Sustainable Electronics Initiative Blog

A month ago I posted an article about the differences between two types of certification programs for electronic recyclers.  The post elicited a frenzy of conversation.  A lot of the discussion had to do with defining aspects that made a recycler good or bad.  The use of prison workers in the recycling industry was one of these aspects in question.  BAN, a company in charge of one of the certification programs, is very much against the use of prison workers but many disagree.  So, what are the benefits to prison labor?  What are the reservations?

The program in charge of the United States federal inmates training program is UNICOR, Federal Prison Industries (FPI.)  The Recycling Business Group (RBG) is a section of FPI; it allows inmates to collect and repair/recycle electronics.  There are 8 RBG facilities across the US; none are able to be a part of certain certification programs due to their status as an inmate training program.

No doubt prison labor has a bad rap.  Does the opening scene of “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” come to mind when I mention prison labor?  Some may picture these chained road gangs swinging axes in the hot sun and therefore, consider prison labor to be harsh.  Others may be under the opinion that prisoners have committed a crime and are paying for it so allowing them to have a job, something to occupy their time, almost as if they were not in prison at all, is too sympathetic.

Today’s prison labor is nothing like the work done by the Soggy Bottom Boys, nor is it a free pass out of prison.  Prison worker facilities are extensively scrutinized by OSHA, NIOSH, FOH and more to ensure worker safety and health.  Inmates work hard but the benefits pay off.  Inmates better themselves, can contribute to their families, and help the environment all at the same time.

Work is not only a way to acquire skills; work also fulfills a desire felt by all humans.  After physiological and safety needs, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs states that humans need to feel a sense of belonging.  And following that is a need for self-esteem (avoiding the feeling of worthlessness.)  The lack of these feelings can only encourage bad behavior.   Contributing to society through work would definitely have a positive effect on your approach to society. And so it has.  Inmates who participated in FPI’s industrial or educational programs were 24% less likely to return to prison than inmates who did not participate in FPI.  So, just about one out of four former inmates will avoid going to prison again just because they had an opportunity to work in prison.  They were also less likely to incur misconduct reprimands during their time in prison, to commit crimes after release, and more likely to find better paying, full-time jobs.  It also benefits the prisoners by contributing financially to their court-ordered fines, child support, and/or restitution.

BAN, the company in charge of one of the certification programs, expressed concern that prisoners are working under unsafe conditions and that using prison labor for the handling of e-waste is unsafe in terms of protecting your data.

Thankfully, this is not the case; UNICOR has safe working conditions.  Since prison staff work in the same facilities as prison workers, the facilities have to follow every law in terms of facility management.  In fact, along with the OSHA, NIOSH, and FOH checks, UNICOR’s recycling factories are inspected and reviewed by environment, health and safety regulatory agencies at the state and federal levels far more extensively than private sector recyclers.

As for the security issue, prisoners are not able to read hard drives in the facilities.  Prisoners are also not able to remove the hard drives from the factories.  Many private sector recyclers are not able to ensure this kind of security.  For example, one of UNICOR’s new clients destroys their hard drives themselves before they send it for recycling because they want to be certain that their information is destroyed.  This company switched from using a private recycler to UNICOR and as soon as UNICOR received their first trailer load of equipment, UNICOR noticed that some of the company’s hard drives were not destroyed.  UNICOR informed them immediately of the 8 hard drives still intact.  The company was shocked that the private company never informed them that this had been happening.  The company made some improvements which led to the second trailer load having only 2 hard drives still intact.  UNICOR also informed them of this.

There are a number of benefits to UNICOR but the overall point is to prepare inmates to be productive members of society when they leave prison.

“We must accept the reality that to confine offenders behind walls without trying to change them is an expensive folly with short term benefits — winning the battles while losing the war. It is wrong. It is expensive. It is stupid.” - Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, our Nation’s 15th Chief Justice.

Since there is an overcrowding of prisons in the United States, it is my opinion that it is more important than ever to start working on a solution to help people who need work experience the most.  Keeping them out of everyone’s way is no longer the answer.  We have to work towards improving their lives.  

Please look into this topic for yourself and feel free to share your opinions by commenting on this post.

The statements of this blog may not reflect the views of the Illinois Sustainable Technology Center, Institute of Natural Resource Sustainability, or the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Our planet is taking quite a beating. This has never been more evident than today given that, thus far, 4.8 million gallons of oil has spilled into the Gulf of Mexico.

What can we do to help this planet? I’ll go with my strong suit and tackle some problems with design-the first step in the process of consumption. We are constantly designing things to be used briefly then thrown away (consider packaging.) I have addressed this issue before (Greener Electronics Start with Smarter Designs and Designing Wastefulness.)  But I was given a new lease on the topic after hearing a 7-year-old confirm my aggravation.

