Environmental injustice: How informal e-waste recycling impacts human rights

Nature and extent of the issue

Since 2010, e-waste generation has outpaced formal collection and recycling by almost a factor of five. There is a predicted decline in the e-waste recycling rate from 22.3 per cent in 2022 to 20 per cent in 2030 due to the widening gap in recycling efforts as e-waste continues to rise globally.⁶ Key factors driving the unrelenting growth of e-waste include: “higher consumption, the growing electronification of society, technological progress, design shortcomings, limited repair options, and insufficient infrastructure for the management of e-waste”.⁷

The Global E-Waste Monitor reports on the scale of the global e-waste crisis every four years. An estimated 62 billion kgs of e-waste was generated globally in 2022,⁸ which equates to the weight of 107,000 of the world’s heaviest and largest passenger aircraft.⁹ Only 22.3 per cent was documented as formally collected and recycled, leaving almost 80 per cent unaccounted for.¹⁰ Notably, around 18 billion kgs is processed in low and lower middle-income countries, primarily by the informal e-waste sector.¹¹ When measured per capita, Europeans produce the most e-waste per person (16.2kg), followed by Oceania (16.1kg) and the Americas (13.3kg).¹² There is a link between a region’s per capita purchasing power and the amount of e-waste it generates, as higher-income regions tend to consume more goods.¹³ E-waste tends to make its way from high-income to low-income countries for end of life processes. Specific areas of China, Ghana, and Nigeria are major hubs for informal e-waste recycling.¹⁴

The approximate weight of metals embedded in e-waste in 2022 was 31 billion kgs valued at US$91 billion. Valuable metals in e-waste include gold, copper, cobalt, and iron.¹⁵  Proper recycling of e-waste minimises environmental harm and enables the recovery of rare resources, which can be reused in manufacturing, reducing the need to mine for new materials.¹⁶ While precious metals are extremely valuable, e-waste mismanagement resulted in a global loss of around US$37 billion in 2022, mainly due to the health and environmental costs from hazardous substances and greenhouse gas emissions.¹⁷

Moral complexities and associated human rights infringements

The mismanagement of e-waste poses an alarming threat to a variety of human rights, including the right to a healthy environment, right to health, right to a safe working environment, and the rights of children who are often used as cheap labour.

Nonetheless, employment in the informal e-waste recycling sector presents a complex ethical dilemma: whilst it violates fundamental human rights; it also provides a significant source of income for those living in poverty.

At the Dandora dump site in Nairobi, Kenya, this tension was captured by a worker who remarked, “if you don’t go to work, you don’t eat”.¹⁸ For many, scavenging is a survival strategy.

Similarly, Nigeria’s informal e-waste recycling sector employs over 100,000 people and plays an important role in the economy. It has been credited for keeping young men out of crime and providing essential income.¹⁹ However, environmental studies conducted in 2023 at the Alaba International Market and Ikeja Computer Village in Lagos, Nigeria revealed concerning levels of contamination. Groundwater at these sites contained high concentrations of heavy metals such as iron, chromium, and copper, while soil quality exceeded World Health Organisation (WHO) safety limits.²⁰ As the residents rely on groundwater to survive, the health index for both children and adults raises major concerns.

Right to a healthy environment

The UN Human Rights Council formally recognises the right to a healthy environment, including clean air and water, as a fundamental human right.²¹ Over 160 countries protect this right through legal frameworks,²² and international case law increasingly connects environmental protection with human rights.²³

When e-waste is heated or burned, harmful chemicals are released into the air and can contaminate groundwater, putting aquatic and terrestrial species at risk.²⁴ In communities that rely on groundwater, this pollution denies them access to clean and safe water.

Unsafe recycling methods can introduce up to 1,000 toxic chemicals into the environment, polluting the air, soil, and water, and contaminating the food supply. The toxic fumes from these activities can travel long distances, affecting even distant communities.²⁵ Annually, improper e-waste disposal releases an estimated 58,000 kgs of mercury and 45 million kgs of plastics containing brominated flame retardants into the environment.²⁶ Informal e-waste workers often dismantle electronics on roadsides and riverbanks, releasing toxic substances and harmful fumes. These crude recycling methods contribute to severe environmental pollution and degradation.²⁷

Right to health

The right to the highest standard of physical and mental health is recognised by various international law instruments, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.²⁸ Improper e-waste recycling violates this right by exposing workers and surrounding communities to serious health risks, including respiratory diseases, neurological damage, and carcinogens which may cause cancer.²⁹ These toxic substances enter the human body through inhalation, ingestion, skin absorption and can accumulate through the food chain.³⁰

Pregnant women and children are especially vulnerable due to their exposure pathways and developing bodies. For pregnant women, e-waste exposure has been linked to higher rates of stillbirth and premature birth. The neurotoxicants in e-waste, such as lead and mercury, can disrupt the development of the central nervous system during pregnancy and childhood, leading to impaired neurodevelopment, learning difficulties, and behavioural issues.

