Shri Vile Parle Kelavani Mandal’s Narsee Monjee

College of Commerce and Economics (Autonomous)

2021-22

Ethics & Social Responsibility

FYBCOM
Semester I

Title of the Project/Assignment: E-WASTE A GLOBAL CHALLENGE

Submitted by:

Vidhit Vohra

SAP No: 45208210264

Contact Number: 8879750525

Roll No:

F098
HOW ARE UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRIES AFFECTED BY DEVELOPED
COUNTRIES DUMPING THEIR E – WASTE IN UNDERDEVELOPED
COUNTRIES AT CHEAPER OR NO RATES?
Electronic waste (e-waste) is a rapidly developing environmental problem particularly for the
most developed countries. There are technological solutions for processing it, but these are
costly, and the cheaper option for most developed countries has been to export most of the
waste to less developed countries. There are various laws and policies for regulating the
processing of e-waste at different governance scales such as the international Basel
Convention, the regional Bamoko Convention, and various national laws. However, many of
the regulations are not fully implemented and there is substantial financial pressure to
maintain the jobs created for processing e-waste. Mexico, Brazil, Ghana Nigeria, India, and
China have been selected for a more detailed study of the transboundary movements of e-
waste.

There is no denying that e-waste disposal is a global problem, especially with the growing
number of health issues that are caused by pollution in the air and contamination of our
drinking water. Global e-waste dumping has been a recurring problem faced by many third
world countries including China, India, and Africa. Tons and tons of electronic waste are
dumped and disposed of in landfills and incinerators every year in the United States. Equally
threatening is the exportation of e-waste to developing countries around the world mainly to
Guiyu, China. It has been reported that the United States alone exports more than half of its
e-waste to China. Irresponsible and poor e-waste management directly harms China’s
population and pollutes their environment. An overwhelming majority of electronics and
digital devices contain toxic chemicals namely lead and mercury, which can significantly
threaten one’s health and cause significant defects and damage to the respiratory,
reproductive, and/or nervous system. As we become more technologically advanced, more
old electronics will be discarded and exported to developing countries as waste. Once
transported to these developing countries, the e-waste will likely end up in recycling centers
operated right in people’s backyards.

Unlike the United States, China uses outdated and inadequate recycling methods to process
and manufacture old and used electronics. For example, to handle useless plastic, glass, and
or heavy metal materials, migrant workers would often burn or incinerate plastic casings or
directly dump acid from heavy metal components into the river or irrigation ditches. A vast
majority of e-waste is exported to China and Nigeria from North America. According to the
Basel Action Network (BAN), e-waste is processed and dumped into rivers near residential
homes in Guangdong Province in China. Components of an old or broken circuit board are
often handled in a crude and unsafe manner. This is because China lacks the technology and
resources that enable them to recycle and re-manufacture electronic waste properly. Although
the United States has the technology and resources to recycle e-waste properly and carefully,
the U.S. still chooses to export some of its e-waste to developing countries around the world
due to their cheap labor.

Because China and other poverty-stricken countries lack a regulated e-waste

recycling infrastructure, they will inevitably continue to face dangerous living conditions and
a life-threatening environment. Surprisingly, most of the e-waste exported to these emerging
countries are not in a reusable condition and are often non-repairable. Therefore, waste is
regularly being dumped into landfills and rivers. Many environmental groups blame the U.S.
government for their ignorance and poor regulation of e-waste exportation. At the same time,
the re-manufacturing and processing of e-waste can improve the economy as it creates
employment opportunities for migrant workers but only at the expense of China’s health and
environment. Without adequate and sustainable e-waste management practices and a strict
import ban policy, developing countries will continue to face health and environmental
challenges due to global dumping.
HOW ARE CHILDREN , WOMEN AND WORKERS AFFECTED BY E – WASTE
WHEN THEY ARE SENT TO COLLECT PRECIOUS METALS?

Effective and binding action is urgently required to protect the millions of children,
adolescents and expectant mothers worldwide whose health is jeopardized by the informal
processing of discarded electrical or electronic devices according to a new ground-breaking
report from the World Health Organization: Children and Digital Dumpsites.

“With mounting volumes of production and disposal, the world faces what one recent
international forum described as a mounting “tsunami of e-waste”, putting lives and health at
risk.” said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General. "In the same way the
world has rallied to protect the seas and their ecosystems from plastic and microplastic
pollution, we need to rally to protect our most valuable resource –the health of our children –
from the growing threat of e-waste.”

