The Life of the iPhone

IntroductionThe purpose of this work is to conduct a study on the life of apersonal electronic device, the iPhone. The study will examine thebasic resources that are involved in production, explain where theycome from. The study will also examine the extent to which thematerials from which the phone is made of biodegradable. This willhelp to elicit what toxic effects or maybe on the health andenvironment. Then, the work will consider where the materials from thedevice go if they are recycled and where the primary responsibilityfor sustainability with respect to the iPhone is. The general argumentthat is presented here is that the iPhone uses a mass of minerals andnatural resources (some of which are located in conflict zones), thephones are not biodegradable and 100% recyclable and thus moreinitiative needs to be taken by businesses, consumers and thegovernment to reduce the harm the environment.

The study is motivated out the need to examine electronic waste goeshow this has influences on the social environment. It is in the spiritof Gabrys (2011) work who intended on "cracking open the black box ofelectronics and need to examine more closely was significantly in themaking and breaking of electronics" (p. 3). It is also hoped that thiswork will be able to share some insight into the commodity value chainto not just demonstrate the beginning and end point of the movement ofcommodities but to show how the products might be used or aretransformed after the standard commodity/value chain (Lepawsky &Mather, 2011). The research method for this work depends on anassessment of literature, some of it gained through scholarlyinformation, other reports gained through news and documents furnishedby international organisations like Amensty International.

Basic Resources in iPhoneTo begin with this analysis, it is necessary to begin analysing thebasic resources of the iPhone. The iPhone made of the number of

natural resources. Some of these are common titles such as aluminiumhowever other resources that Apple uses to create its own includelithium, tantalum (which is used for the circuit boards) (Wagstaff,2012), silicon and gold (Hern, 2014) and sometimes even Safire.Overall, researchers find that a single mobile phone contains morethan 40 elements overall in the periodic table that goes into its maincomponents.

The main components, regardless of the manufacturer, usually consistsof a printed circuit board (PCB), a liquid crystal display (LCD), abattery, a keyboard, an antenna and electronic circuitry (Maragkos, etal, 2012). The PCB represents most of the phone's weight and usuallyconsists of metals and polymers, though it may also contain metals andminerals like led and silver (Maragkos, et al, 2012). The circuitboard are usually made from copper laminates and glass fibre(Wagstaff, 2012). The LCD of the phone represents most of theenvironmental impact throughout the production and the recyclingchain. Plastic is also used to make the components fit together and aprotective shell (Maragkos, et al, 2012). The plastics also present athreat to the environment because it they are not recycled orimproperly recycled, they can form what are called dioxins and burnsif it is put on fire. Plastics in general usually containenvironmentally hazardous substance such as mercury and tin (Maragkos,et al, 2012). Some of the resources that Apple uses to create theiPhone are very valuable, too. The touchscreen for instance contains arare Earth elemental called indium which, at the time when Minter(2013) was writing it cost more than $200 per pound.

Because of the need to procure so much of these resources, since Applesells more than 74 million phones and one quarter alone (more than 700million in total by a March 2015, 500 million in 2014 and 420 millionin 2013) (Apple Insider, 2015), the company has to rely on suppliersin other parts of the world to procure it. Apple has no other way ofaccessing the resources that is required for its core offering. Appleis however more transparent in terms of where they procure them. Muchof this is also due to the 2010 Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform AndConsumer Protection Act that requires companies to report whether itknows the purchaser being used to fund war and violence in Central

Africa) (SEC, 2012). As it so happens, a lot of the minerals thatApple for carriers to create its telephone products does in factderive from Africa (Cuvelier, 2013).

