer groups guaranteeing
the final recycling of the devices. The main tasks are finding
donors willing to donate at no cost to social receivers, finding volunteers or professionals willing to prepare computers
for reuse at donors’ locations, disseminating social projects
among donors, signing agreements between Reutilitza.cat
and professionals, recording legal asset transfers to donors
and receivers, ensuring financial sustainability of the platform with market prices for the services offered, and making
agreements with other agents that can finance the platform,
such as manufacturers (obligation to reuse) and public services (support social initiatives). Reutilitza.cat has 711 registered users; it has facilitated the donation of 1,640 digital
devices to 909 social initiatives and registered so far more
than 2,270 devices for eventual reuse (April 2016).
5.1
A Resource System for Circular Economy
Researchers, citizens, companies, and governments are building a resource system: a set of software tools, services, and
open data around the life cycle of digital devices. To facilitate the understanding of the value generated, the process
of data analysis is as follows. The Device Diagnostic and
Inventory tool obtains information about a device, which is
uploaded to a DeviceHub. Different DeviceHubs exchange
traceability data about the devices they manage with GRD
and DCP. Additionally, DCP provides knowledge regarding
the locations for recycling, while GRD provides information
about traceability and circularity information regarding devices, like durability of certain models, total usage time of
devices, or the path they have followed after acquiring them
until they have been recycled. This builds confidence in
donors, governments, manufacturers, and donor organisations and is in line with recent European directives. Most
importantly, it generates data that enables a transition towards a fully circular economy by building the knowledge
base for environmental action and sustainability.
The information in the eReuse.org GRD lifecycle repository should allow deducting the number of times a device
has been reused, its durability or elapsed time between first
and last usage, the total time the device has been operating,
and information regarding traceability. Apart from executing Device Diagnostic and Inventory on a computer, some of
this information can be provided automatically to users by
platforms using DeviceHub through programs installed on
their devices. To preserve the privacy of users, eReuse.org
only collects aggregated information in large periods of time,
like the number of months a device has been used. This information can be used by the platform to rate the reputation
of its receivers.
A person that finds any piece of electronic waste that has
been monitored by eReuse.org can notify eReuse.org about
it by sending its location. Leaked devices may not be in
good condition. Therefore, there are many ways to identify them, including introducing the serial numbers manually, executing the Device Diagnostic and Inventory (a tool
from eReuse.org), or scanning a printed QR code (placed
on the device in the preparation for reuse process) with the
eReuse.org smartphone app and automatically sending the
GPS coordinates. While eReuse.org does not have information about the identification of the last owner, it knows the
last ITAMS where the device was registered in, so it can be
notified.
6. CONCLUSIONS
Digital devices, so widespread in our world, have become
environmental risks as well as requirements to participate
in society. Reuse is a key step to develop a circular ecology
and economy that can extend the lifetime of these devices,
ensuring a final proper recycling, while creating less costly
devices for more people. This is a global issue, and the paper proposes a commons organisation and governance of a
federation of communities working towards the circularity
of digital devices, with a set of supporting software tools,
services, and data sets that enable and optimise the effectiveness of these organisations.
We describe the mature, open-source, decentralised, local,
scalable tools and services to optimise and certify preparation for reuse and to ensure traceability until recycling.
Reuse centres have a set of support tools to facilitate the
preparation and certification of devices for reuse (hardware
rating, deletion of data, tests of operation, inventory, labelling, finding recipients, and packaging). Reusers have
support tools to report further reuses and to finally recycle
them at authorised points. Social enterprises and reuse and
recycling centres can create their own instances (local web
portals) or operate one as a cloud service. These should find
sustainable models, offering donor services, such as preparation for reuse and maintenance services equivalent to an
extended guarantee to social recipients or follow the computing as a service model. Our methods and the open data
about durability allow providing better information to enable buyers to select products with high potential for reuse
and to avoid components with too-short durability, while
leaving the remaining for recycling.
We describe our current distributed ecosystem of federated and autonomous DeviceHub instances and support tools.
A data exchange protocol is standardised to facilitate global
traceability beyond locally known agents in the reuse chain
and produce open data while preserving privacy. This allows
third parties to use the aggregated open data in innovative
ways, such as for research or potential audits. Citizens can
analyse data concerning hardware tests and device and component durability and report on electronic waste landfills.
Future work will bring more experience in creating local
initiatives, new business models, and more data and improvements to every aspect of the current model. We believe this ecosystem of tools, services, and data, organised
as a commons, will help to mature the circular ecology of
digital devices that our world desperately needs.
7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work is supported by the European Community Framework Programme 7, Collective Awareness Platforms for
Sustainability and Social Innovation (CAPS), project “Collective enHanced Environment for Social Tasks” (CHEST),
contract 611333.
8. REFERENCES
[1] Apple. iPhone 5s Environmental Report, 2013.
[2] C. P. Balde, F. Wang, R. Kuehr, and J. Huisman. The
global e-waste monitor - 2014. United Nations
University, IAS - SCYCLE, Bonn, Germany, 2015.
[3] A. Cerrillo. Residus electrònics fora de control. La
Vanguardia., 29.05:28–29, 2014.
[4] CWIT partners. Countering WEEE Illegal Trade
Summary Report. CWIT project, Lyon, France, 2015.
[5] Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the
United Nations Secretariat. Trends in Sustainable
Development - Chemicals, Mining, Transport, Waste
Management. United Nations, 2010.
[6] J. B. (Editor). Beacons of the information society:
The alexandria proclamation on information literacy
and lifelong learning. Technical report, UNESCO, in
Alexandria, Egypt, 2005.
[7] E. M. Ercan. Global warming potential of a
smartphone: Using life cycle assessment methodology.
KTH Master of Science Thesis, 2013.
[8] Eurobarometer. Attitudes of europeans towards waste
management and resource efficiency. In Flash
Eurobarometer 388. European Commission, 2014.
[9] D. Franquesa, J. L. Cruz, C. Alvarez, F. Sanchez,
A. Fernandez, and D. Lopez. The social and
environmental impact of engineering solutions: from
the lab to the real world. Int J Eng Educ,
5(26):1144–1155, 2010.
[10] D. Franquesa, L. Navarro, D. López, X. Bustamante,
and S. Lamora. Breaking barriers on reuse of digital
devices ensuring final recycling. In EnviroInfo and
ICT for Sustainability 2015. Atlantis Press, 2015.
[11] M. Güvendik. From Smartphone to Futurephone:
Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Different
Circular Economy Scenarios of a Smartphone Using
LCA. TUDelft Institutional Repository, Aug. 2014.
[12] L. Maestri and R. Wakkary. Understanding repair as a
creative process of everyday design. In Proceedings of
the 8th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition,
pages 81–90, New York, NY, USA, 2011. ACM.
[13] M.J. Goedkoop, R. Heijungs, M. Huijbregts, A. De
Schryver, J. Struijs, R. Van Zelm. ReCiPe 2008, A life
cycle impact assessment method which comprises
harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and
the endpoint level. First edition Report I:
Characterisation, 6 January 2009.
[14] Nokia. Eco profile Nokia Lumia 820, 2012.
[15] Nokia. Eco profile Nokia Asha 311, 2013.
[16] Nokia. Eco profile Nokia Lumia 1520, 2013.
[17] O. G. F. on Environment Focusing on Sustainable
Materials Management. Materials case study 1:
Critical metals and mobile devices. Working
document, October 2010.
[18] E. Ostrom. Governing the commons: the evolution of
institutions for collective action. Cambridge University
Press, Nov. 1990.
[19] C. Periou. Waste: the challenges facing developing
countries - world production of municipal solid waste,
2012-2025. Private Sector & Development, 1(15):1–6,
October 2012.
[20] C. Remy and E. Huang. Limits and sustainable
interaction design: Obsolescence in a future of collapse
and resource scarcity. First Monday, 20(8), 2015.
[21] M. Schuelp, C. Hagelueken, and R. Kuehr. Recycling
from e-waste to resources. United Nations Environ
Program United Nations University, 2009.
[22] K. Toyama. Preliminary thoughts on a taxonomy of
value for sustainable computing. First Monday, 20(8),
2015.