A couple weeks ago the Sustainable Electronics Initiative set up a booth at an expo called “Naturally Illinois” held by the Institute of Natural Resource Sustainability. Over 1000 students walked through the expo and looked at about 50 exhibits all having to do with modern science conducted at the University of Illinois.

Our booth housed a kid friendly information board displaying electronic waste information. A curious 7-year-old came up to our booth and after we gave a brief explanation of electronic waste and why/how big the problem is, he responded with the question: “Why don’t they just make computers that last 100 years?”

One of the answers to this question is an easy one: planned obsolescence. The reason why this is one of the answers is more complicated.

Planned obsolescence is when a manufacturer consciously designs a product to not last as long as it could so that consumers will purchase more of those products. Razors that indicate they should be changed by a strip that wears away before the actual end of life of the razor is an example of planned obsolescence.

Despite the image painted in my mind after hearing this definition, planned obsolescence was probably not hatched by mustache twirling guys with an evil laugh. Companies need consumers to continuously purchase their products and if their consumers stop buying after one purchase that company will probably not last very long.

But there are ways a business can thrive while being sustainable. In fact, sustainability often helps profits. Not only will consumers trust the quality of the products if they are not designed for obsolescence and therefore keep buying from that company, they will also pass this information to their friends–in this age of the Internet and easy communication, having quality long-lasting products will be noticed. There are also other ways in which companies can keep having the consumers come back for more. Making components or entire products out of materials that can safely decompose will allow consumers to responsibly throw them away and then buy more. (See this article about biodegradable shoes.)

We don’t have to stop at biodegradable materials. I hope designers continue to incorporate things that can be reused, upgraded, easily disassembled, or made from other products. An example of a product that starts to address this concept is Motorola’s phone, “Renew,” which has a casing made of 100% recycled materials.

Have you recently thought of a great invention?  Think about how it can be made with something you are throwing away and what will happen to that product when you are done using it.

Recently, AppleInsider published a story titled “Nearly 30% of Apple’s first-gen iPhones are still in use – report“. In short, the report mentions several statistics regarding the first generation iPhone. Please keep in mind that the first iPhone was released in June 2007, only to be replaced by the iPhone 3G in July 2008. That means that this phone was marketed (very well, if I remember correctly) for a mere 13 months.  The first generation iPhone sold 6.1 million units, which were  most likely all purchased within those 13 months. After all, why would someone want to buy an old version of a phone, if the newer, cooler, faster, sleeker model is available for a similar price?

The report names several other statistic, but I want to focus on the main statistic here. 30% of first generation iPhones are still being used. This means that 1.83 million first generation iPhones are still in use. And yes, that is a large number. However, 4.27 million is a greater number – this represents the amount of first generation iPhones that are no longer in use. What happened to these phones? Did they break? Did they suffer a fall that rendered them incapable of functioning correctly? I bet this happened only rarely. Instead, Apple came out with a new product. This product was superior to the previous generation of Apple products.  If my memory serves me correctly, since the introduction of the first generation iPhone, the world has also been introduced to two more generations of iPhones, as well as the iTouch and the brand new iPad. (And in related news: Apple Sold 1 million iPads in a month!)

While these new gadgets are a lot of fun, I am concerned about our lasting impact on the environment. The resources and natural capital needed to make these products is expensive, as well as environmentally hazardous. More importantly, the vast disposal and often improper disposal methods increase our need for a more sustainable system. However, Electronics Recyclers International CEO John Shegerian seems to disagree with me. In the article “Why the E-Waste Industry Love the iPad“, he mentions that this the iPad is a good thing.

I wonder if it is possible to allow designers to be creative and create new products, which would add to existing gadgets, instead of creating a desire for increased disposal and consumption of new products? Even if Apple, or any other electronics designer and manufacturer, would introduce a new performance-based, rather than product-based, model for their business and industry. We still have to convince consumers  that a cell phone, computer, or other electronic device can function to its full potential by simply maintaining the equipment, similar to the way you maintain your car, and possibly upgrading to a few new features. This would allow us to use our new gadgets until they actually fail, instead of only lasting as long as we think they are fun. For example, when the seats in your car start to wear down, do you get rid of your car and purchase a new one? Why can’t we have the same model for our electronics?

Apple is obviously concerned about their impact on the environment, as they have published information about the carbon emissions related to their products. By performing such analyses, one only hopes that Apple designers and engineers will be able to make products which will improve their products by leaving a lower environmental footprint. But I do want to encourage Apple and other electronic recyclers to research the life cycle impacts of their products, and consider not only the design of their products, but also the lasting environmental impact their products will leave on the Earth and future generations.