Additionally, exposure to e-waste air pollution can harm lung health and increase asthma risk.³¹ Medical tests on e-waste scavengers (averaging three years of working), revealed impaired lung function and high blood pressure – potential precursors to life-threatening diseases. Some warn of a “ticking time bomb”, yet many workers, driven by necessity, continue despite the risks of severe illness and death.³²

Right to a safe working environment

The right to a safe and healthy working environment is a fundamental principle of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and is enshrined in its international conventions. ³³

As noted above, e-waste workers are exposed to many serious health risks, and those in the informal e-waste sector are often denied their right to a safe working environment. Without modern industrial methods or adequate protective equipment, they face significant risks of injury, long-term health issues, and even death.³⁴ Practices like scavenging, open burning, and acid baths expose them to hazardous substances such as lead, mercury, and brominated flame retardants.³⁵

Rights of the child

The rights of children, which are recognised by the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child, are disproportionately exploited in the informal e-waste sector. Children are often used as cheap labour because their small hands allow them to dismantle the smallest of items. These children face direct exposure to injury and hazardous substances. According to the ILO, waste picking is considered one of the worst forms of child labour.³⁶ It is estimated that up to 16.5 million children worldwide work in the industrial sector, which includes e-waste processing. ³⁷

Existing international and local legal protections

International law

While no international treaty specifically addresses the environmental and human rights issue of e-waste scavenging, several legal frameworks provide indirect protection for informal e-waste workers by promoting safe working conditions and reducing hazardous exposures.

The Basel Convention (1989) regulates the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes (including e-waste), aiming to reduce waste generation and prevent its illegal export to countries without proper handling infrastructure. Exporters are required to obtain prior informed consent from the receiving country, limiting unsafe e-waste disposal practices.³⁸ The Stockholm Convention (2001) aims to promote safer recycling practices by restricting toxic chemicals in e-waste, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and brominated flame retardants, which persist in the environment and harm human health.³⁹ The Rotterdam Convention (1998) enhances informed decision-making regarding hazardous chemicals in e-waste, by requiring exporters to notify importing countries of the chemical risks. This promotes safer handling and reduces unsafe practices like scavenging by ensuring receiving countries are aware of potential hazards.

Nevertheless, countries like Nigeria and Ghana remain actively involved in the informal e-waste recycling sector. Likewise, the volume of e-waste produced by wealthy nations that is ultimately disposed of informally in these countries continues to increase, despite being prohibited under international law.

Foreign domestic frameworks

On a global scale, 81 countries currently have a national e-waste policy, law, or regulation, and 67 countries apply the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) principle. The EPR principle is a policy approach to make producers responsible for their products along the entire lifecycle, including at the post-consumer stage.⁴⁰ More impressively, 46 countries have enshrined national e-waste collection targets in their regulations. ⁴¹

China has notably established several laws which collectively aim to manage e-waste by encouraging responsible recycling, regulating informal recycling practices, and holding manufacturers accountable via EPR policy.⁴² Whilst China was previously identified as one of the countries using mislabelling loopholes to disguise e-waste imports as ‘scrap metal’, it has made incremental progress though legislative amendments to ban such imports.⁴³

Illegal exports of e-waste can sometimes avoid detection by going through smaller ports where it is transhipped, and customs officers can be bribed by exporters.⁴⁴ Nigeria and Ghana also have laws in place to regulate e-waste, as well as environmental policies designed to promote the safe management and recycling of e-waste, ban informal recycling, and prevent the importation of e-waste.⁴⁵ Despite this, informal dismantling persists as regulations are often undermined by limited resources for enforcement, inadequate recycling facilities, and global trade dynamics, compounded by the low cost and high economic returns of informal e-waste management.

Australian framework (laws, regulations and initiatives)

In Australia, the regulation of e-waste and its exportation is governed by several federal and state laws. Whilst some regions of Australia experience challenges with illegal dumping and improper recycling practices, informal e-waste dismantling is a much less common occurrence than in developing countries as there is legislation which provides deterrent factors through the imposition for example of enforceable waste duties, it being an offence in certain jurisdictions to engage in activities which result in environmental harm or expose individuals to hazardous substances.⁴⁶

These laws include:

