Britain’s approach to electronic waste is prioritising disposal over repair, allowing valuable devices and materials to slip through the net, according to new research from the University of Surrey.
The study, published in Business Strategy and the Environment, found that only around 2% to 2.5% of devices observed at a municipal recycling centre were considered suitable for reuse. By contrast, analysis of items taken to Repair Cafés showed that 50% were successfully repaired and another 28% were potentially repairable.
The findings suggest that community repair services and local maker spaces should become a formal part of the UK’s electronic waste system. Better decisions about whether products should be repaired, reused, dismantled for parts or recycled could reduce waste, recover valuable materials and prevent unnecessary carbon emissions. Most products in the analysis became obsolete within four to eight years, with mobile phones lasting around four and a half years.
Researchers examined 10,678 UK Repair Café records and conducted site visits at Slyfield Recycling Centre and a Repair Café in Guildford. They combined these observations with government emissions data and mathematical models to test how electronic waste could be transported, assessed and processed more efficiently. The models also considered costs, waiting times, staffing capacity and the recovery of materials such as copper from old mobile phones.
Sheeba Pathak, lead author of the study and Doctoral Researcher at the University of Surrey, said:
“Too many electrical products are treated as waste before anyone has properly considered whether they can be repaired, reused or stripped for valuable parts. Recycling has an important role, but it should not automatically be the first destination for a device that may still have years of useful life.
" Our research shows that businesses can become more efficient while saving money and improving sustainability, challenging the idea that greener practices are always more expensive.”
The researchers developed an integrated framework in which recycling centres act as coordination hubs, directing products to repair services, maker spaces and specialist processors. Its decision system weighs cost, carbon emissions and processing time to identify the most appropriate route for each product.
The findings support producer-financed collection schemes and stronger take-back responsibilities for manufacturers and online marketplaces. They also call for community repair organisations to receive formal recognition, funding and skills support rather than remaining disconnected volunteer initiatives.
Sheeba Pathak continued:
“Repair Cafés already show what can be achieved, but relying on goodwill alone will not solve Britain’s electronic waste problem. Connecting these services with councils, manufacturers and recycling operators would help keep products in use, recover valuable resources locally and make the whole system more accountable.”
ENDS