Concerns have been raised by Amnesty International (2015) that Applehas not done enough to ensure the minerals that goes into an productsare free from in minerals from war-torn regions like the DemocraticRepublic of Congo (DRC), where the funds from those minerals are usedto fund the war (a war which has led to the deaths of millions ofpeople in the region) (Berman, et al, 2014). The DRC is where manymineral suppliers or because it has a rich resource of gold, tin,titanium and tungsten, the minerals that are commonly used to createelectronic products. According to Apple's sustainability report, theyare currently going through a process to try and eliminate conflictminerals from its products, auditing more than 130 smelters to ensurethat they are not using minerals traced to armed groups ( O'Reilly,2011). However, while this may be towards making its operations moreethical, and the mass amount of resources that will consume the earthfor the production of electrical equipment is not sustainable.

iPhone: Biodegraable & Recyable? In assessing whether the materials are biodegradable, Apple has thusfar only made packaging that is biodegradable (Macworld, 2012). Theproduct itself is not. A number of reports (Amnesty International,2015) indicate that Apple iPhone's are contributing to the mass amountof e-waste, some of which is found in US landfills however, ingeneral, a lot of it is exported abroad, especially to regions inAsia. Apple says for its part, no waste from the recycling program isto exported to overseas. Instead, Apple indicates that all of thematerials they recovered through their recycling program are processeddomestically "with the exception of some commodity materials that canbe recycled for future use" (Bertolucci,, 2009). So that means forinstance any old iPhone that is received in North America is recycledin North America; similarly, any disposed of iPhone received in Chinais recycled in China (the Li Tong Group handles that there) (Greene,2012). However, some argue that the 'exception of some commoditymaterials' provides Apple with loophole to export some of its ewaste.Whether or not this is happening, however is unclear since there is no

proof whether Apple is illegally exporting a waste to other countries.(Greene, 2012)

Apple does however have a program to try and reduce the impact on theenvironment (Apple Recycling, 2015). For instance, they have arecycling program where they encourage customers (by providing themwith gift cards if the old phone is still valuable) to send them theirold iPhone (Apple Recycling, 2015). Apple relies on other companieslike Cloud Blue (and e recycling company) and Gazelle (the companywhich resells old phone) for this purpose (Wheeland, 2011). It doesseem that this channel is used frequently. For instance, an interviewwith cloud blue executive indicated that with the launch of the new(at the time) iPhone 4, they saw a large scale of returns and treatedby the quantity was able to be easily restored as a result of thisreverse logistics channel (Wheeland, 2011). However, it is importantto keep in mind that there is nothing which is 100% recyclable(Winter, 2013). For instance, the touch screen on the iPhone is onrecyclable. For Winter (2013), this is an important point thatcompanies as well as governments around the should emphasize morebecause the goal should be to make people aware that recycle is not aperfect solution and that more effort should be oriented towardsreducing overall consumption.

Toxic EffectsThe toxic effects of the Apple iPhone result from the toxic chemicalsthat are used to create it. Although reports (ENS, 2012) indicate thatcompanies, especially Apple, has invested to reduce the number oftoxic chemicals in the product. It introduced arsenic free glass andeliminated the use of some chemicals that were considered dangerous,such as PCV and bromine, the latter of which is associated withcausing developmental defects as well as liver damage (Maragkos, etal, 2012). In comparison, the Apple iPhone performed better than othercompanies like Motorola LG and Nokia (ENS, 2012). However, even thebest rated phones, including the Apple iPhone, still contain toxicchemicals. Some of the toxic substances that are in cell phonesinclude lead, brominated flame-retardants, beryllium, hexavalentchromium, arsenic, cadmium, and antimony. (Basel Action Network, 2004)

Each one of these can have devastating effects to not only humans andanimals and has the potential to affect entire ecosystem. Lead forinstance affects the central nervous system and because it is acarcinogen it can negatively harm plants and animals (Greene, 2012).Meanwhile, brominated flame retardants (BFRs), which are used in theports of cell phones to prevent it from catching fire, when they areburned, it generates dioxins which is harmful to human health(Maragkos, et al, 2012). Even the way that the different components ofthe phone are disposed of in a harmful impacts to the environment. Forinstance, in terms of the lithium battery, if it is improperlydisposed of, it can harm water supplies (Wagstaff, 2012) andgroundwater.

The problem is heightened because many companies (and countries)decide to explore their e-waste since it is much more cheaper to breakdown the ways that it is in the developing world since companies inthe developing world have to follow strict guidelines (Time, 2014).This continues to happen even sight of the ban under the UnitedNations convention that electronic waste cannot be exported from onecountry to the other (Veit, 2015). Reports from the BBC did indicatethat the amount of e-waste being exported from the West to China hashowever declined in recent years, with half of the waste beingprocessed in China generated from China while a large percentage of itcoming from other Southeast Asian countries like Thailand and Malaysia(Moskvitch, 2012).

However, it is still occurring, and one of the reasons why it might beis because e waste which is otherwise recyclable is classified as"used goods" (Vidal, 2013) when it is shipped when in fact the goodsare not functional. Then, these goods will be delivered to the blackmarket in an effort to reduce the costs associated with legitimatechannels for recycling (Vidal, 2013). The extent to which this problemexists around the world is unclear because there is no formal methodtracking all of the ewaste in the world. However, there isnevertheless evidence to show that much of it ends up in Africa and,especially, China (Fuchs, 2013). In fact, a United Nations reportindicated that China is the key waste dumping site in the world where70% of the e-waste generated ends up there. One popular dumping site

is called Guiyu and unfortunately, this is an area that has become"synonymous among environmentalists with toxic waste", with some newsreports referring to it as the 'Chernobyl of electronic waste'.(Greene, 2012) An illustration of one of the sites located there isshown below

Illustration 1: E-Waste in China

Source: Google Images, 2015

Because developing nations do not have the techniques and facilitiesthat are necessary to recycle safely materials like plastics and soon, the villagers recycling the electronics there have a number ofhealth risks presented to them because their job, but according toHuanzhen, a professor at Jiaxing University, many people do not havethe choice because without the job they wouldn't have enough money tofeed themselves (Greene, 2012).

The same is true in Africa. A report produced by The Guardian (Hirsch,2013) shows that in Agbogbloshie for instance the people who are incharge of recycling electronic waste make £0.50 to £1.30 a day workingin poor conditions that often result in workers being sent to thehospital. Not only does that directly affect the workers who are atthe recycling site by the smoke that is released into the air fromburning the electronics goes into the food markets and poisons thefood. The saddest part of the story is that they see it as a "business

centre" and "don't want the people in Europe and all those places tostop sending the waste" because they think it is providing them withthe opportunity "to have a better life" (Hirsch, 2013). The samesentiment was found in a Chinese villager who expressed anger at somegovernmental restrictions limiting e-waste in Guiyu. “Why are theystopping the garbage from reaching us?" (Greene, 2012, p. 1) asked aperson running a shop there. "Of course it's hurting our business"(Greene, 2012, p. 1). Yet the fact is, this is no 'business', thesepeople are being poisoned and exploited. There needs to be more doneto ensure that these people have the same kind of formalized methodsand techniques that are found in developed countries (Akormedi, et al,2013), something which is discussed more in the next section regardingwho is responsible or who should be responsible for the massive amountof waste and environmental damage.

Indeed, the toxic effects heightened because of the inadequate leavesin which phones are disposed of, especially in developing countries.For instance, when the circuit board telephones are delivered toregion of Guiyi in China, the villagers will keep the circuit boardsover the coals, burning it at low heat, which releases more toxins,and the ash from the board gets dumped into the streams and canals,poisoning the water as well as the groundwater (Greene, 2012). Apicture of the pollution can be seen below, which shows a stream ofwater near an e-waste site.

Illustration 2; Black Water

Source: Time Magazine

In fact, Greene (2002) suggests that this is the reason why the areahas one of the "highest level of cancer-causing dioxins in the world,elevated rates of miscarriages, and children with extremely highlevels of lead poisoning" (p. 1). Those in developing countries alsowork in very poor condition, with villagers generally sufferingvarious illnesses because of their exposure to the toxic chemicals. Asa result, while the rich and the world enjoy the luxuries oftechnology, those who are poor and impoverished, suffer, and in atwist of irony, many of the mobile phones that are built in China endup back there at the end of its life to contaminate, pollute andpoison the people who create them.