As many as 12.9 million women are working in the informal waste sector, which potentially
exposes them to toxic e-waste and puts them and their unborn children at risk.

Meanwhile more than 18 million children and adolescents, some as young as 5 years of age,
are actively engaged in the informal industrial sector, of which waste processing is a sub-
sector. Children are often engaged by parents or caregivers in e-waste recycling because their
small hands are more dexterous than those of adults. Other children live, go to school and
play near e-waste recycling centres where high levels of toxic chemicals, mostly lead and
mercury, can damage their intellectual abilities 

Children exposed to e-waste are particularly vulnerable to the toxic chemicals they contain
due to their smaller size, less developed organs and rapid rate of growth and development.
They absorb more pollutants relative to their size and are less able to metabolize or eradicate
toxic substances from their bodies.

Workers, aiming to recover valuable materials such as copper and gold, are at risk of
exposure to over 1,000 harmful substances, including lead, mercury, nickel, brominated
flame retardants and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

For an expectant mother, exposure to toxic e-waste can affect the health and development of
her unborn child for the rest of its life. Potential adverse health effects include negative birth
outcomes, such as stillbirth and premature births, as well as low birth weight and length. 
Exposure to lead from e-waste recycling activities has been associated with significantly
reduced neonatal behavioural neurological assessment scores, increased rates of attention
deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), behavioural problems, changes in child temperament,
sensory integration difficulties, and reduced cognitive and language scores.

Other adverse child health impacts linked to e-waste include changes in lung function,
respiratory and respiratory effects, DNA damage, impaired thyroid function and increased
risk of some chronic diseases later in life, such as cancer and cardiovascular disease.

“A child who eats just one chicken egg from Agbogbloshie, a waste site in Ghana, will
absorb 220 times the European Food Safety Authority daily limit for intake of chlorinated
dioxins,” said Marie-Noel Brune Drisse, the lead WHO author on the report. “Improper e-
waste management is the cause.  This is a rising issue that many countries do not recognize
yet as a health problem. If they do not act now, its impacts will have a devastating health
effect on children and lay a heavy burden on the health sector in the years to come.” 
HEALTH HAZARDS FACED BY PEOPLE LIVING AROUND SUCH DUMPING
GROUNDS.
We recorded plausible outcomes associated with exposure to e-waste including change
in thyroid function, changes in cellular expression and function, adverse neonatal outcomes,
changes in temperament and behaviour, and decreased lung function. Boys aged 8–9 years
living in an e-waste recycling town had a lower forced vital capacity than did those living in a
control town. Significant negative correlations between blood chromium concentrations and
forced vital capacity in children aged 11 and 13 years were also reported. Findings from most
studies showed increases in spontaneous abortions, stillbirths, and premature births, and
reduced birthweights and birth lengths associated with exposure to e-waste.

People living in e-waste recycling towns or working in e-waste recycling had evidence of
greater DNA damage than did those living in control towns. Studies of the effects of exposure
to e-waste on thyroid function were not consistent. One study related exposure to e-waste and
waste electrical and electronic equipment to educational outcomes.

Research shows that people living closer to landfill sites suffer from medical conditions such
as asthma, cuts, diarrhoea, stomach pain, reoccurring flu, cholera, malaria, cough, skin
irritation, cholera, diarrhoea and tuberculosis more than the people living far away from
landfill sites . The causes of the health problems are as a result of continuous exposure to
chemicals; inhalation of toxic fumes and dust from the landfill sites. Additionally, a review
on the “residential proximity to environmental hazards and adverse health outcomes” showed
a significant correlation between residential proximity to environmental hazards and adverse
health outcomes especially risks for central nervous system defects, congenital heart defects,
oral defects, low birth weight, cancer, leukaemia, asthma, chronic respiratory symptoms, etc.

The author noted that although residents living closer to the landfill appear to be more prone
to adverse effects of health outcomes, the proximity does not equate to the individuals’ level
of exposure . The health hazard is dependent on the level of exposure of the residents to the
pollutants and concentration of the pollutants. Landfill proximity to residents will also have
significant effects on property value in the area.

The by-products of solid waste deposited in a landfill has adverse effects on the surrounding
environment and humans living closer to landfill sites. This study sought to test the
hypothesis that the deposition of waste on landfill has an impact on the surrounding
environment and residents living closer to it. This was achieved by evaluating the perception
of the respondents drawn from people living close (100–500 m) and far (1–2 km) from the
landfill site, concerning environmental issues, health problems, and life satisfaction. Results
from the study showed that 78% of participants living closer to the landfill site indicated
serious contamination of air quality evident from bad odours linked to the landfill site.
Illnesses such as flu, eye irritation and weakness of the body were frequently reported by
participants living closer to the landfill than those living far from the landfill. More than half
of the participants (56%) living closer to the landfill indicated fear of their health in the
future. Thus, the participants living closer to the landfill site were less satisfied with the
location of their community with respect to the landfill, than those living far from the landfill
site.

The continuous inhalation of CH4 by humans can cause loss of coordination, nausea,
vomiting and high concentration can cause death . Acidic gases like nitrogen dioxide, sulphur
dioxide, and halides have harmful effects on the health and environment when introduced .
Studies have shown that when nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide are inhaled or ingested
by humans, symptoms such as nose and throat irritations, bronchoconstriction, dysproca and
respiratory infections are prevalent, especially in asthmatic patients. These effects can trigger
asthma attacks in asthmatic patients .

In addition, high contact of NO2 by humans increases the susceptibility to respiratory

infections . Furthermore, when these acidic gases reach the atmosphere, they tend to acidify
the moisture in the atmosphere and fall down as acid rain. Phadi et al. identified that sulphur
dioxide has harmful effects on plant growth and productivity. In addition, humans are at the
risk of reduced lung function, asthma, ataxia, paralysis, vomiting emphyserra and lung cancer
when heavy metals are inhaled or ingested. Illnesses like, high blood pressure and anaemia
have been shown to be caused by heavy metal pollution .

Additionally, when in contact in high proportions, heavy metals affect the nervous system
which causes neurotoxicity leading to neuropathies with symptoms like memory
disturbances, sleep disorders, anger, fatigue, head tremors, blurred vision and slurred speech.
It can also cause kidney damage like initial tubular dysfunction, risk of stone formation or
nephrocalcinosis, and renal cancer. When humans are exposed to a high amount of lead, it
can cause injury to the dopamine system, glutamate system and N-methyl-D-Asphate
(NMDA).
HOW DO MNCs PROFIT FROM E – WASTE AND IS IT ETHICAL? HOW DO
THEY MANIPULATE TO EARN MORE PROFITS WITHOUT CONSIDERING
THE EFFECT OF RISING E – WASTE?

Up to 90 per cent of the world's electronic waste, worth nearly US $19 billion, is illegally
traded or dumped each year, according to a report released today by the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP).

Each year, the electronic industry - one of the world's largest and fastest growing - generates
up to 41 million tonnes of e-waste from goods such as computers and smart phones. Forecasts
say that figure may reach 50 million tonnes already by 2017.

A staggering 60-90 per cent of this waste is illegally traded or dumped, according to
UNEP's "Waste Crimes, Waste Risks: Gaps and Challenges In the Waste Sector", launched
today in Geneva, at the Conference of Parties to the three major conventions addressing the
global waste issue, the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions.

The International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) estimates the price of a tonne
of e-waste at around US $500. Following this calculation, the value of unregistered and
informally handled, including illegally traded and dumped e-waste ranges from US $12.5 to
US $18.8 billion annually.

AT&T; has agreed to pay nearly $52 million for illegally dumping hazardous electronic
waste, in a settlement that represents the first legal action taken in California against a
telecommunication company’s e-waste dumping.

Over the next five years, AT&T; will pay $28 million to improve its environmental
compliance measures, in addition to $23.8 million in civil penalties and other legal costs. The
settlement, which still needs court approval to become official, is a result of a 2011
investigation by a California District Attorney’s Office and the state Department of Toxic
Substances Control that found that AT&T; was “routinely and systematically sending
hazardous wastes to local landfills that were not permitted to receive those wastes.”
According to the investigation, more than 230 AT&T; warehouses and facilities across
California had, over a period of nine years, been improperly handling and disposing of
hazardous wastes, including batteries, aerosol cans, and certain gels and liquids.

“This settlement holds AT&T; accountable for unlawfully dumping electronic waste,”
California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris said in a statement. “The illegal disposal of
hazardous waste can lead to serious environmental and health risks for California
communities. AT&T; will be required to implement strict compliance measures at its
facilities that set an example for other companies to safeguard our communities against
hazardous waste.”

