Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

South Africa’s e-waste time bomb: UFS researcher urges universities to lead recycling shift

05 September 2025 | Story Sandile Ndlovu | Photo Supplied

By Sandile Ndlovu, Assistant Researcher in the Interdisciplinary Centre for Digital Futures at the University of the Free State.

When I bought my laptop in my first year of university, it was fast, reliable, and felt like an investment that would last. But when I reached the third and final year of my undergraduate studies, it was a completely different story as my trusted laptop took ages to boot up, the battery barely lasted an hour, and performing simple tasks felt like a test of patience. It’s as if my laptop knew graduation was near and had decided to retire early. As I found myself at a university that relies heavily on the use of electronic products, I couldn’t help but wonder: what happens to all our obsolete electronic devices? Early last year, I came across a statistic that left me stunned: South Africa's formal recycling efforts only recover between 7% and 12% of its total electronic waste output. The rest is either stored indefinitely, dumped in landfills, or handled by informal recyclers under hazardous conditions.

Electronic waste, also known as e-waste, refers to discarded electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) and is the fastest-growing waste stream in the world. Between 2019 and 2022, the amount of e-waste generated increased by approximately 15,67%, growing from 53,6 million tonnes to 62 million tonnes. According to the Recycling of Waste and Scrap in South Africa 2023 report, e-waste is growing three times faster in South Africa than solid municipal waste. But why is this happening? Is it “just the way it is”, or is there something bigger going on? As a sociologist, I was immediately interested in understanding why e-waste is the fastest-growing waste stream. Are we buying too many electronic products indiscriminately, or is there more to the story?

One major driver of excessive e-waste generation is rooted in the capitalistic notion of “planned obsolescence”, which is the practice which sees manufacturers design products with short lifespans (in terms of functionality, necessity, as well as desirability) – in order to apply pressure on consumers to replace electronic devices frequently and arbitrarily. Despite this systematic issue with electronic products, a recent study of Gen Z (born 1997–2012) and Millennial (born 1981–1996) consumers revealed that 60% of adults don’t know what e-waste is, and 57% didn’t realise e-waste poses a threat to the environment and human health. This lack of awareness is concerning, as it may contribute to the discarding of e-waste in regular waste bins, with these products ultimately ending up in ordinary landfills, which could cause environmental problems such as atmospheric pollution through CO2 emission and ecological imbalance – all of which could seriously jeopardise environmental and human health and safety.

Challenges surrounding South Africa's e-waste management

While e-waste proliferation is not a uniquely South African problem, in the South African context, underdeveloped collection mechanisms and consumer hoarding within the broader e-waste management system do seem to prevent or deter effective recycling efforts, at least for those in underserviced provinces. For example, South Africa's E-waste Recycling Authority's (ERA) interactive recycling map only shows one Waste Electrical Electronic Equipment and Lighting (WEEE-L) drop-off site for the Free State and none for the Northern Cape. Consumers, including students, faced with limited options to properly dispose of their e-waste, often hoard their obsolete devices. This trend was highlighted in the findings of a recent ERA information campaign, which saw 164 tonnes of e-waste donated by 135 000 people in just two days. These challenges highlight the urgent need for better e-waste infrastructure, and the untapped potential of public engagement in e-waste collection initiatives. The question now is how can institutions of higher learning and the students studying at these institutions play a role in dismantling the barriers to e-waste management and drive meaningful change?

Institutions of higher learning as mediators in the e-waste management system

Institutions of higher learning are spaces where education, technological development, critical thinking, and environmental stewardship ideally converge. These are spaces in which we should question and dissect global consumer patterns brought about by unfettered capitalism, solely focused on the accumulation of profit and often to the detriment of environmental as well as social consequences. Also, by collaborating with electronic product manufacturers and recyclers to establish extended producer responsibility (EPR) initiatives, institutions could restructure the e-waste management network, developing sustainable practices and raising critical awareness.

Universities can lead the charge in changing habits

South Africa's e-waste management system requires a coordinated effort to establish permanent e-waste disposal points across all South African institutions of higher learning. This approach would not only improve the currently underdeveloped e-waste collection mechanism but also enable these institutions and students to manage their e-waste effectively.