While health risks are presented to them, it is also affecting otherpeople, likely without their knowledge. For instance, a report thatappeared in CNN (Watson, 2013) indicated that the local villagers donot eat the supplies that are locally grown there because they believethe food to be contaminated and poisoned. When asked where the locallyfarm goods were shipped to, the villagers said "How should I know? Alot of it is sold off; they don't dare label the rights from here asgrown in Guiyu. They'll write that its rice from some other place"(Watson, 2013). As a result, potentially other people in Chinadomestically or perhaps around the world are eating poisoned food andsupplies from poisoned sources and there is no way to know otherwise

Who is Responsible for Sustainability?

Producers

Arguably, there are a number of individuals who are responsible forsustainability with respect to the iPhone. Obviously, Apple is one ofthe first that should be taking responsibility. They should be using,where possible, materials that do not present a harm to the earth andwork to ensure that the resources they procure for the phone are notin conflict areas and act in the spirit of corporate socialresponsibility (CSR) (Brammer & Berman, 2014) and corporatecitizenship (Hejazi & Abouhamzeh, 2014).

However, when thinking more critically about the ability of Apple tobe truly sustainable, it is somewhat of a paradox. The reason isbecause Apple is a company that must make profits and grow. That pointseems mundane. But this profit focused on growth logic means that itconsistently encourages wasteful consumption by coming up with newmodels every 18 months about, many of which are not particularlydifferent from that of past models, but the point is to stimulatehype, encourage consumption and drive profits). If Apple is trulyencourage them to act in accordance with sustainability, they would belooking at how to make products last longer (Walker, 2011) and greentheir entire operations, and not to mention avoid exploitative labourprocesses like at Foxconn as the procumbent moves to manufacturing,but this coincides with the profits on a logic that drives mostcompanies operations. Moreover, even if CSR and sustainabilityprogrammes were adopted, it does not, as one study (Karnani, 2014)found, avert the tragedy of the commons and does not change profitfocus.

Moreover, through its brand positioning, advertising and othertactics, Apple has transformed itself into a luxury brand, signallingto others who hold the phone that person is chic, fashion forward, apart of the technological elite and serves as a status indicator (Chan& Wang, 2015). This is especially true in emerging markets like Chinawhere products often serve as an extension of the self (Sirgy, 2015).So when critically analysing what Apple does and how its productseffects the lives, minds and behaviours of people all around theworld, even if Apple is using more environmentally materials andresources, which it cannot do entirely, Apple is still anunsustainable operation because the logic of it, with its capitalistunderpinnings, is also unsustainable.

Nevertheless, considering that it is not likely this generation willsee overthrow of the capitalist world, it is important that companiesdo what they can to try and reduce environmental impact. In thatregard, Apple can make more effort to ensure that the materials theyuse are biodegradable or that they have less environmental impactoverall. In fact, if they approach producing mobile phones from anenvironmental perspective, they might come up with innovative designs

and features that do not require the use of natural resources.Automakers have for instance about how to reduce the impact on theenvironment and they have come up with hybrid vehicles and, possiblyin the future, vehicles that are powered by biofuels (Lave,, et al,2002). It is unclear why Apple has not taken a more aggressive stancein making products that reduce the harm the environment by applyingfor instance approaches to sustainable sourcing materials, greenmanufacturing and design and greener approaches to transport anddelivery to reduce impact on environment. The infograph below isuseful to show how unsustainable current approaches are.

Illustration 3; Lifecycle of Mobile Phones

Source: Parry

Apple is of course not the only contributor to the pollution,environmental harm and e-waste. Because of the growth of technology aswell as the use of electronic equipment, e-waste is today cited asbeing the "fastest-growing waste stream" (Maragkos, et al, 2012). Areport from the UN indicated that electronic waste is going to grow by

33% when it will reach the equivalent of "eight of the great Egyptianpyramids" (Vidal, 2013). All told, it is estimated that 7 kg of thereasons generated per person on the planet and it is estimated that by2025, e-waste will have increased to more than 25 million tons (Walsh,2012). Overall, it seems clear companies through their operations andthe underpinning of their very existence are therefore alsocontributing to the e-waste problem the consumption of raw materialsand the harmful effects on the environment throughout the lifecycle.