The environmental protection measures that AT&T; has agreed to take are intended to be
enough to prevent the company from illegally disposing of e-waste in the future. AT&T; will
be subject to three independent audits over the next five years, in addition to hundreds of
annual “unannounced dumpster inspections.”

But AT&T; isn’t the only company to be hit with legal action for its improper disposal of e-
waste. In 2011, Target agreed to pay $22.5 million to settle a lawsuit that charged the
company with illegally disposing of hazardous waste in hundreds of California stores. In
2013, the owner of Colorado-based Executive Recycling Inc. was sentenced to 30 months in
federal prison for his role in the company, which billed itself as an e-waste recycler but which
in reality had been selling electronic waste to overseas buyers. Executive Recycling was also
sentenced to pay a $4,500,000 fine and serve three years probation for fraud and international
environmental crimes.

The disposal of e-waste — which, depending on the type, can include a wide range of toxic
substances including lead, mercury, and arsenic — presents major environmental challenges
worldwide. In 2013, Bloomberg called the disposal of e-waste “one of the biggest
conundrums of the digital age,” citing data that showed that out of the 47.4 million
computers, 27.2 million televisions, and 141 million mobile devices disposed of in the U.S.
each year, only a quarter are recycled.
FLAWS IN DUMPING E – WASTE HOW IT SHOULDN’T BE DUMPED.
1. Flexible interpretations of the rules framed by the DGFT. This enables the Customs
Authorities to take on-the-spot decisions and provide rules exemption. In order to check and
detect the illegal import of old PCs (import without license), Customs Authorities have been
delegated power to take on-the-spot decisions, going from the confiscation of goods to the
imposition of fines on such imports. However, after the imposition of a fine, importers are
allowed to take possession of the goods. Taking advantage of this, an importer can release
goods by paying a fine to the Customs Department. The DGFT Authority also accepts at
times that the Customs Authority allows importers to escape full penalty by an under-
assessment of illegally imported goods.

2. There is no Exim code for trade in second-hand computers for donation purpose or for
resale. For trade purposes, the computers are classified under the same Exim code as new
computers. Both second-hand and new computers are classified under chapter 84 of the
Indian Customs Tariff Act. Thus, trade data for new computers includes data for old
computers. Taking advantage of this, exporters sometimes club old and junk computers along
with new ones.

3. Taking advantage of the flexibility in the interpretation of rules, some Port Authorities also
make a distinction between capital goods and non-capital goods in order to facilitate the
import of told PCs. For them, old computers imported as a donation to educational or
charitable institutions come under the ‘capital goods’ category. Being capital goods, they are
then under the free list and access various tax benefits.

4. Other old computers (less than 10-year old) imported for the purpose of resale or recycling
come under the ‘non-capital goods’ category and can only be imported against a license. In
order to avoid the burden of high taxes, in case of import under non-capital goods category,
importers indulge in price under-invoicing of goods. The liberal position taken by the
Customs Authority for keeping imported old PCs under capital goods in the free list (Items
which do not require any license under the export and import policy have been denoted as
‘free’ subject to licensing notes) is in direct opposition to the position taken by the
representatives of DGFT. For them, any old items should only be imported against a license
and an arbitrary distinction between capital goods and non- capital goods should not be
allowed. Also, keeping his identity undisclosed, one of the Customs appraisers at the Chennai
port revealed that some importers procure old computers in the name of a donation to a
school. In order to get the benefit of tax concession and ease in import, they get registration
of school under the Society Act 1968, without actually establishing such school.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:-

https://www.downtoearth.org.in/coverage/developing-countries-are-dumpyards-for-
ewaste-13697

https://www.who.int/news/item/15-06-2021-soaring-e-waste-affects-the-health-of-
millions-of-children-who-warns

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/5302/htm

https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/toxic-e-waste-dumped-in-poor-nations-says-united-nations

https://www.hilarispublisher.com/open-access/effects-of-electronic-waste-on-developing-
countries-2475-7675-1000128.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6617357/

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/miscellaneous/tech-companies-mncs-
strive-to-recycle-the-waste-they-generate/articleshow/59013288.cms

https://www.businessinsider.in/ewaste-management-is-problem-for-countries-like-
india/articleshow/68077810.cms

https://www.wcrecycler.com/blog/exporting-e-waste-its-direct-affect-on-third-world-
countries