1. National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 (Cth): establishes the national environment Protection Council which make policy including the National Environment Protection (Movement of Controlled Waste between States and Territories) Measure (NEPM), a framework for the movement of controlled wastes (which would include e-wastes) in an manner that minimises potential for adverse impacts on the environment and human health. Enforcement and penalties for non-compliance with the NEPM is primarily governed by state and territory laws. For example under the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic), offences related to improper industrial waste disposal (including the mishandling of e-waste) can attract penalties of up to $1.975 million for corporations and $395,000 for individuals, for serious breaches. ⁴⁷
2. Hazardous Waste (Import and Export) Act 1989 (Cth) and its associated Regulations: implement Australia's obligations under the Basel Convention to ensure hazardous waste exports are subject to proper management practices overseas, as well as ensuring that imports of hazardous waste are responsibly processed domestically.⁴⁸ E-waste containing hazardous materials like lead, mercury, and cadmium cannot be exported from Australia without meeting strict requirements, such as obtaining prior informed consent from the receiving country.⁴⁹
3. Product Stewardship Act 2011 (Cth): provides a national framework for managing the environmental impacts of certain products to ensure end-of-life products are appropriately handled by producers, importers, and users. NSW is the first state to introduce specific legislated product stewardship requirements for the lifecycle of regulated products, commencing with regulation of the handling and disposal of batteries, a particularly hazardous form of e-waste. ⁵⁰
4. Export Control Act 2020 (Cth): supports the prohibition of illegal or unsanctioned exports of hazardous materials under the Basel and Rotterdam Conventions by regulating the exportation of e-waste and restricting the export of goods that are not compliant with Australian environmental and safety standards.
5. Australian Consumer Law (ACL): provides protection for those affected by greenwashing ie where a business claims to responsibly recycle e-waste without following proper recycling protocols.

Role of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

As we have explored, the global issue of informal e-waste recycling poses a threat to the human rights of individual workers, as well as the communities surrounding these e-waste hot spots. The 17 SDGs provide a shared blueprint for the future prosperity of earth and its people. The SDGs were adopted by all UN Member States in 2015 as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.⁵¹

The issue of informal e-waste recycling primarily concerns the following SDGs:

• SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
• SDG 6 - Clean Water and Sanitations
• SDG 8 - Decent Work and Economic Growth
• SDG 11 - Sustainable Cities and Communities
• SDG 12 - Responsible Consumption and Production
• SDG 13 - Climate Action
• SDG 14 - Life Below Water
• SDG 15 - Life On Land

The global nature of the e-waste trade complicates efforts to track, regulate, and control the movement of harmful materials. Therefore, an effective global e-waste monitoring framework is essential to taking steps towards measuring and affecting positive outcomes.

Currently, the SDG monitoring framework has three e-waste indicators, namely, total e-waste generated; e-waste formally collected and managed; and e-waste collection rate.⁵²

E-waste statistics are essential for monitoring key indicators associated with SDG 12, which addresses sustainable consumption and production, as well as SDG 11, which focuses on fostering sustainable cities and communities.⁵³ E-waste also provides the pre-requisite information for estimating five additional critical elements of monitoring other SDGs, such as:

• The ‘resources in e-waste’, linked to SDG 12, which promotes responsible consumption and protection.
• The ‘economic impact’, associated with SDG 8, which promotes decent work and economic growth.
• The ‘environmental impact’, pertinent to SDGs 3, 13, and 15, which concern health, climate action, and the protection of terrestrial ecosystems.

Quality e-waste statistical monitoring and reporting is crucial for effectively advancing the SDGs and the insights can support the creation of target-driven policies that address the environmental and social impacts of e-waste.

While the abovementioned SDGs provide an encouraging human rights agenda, their effectiveness in protecting against exposure to toxic chemicals is limited in the absence of stronger enforcement mechanisms and primarily, a global shift toward sustainable production and consumption practices. The rights of the individual exposed to e-waste chemicals require not only domestic legal protections and social reforms, but also international collaboration to reduce the overall global burden of e-waste.

Without addressing structural inequalities and weak regulatory enforcement, the SDGs alone cannot fully protect these vulnerable populations. In order to address the multifaceted environmental and human rights issue, an elevated level of international coordination and accountability is required to close regulatory loopholes, enhance customs enforcement, improve SDG monitoring and reporting, and improve infrastructure and reduce global over consumption of electronic goods.

What does the future of e-waste look like

In a major step forward, as of January 2025, researchers at Cornell University developed an innovative method to extract gold from e-waste using chemical adsorption. This offers a dual benefit of safely recovering valuable precious metals whilst also reducing the environmental hazards of both e-waste and gold mining. The environmental impact can be further minimised by repurposing recovered metals to convert carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into organic matter.⁵⁴ This recent development offers some hope that modern, sustainable solutions will continue to be developed to help combat the escalating e-waste crisis while safeguarding human rights.

A meaningful reduction in global e-waste will ultimately rely on multiple actors including the global community’s efforts to reduce the overall consumption of electronic goods (particularly in wealthy nations), manufacturers making appropriate end of life arrangements for products, and states imposing Extended Producer Responsibility principles and tightening the enforcement of current e-waste regulations.