Consumers People also have to take more responsibility for their part. Billionsof people all around the world do not do enough to ensure that theylimit their impact on the environment. One report for instance in theUK found that only 4% of people recycle their old headsets (Crutchlow-Porter, 2013). This seems to line up with international statisticssince a global survey (SLT, 2015) found that only 3% of the more than4 billion mobile phone users worldwide recycle their phone. Citizensof the world also have to take initiative as such. The decision to notrecycle may be reflective of what sociologists have long called thethrowaway society (Evans, 2012), where the wasteful practices ofcorporations also contributed to the wasteful practices ofconsumption. One of the reasons why they may not is because they maynot be aware of the global problem of e-waste, the conditions thatworkers have to endure in developing countries and the health problemsthat they suffer from. Although other scholars(Gregson, et al, 2005)have added to this picture, suggesting that throwing away thesis isinadequate and does not consider that the process of throwing thingsaway involves emotions, anxiety, and might involve issues of self-identity, it does not seem that this is an issue that has beeninvestigated in regards to mobile phones.

Whatever the reason, they are a lot of gains that could be made ifmore people did take advantage of recycling, indicate there is arecycling program available for cell phones. If more people tookadvantage of the programs that are available, it could go a long wayin reducing the need to rely on minerals in controversy regions. Forinstance, according to DoSomething.org (2015), for every 100 millioncell phones, many of the raw materials could be extracted, including

35,000 pounds of copper, 700 pounds of silver, 75 pounds of goldand 33pounds of palladium. Another report (Doyle, 2015) added that if all e-waste was recycled, it could result in the $52 billion worth ofdiscarded materials like gold, silver, iron and copper. However,consumers do not take enough initiative themselves to reduce the harmand the environment. So although corporations are often a target,consumers themselves are also responsible for the harm that is beingdone for the world. They are also responsible not just for recyclingbut to measure and monitor their energy use with the phone (notplugging it in when it is charged because energy is wasted) andrelying on cell phones less than is found today to reduce carbonfootprints (Sloma, 2013).

Governments and International Institutions

Because developing country governments may not have resources toaddress the problem, the responsibility should be shouldered tointernational organisations and developed countries where they canhelp governments in developing countries make the recycling programsmore sustainable. This is an idea that has long existed in theprinciple of the 'common but differentiated responsibility' (WorldSummit on Sustainable Development 2002). The principle recognizes thedifferences in the conservation of developers developing states toglobal environmental problems and the differences in their "economicand technical capacity to tackle these problems" (World Summit onSustainable Development 2002, p. 1). Thus, the principle recognizesthat despite the common responsibility to take care of theenvironment, and an important part of making the common responsibilityrealizable is providing international transfer of technology andfinancial aid. As a result, there are a number of stakeholders thatneed to be working more diligently to ensure that the problem of wasteis alleviated.

There should be, consequently, international effort to make ittransparent where all of this e-waste is going, who is being affectedand what can be done to lessen. the impact not only in terms of theindividuals who are processing e-waste but the impact on overall onthe environment. This should be first and foremost on theinternational agenda because whereas for instance in the United States

there is a formalized, modern system for recycling, this is not truein developing countries. For instance, consumers can find informationabout how they can responsibly get rid of all the products byexamining the recycler certified from the e-Steward Initiatives (anorganization that was originally established by the Basel ActionNetwork, a group that identifies companies which safely handle e-waste) (BAN, 2015). However, in developing regions, these kind offormal systems that can help consumers to find out information wherethey may go to recycle their products do not exist. As a result, itgets and do something in landfills where people are taking advantageof and exploited because of their disadvantaged position in society.It should be unacceptable. More effort needs to be done to change it.