Given the vast number of electronic devices on campuses, which are indispensable “tools of the trade”, institutions of higher learning have the potential to significantly contribute to the amount of e-waste recovered in South Africa. Moreover, if these institutions normalise responsible e-waste disposal practices within their campuses, they can produce graduates who carry these environmentally conscious practices into their careers and daily lives.

The challenge presented by the e-waste crisis is complex, but it also offers a transformative opportunity. The question is: Will stakeholders at institutions of higher learning, especially students, step up and become key mediators in the fight against e-waste? Is there enough urgency to convince our national institutions of higher learning of the manifold academic but also socio-environmental potential to start engaging responsibly and intellectually with this looming and complex crisis?

News Archive

Inaugural lecture: Prof. Phillipe Burger

2007-11-26

Attending the lecture were, from the left: Prof. Tienie Crous (Dean of the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences at the UFS), Prof. Phillipe Burger (Departmental Chairperson of the Department of Economics at the UFS), and Prof. Frederick Fourie (Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS).
Photo: Stephen Collet

A summary of an inaugural lecture presented by Prof. Phillipe Burger on the topic: “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

South African business cycle shows reduction in volatility

Better monetary policy and improvements in the financial sector that place less liquidity constraints on individuals is one of the main reasons for the reduction in the volatility of the South African economy. The improvement in access to the financial sector also enables individuals to manage their debt better.

These are some of the findings in an analysis on the volatility of the South African business cycle done by Prof. Philippe Burger, Departmental Chairperson of the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Department of Economics.

Prof. Burger delivered his inaugural lecture last night (22 November 2007) on the Main Campus in Bloemfontein on the topic “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

In his lecture, Prof. Burger emphasised a few key aspects of the South African business cycle and indicated how it changed during the periods 1960-1976, 1976-1994 en 1994-2006.

With the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as an indicator of the business cycle, the analysis identified the variables that showed the highest correlation with the GDP. During the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006, these included durable consumption, manufacturing investment, private sector investment, as well as investment in machinery and non-residential buildings. Other variables that also show a high correlation with the GDP are imports, non-durable consumption, investment in the financial services sector, investment by general government, as well as investment in residential buildings.

Prof. Burger’s analysis also shows that changes in durable consumption, investment in the manufacturing sector, investment in the private sector, as well as investment in non-residential buildings preceded changes in the GDP. If changes in a variable such as durable consumption precede changes in the GDP, it is an indication that durable consumption is one of the drivers of the business cycle. The up or down swing of durable consumption may, in other words, just as well contribute to an up or down swing in the business cycle.

A surprising finding of the analysis is the particularly strong role durable consumption has played in the business cycle since 1994. This finding is especially surprising due to the fact that durable consumption only constitutes about 12% of the total household consumption.

A further surprising finding is the particularly small role exports have been playing since 1960 as a driver of the business cycle. In South Africa it is still generally accepted that exports are one of the most important drivers of the business cycle. It is generally accepted that, should the business cycles of South Africa’s most important trade partners show an upward phase; these partners will purchase more from South Africa. This increase in exports will contribute to the South African economy moving upward. Prof. Burger’s analyses shows, however, that exports have generally never fulfil this role.

Over and above the identification of the drivers of the South African business cycle, Prof. Burger’s analysis also investigated the volatility of the business cycle.

When the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006 are compared, the analysis shows that the volatility of the business cycle has reduced since 1994 with more than half. The reduction in volatility can be traced to the reduction in the volatility of household consumption (especially durables and services), as well as a reduction in the volatility of investment in machinery, non-residential buildings and transport equipment. The last three coincide with the general reduction in the volatility of investment in the manufacturing sector. Investment in sectors such as electricity and transport (not to be confused with investment in transport equipment by various sectors) which are strongly dominated by the government, did not contribute to the decrease in volatility.

In his analysis, Prof. Burger supplies reasons for the reduction in volatility. One of the explanations is the reduction in the shocks affecting the economy – especially in the South African context. Another explanation is the application of an improved monetary policy by the South African Reserve Bank since the mid 1990’s. A third explanation is the better access to liquidity and credit since the mid 1990’s, which enables the better management of household finance and the absorption of financial shocks.

A further reason which contributed to the reduction in volatility in countries such as the United States of America’s business cycle is better inventory management. While the volatility of inventory in South Africa has also reduced there is, according to Prof. Burger, little proof that better inventory management contributed to the reduction in volatility of the GDP.

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept