India’s famously robust culture of reduce, reuse and recycle does not extend to electronics. The United Nations’ Digital Economy Report 2024, released last week, pegs our e-waste at around 1.8 million tonnes per year, and growing at the fastest rate globally. Addressing this burgeoning mountain of discarded electronics, from tablets to TV screens and computers to kitchen appliances, calls for a Right to Repair. Just how effective can it be?
The purpose of a Right to Repair (R2R) law, as part of Mission Circular Economy, is to empower consumers, reduce wastage of scarce minerals used in electronics manufacture, eliminate the toxic effects of e-waste and create millions of direct jobs in the repair industry. To that end, the government’s Right to Repair portal urges manufacturers to upload product details and repair manuals. Some companies comply to enhance their credibility, but those with a dominant market presence see no real advantage in doing so.
The strategies employed by manufacturers to boost sales are now common knowledge. ‘Planned obsolescence’ limits the longevity of products, so that the consumer is forced to invest regularly in new ones. Apart from impacting the consumers’ pockets, the practice is geared towards creating e-waste. The other strategy is to make spare parts available only through company-affiliated entities, which makes consumers dependent on those companies.
For example, a smartphone user often has to endure a long wait at an authorised service centre, only to be told that repairs are either exorbitantly expensive or can’t be done, and a new product must be purchased. Likewise, the friendly neighbourhood repairman cannot fix a refrigerator, because the required component is only available with the company.
.jpg)
An R2R framework would certainly guard against exploitation of consumers and monopolistic tendencies. Anti-trust lawsuits against automobile manufacturers and IT giants take years to resolve — too long a delay for consumers. If independent repair businesses can legally access authentic components and information on products, they will be empowered to provide services to consumers at competitive prices. Broad-basing access to repair will save both time and money, and prevent spurious components from flooding the market. In effect, the consumer becomes independent of the manufacturer, and millions of jobs are created in the process.
On the flip side, studies in the west have shown that manufacturers respond to R2R in two ways. If manufacturing costs are low, they flood the market with cheap products. The price is so low that consumers choose to replace rather than repair the product. This ends up creating more e-waste. If manufacturing costs are high, the product is priced accordingly, but free repairs are thrown in. So R2R makes no difference to the consumer.
Further, it has been pointed out that low-cost repairs might incentivise consumers to continue using old, energy-inefficient products (such as air conditioners), which will not benefit the environment. Manufacturers have also raised intellectual property rights and security issues, pointing out that making proprietary information public could endanger consumers’ devices and make them vulnerable to data theft. The jury is still out on whether this constitutes a real threat.
A strong argument in favour of R2R is that India can’t afford to be profligate in the use of electronics. The minerals and rare earth elements that go into making electronic hardware and semi-conductors (chips) are in short supply globally. India is fully dependent on imports for critical metals such as lithium, cobalt and nickel, as well as for the rare earths. In June last year, it joined the Minerals Security Partnership, a collaboration of countries endeavouring to ensure a stable supply chain of critical minerals.
Responsible recycling of discarded electronics will ensure recovery of precious and semi-precious metals contained in the e-waste. Secondary sourcing reduces dependence on imports and outgo of forex. Steps in this direction include setting up some 1,800 recycling plants. But most of the e-waste — 90% — is handled by the informal sector. For example, Delhi’s Seelampur is a vast e-waste dump, where children join adults in breaking gadgets to recover metals. The conditions are hazardous, to say the least.
Regulating and increasing e-waste processing in India is not only essential for managing domestic waste, but also presents a huge market opportunity in terms of managing e-waste from western nations. For the moment, safeguards have been put in place against dumping of e-waste from developed nations, but in the long run, it makes sense to monetise waste management in an organised and non-hazardous way.
The e-waste management rules notified in 2022 attempted to get the manufacturers to take responsibility, by mandating recycling targets under Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). But manufacturers have pointed out that they ought to have been consulted, and that a lot of policy kinks need to be ironed out.
The main problem with R2R lies in the varied nature of products. There cannot be a generic set of regulations. For example, certain products are repair-friendly and can be effectively handled by small businesses. On the other hand, next-gen products with evolving designs require superior skills. At a time when India is trying to attract investment and manufacturing so as to create more jobs, it cannot afford a fuzzy regulatory regime that scares off potential investors.
But for a government that was undeterred by the complexities of GST, evolving a nuanced R2R framework that addresses the concerns of both consumers and manufacturers should not be a problem!
Bhavdeep Kang is a senior journalist with 35 years of experience in working with major newspapers and magazines. She is now an independent writer and author