What Happens at the End of Life? ImplicationsOne final issue that seems important to cover here is that the end ofthe product life of an Apple iPhone does not always mean that it getsthrown in the trash or recycle. There are other directions or flowsthat may be possible. Although it does not appear there has been agreat deal of studies trying to examine what alternatives there may beseeing the end of the life of a iPhone, one study did find that theyare not just thrown out or recycled. In China, where the iPhone is astatus symbol, there is the possibility that some consumers will tryto sell it to individuals who seek iPhone components to make itavailable on the black market or the great market. So for instancebroken screens, motherboards and other components of the iPhone can besold. These people are not hard to find. A reporter from CNet was ableto quickly locate one night talking with a young standing outside ofan electronic market. In another report, the journalists and I thecomponents in telephones can be extracted for possible use for otherorganizations that make digital signs (Minter, 2013). This maydemonstrate that the problem of looking at global production networkchain in terms of linearity. For instance, many studies examining theglobal production network chain do so by trying to understand thebeginning and end points and the movement of commodities as they gothrough phases such as production, distribution and consumption. Forinstance, many have called for an approach that recognizes the low of

serials from different places, suggesting that commodity chains areunidirectional.

ConclusionOverall, the purpose of this work was to conduct a study on the lifeof a personal electronic device. You work assessed the resources thatare in the iPhone, of which include a number of minerals, some ofthese are mere, which are extracted mostly from developing regions,and some might be extracted from conflict and controversial regions.Although Apple has made some efforts to encourage recycling theproduct itself is not biodegradable and even if recycling options arechosen, which most consumers do not, the product is not 100%recyclable. As a result, the health of people, especially indeveloping countries, is there since they did not have developedrecycling methods and systems. Producers, consumers, as well asgovernments and international institutions should be sharing more of aburden to reduce e-waste, especially since companies like Apple aredecreasing the lifecycle of phone and encouraging unsustainable levelsof consumption. Finally, the work showed that not all of the phoneswill end up in trash bin for electronic waste heaps; they might end upon the black network for the components might be used for otherorganizations making technological products. However, given the threatthat is presented to the environment, it does seem that much moreneeds to be done to reduce e-waste them a responsibility to be takenup at the governmental level. Consumers also have to assumeresponsibility, by giving him a corporation influence in facilitatingmaterialism and encouraging consumers to purchase products andassociate it with a self-identity, it is very unlikely to see anymajor changes in the future.

References

Akormedi, M. eta l. (2013). Working conditions and environmentalexposures among electronic waste workers in Ghana. International Journal ofOccupational and Environmental Health, 19(4), 278-286.

Amnesty International. (2015). Digging for transparency.http://www.amnestyusa.org/sites/default/files/digging_for_transparency_hi_res.pdf

Apple Insider. (2015).Apple's iPhone 6, 6 Plus raise combined iPhoneshipments to 700 million. Apple Insider. [online] Available at:http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/03/09/apple-shipped-700-million-iphone-6-iphone-6-plus-units-since-launch.

Apple Recycling. (2015). [online] Available at:https://www.apple.com/recycling/

Basel Action Network. (2004).Mobile toxic waste: recent findings onthe toxicity of end-of-life

Berman, N. (2014). This mine is mine! how minerals fuel conflicts inAfrica (August 2014). CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP10089

Bertoulucci, J. (2009). How green is Apple: Where does the e-wastego?. [online] Available at:http://www.macworld.com/article/1140122/greenapple3.html

Brammer, S., & Berman, S. (2014). Great expectations! analyzing theevolving discourse and practice of corporate social responsibility.Academy of Management Proceedings, 1.

Cell Phones. http://ban.org/library/mobilephonetoxicityrep.pdf

Chan, K.K., & Wang, X. (2015). Exploring the antecedents andconsequences of míng pái kòng (brand-name fanaticism) among China'sGeneration Y. Journal of Global Marketing, 28(2), 67-82.

Crutchlow-Porter, J. (2013). Throwaway culture: just 4% recycle theirphones. [online] Available at:

http://www.choose.net/media/guide/news/throwaway-culture-recycle-mobiles.html.

Cuvelier, J. (2013). Conflict minerals in Eastern democratic republicof Congo, pp. 132+ in Hilhorst, D. (2013). Disaster, conflict and society in crises:Everday politics of crisis repsonse. Routledge.

Do Something. (2015). 11 facts about e-waste. [online] Available at:https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-e-waste.

Doyle, A. (20150. U.S., China top dumping of electronic waste; littlerecycled. Reuters. [online] Available at:http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/19/us-environment-waste-idUSKBN0NA00V20150419

ENS. (2012). Cell phones all contain toxics: older ones the most.[online] Available at: http://ens-newswire.com/2012/10/11/cell-phones-all-contain-toxics-older-ones-the-most/

Evans, D. (2012). Beyond the throwaway society: ordinary domesticpractice and a sociological approach to household food waste. Sociology,46(1), 41-56.

Fuchs, C. (2013). Theorising and analysing digital labour: From globalvalue chains to modes of production. The Political Economy ofCommunication, 1(2), 1.

Gregson N., et al. (2007). Identity, mobility, and the throwawaysociety. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 25(4) 682 – 700

Heazi, R., & Abouhamzeh, M. (2014). Towards a conceptual framework ofcorporate citizenship. Journal of Accounting Research, 4(1), 1-19.

HErn, A. (2014). Sapphire, gold and tantalum … What will your iPhone 6be made from?. The Guardian. [online] Available at:http://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2014/aug/18/sapphire-gold-tantalum-what-iphone-6-made-from

HIrsch, A. (2013). This is not a good place to live': inside Ghana'sdump for electronic waste. The Guardian. [online] Available at:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/14/ghana-dump-electronic-waste-not-good-place-live

Karanai, A. (2014). Corpoate social responsibility does not avert thetragedy of the commons. Economics, Management and Financial Markets, 1.

Macworld. (2012). Apple's new iPods come with dissolvable packaging.[online] Available at: http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/apple/apples-new-ipods-come-dissolvable-packaging-3404492/

Maragkos, K.G. et al. (2013). Qualitative and quantitativedetermination of heavy metals in wastecellular phones. Waste Management,33, 1882-1889.

Minter, A. (2013). Junkyard planet: travels in the billion-dollar trash trade.Bloomsbuyry.

Moskvitch, K. (2012). Unused e-waste discarded in China raisesquestions. BBC. [online] Available at:http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-17782718

O'Reilly, J. (2015). [online] Available at:http://qz.com/390726/apple-and-other-us-companies-havent-done-enough-to-keep-conflict-minerals-out-of-their-products/.

SEC. (2012). SEC Adopts rule for disclosing use of conflict minerals.u.s. securities and exchange commission.http://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1365171484002

Sirgy, M.J. (2015). The self-concept in relation to product preferenceand purchase intention. Marketing Horizons, 350-354

Sloma, M. et al. (2013). Carbon footprint of electronic devices. ElectronTechnology Conference, 1.

SLT. (2015). Phone fact sheet. [online] Available at:http://www.thesecretlifeofthings.com/#!phone-facts/c611

Veit, H.M. et al. (2015). Electronic Waste: Generation and Management.Electronic Waste, 3-12.

Vidal, J (2013). Toxic 'e-waste' dumped in poor nations, says UnitedNations. The Guardian. [online] Available at:http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/dec/14/toxic-ewaste-illegal-dumping-developing-countries

Wagstaff, K. (2012). The iPhone 5, now with millions of tons of e-waste. Motherboard. [online] Available at:http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-iphone-5-now-with-millions-of-tons-of-e-waste

Waleker, S. (2011). Longer lasting products: alternatives to thethrowaway society. The Design Journal, 14(3), 375-380.

Walsh, B. (2012). E-Waste: How the new ipad adds to electronicgarbage. Time. [online] Available at:http://science.time.com/2012/03/08/e-waste-how-the-new-ipad-adds-to-electronic-garbage/

Watson, I. (2013). China: The electronic wastebasket of the world.[online] Available at:http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/30/world/asia/china-electronic-waste-e-waste/.

Wheeland, M. (2011). Will the new iphone lead to an e-wasteavalanche?. Greenbiz [online] Available at:http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2011/10/04/will-new-iphone-lead-e-waste-avalanche

World Summit on Sustainable Development 2002. [online] Available at:http://cisdl.org/public/docs/news/brief_common.pdf