Siddhartha
Adhyayan Foundation for Policy & Research
Introduction
Electronic gadgets are now found in every home, office, and institution in a world that is becoming more and more reliant on digital technologies. Due to innovation cycles and consumer trends, these technologies are changing quickly, producing previously unheard-of amounts of electronic waste, or “e-waste.” The world produced 62 billion kilograms of e-waste in 2022 alone, and by 2030, that amount is expected to rise to 82 billion kilograms. Despite this massive amount, only 22.3% of the 2022 e-waste was recorded as being appropriately collected and recycled; the remainder, especially in the Global South, ended up in landfills, incinerators, or unofficial recycling sectors (Balde et al., 2024).
The term “waste colonialism,” which was first used by African activists in the 1980s to criticize the export of toxic waste from wealthy to developing countries, is used in this article to examine the phenomenon of e-waste. The analysis highlights how the transboundary trade in e-waste is a manifestation of modern environmental injustice, whereby developed countries externalize the health and environmental costs of their technological excesses to developing countries. This results in an unjust system of unequal distribution of benefits and burdens often sustained by structural power imbalances and unethical practices. With the focus on the global south and especially India, this article brings analysis with hopeful alternatives and a way forward for a better future through positive changes.
Waste Colonialism and Its Dynamics
The currently ‘developing’ or ‘third world’ countries from Asia, Africa and Latin America have historically been victims of colonialism from the past few centuries. Although most of these countries have gained formal independence specially after the post world war two decolonisation wave, their independence has not been accompanied by the simultaneous change in global geo-economic and political structures which continue to be heavily tilted against the erstwhile colonies of global south. This often leads to subtle and indirect control by the ‘developed’ countries resulting in what Kwame Nkrumah called ‘Neo-Colonialism’ in the 1960s. Over time, this phenomenon has acquired new dimensions and one such crucial dimension is the ‘waste colonialism’ or ‘toxic colonialism’. It refers to the unjust practice of exporting, often hazardous, discarded or waste material by the developed to other developing countries under the guise of trade (Sangaralingam, 2024; Sridhar & Kumar, 2019). Or in other words, as per sustainability directory, it is global waste trade injustice i.e. “unfair relocation of waste from rich to poor countries, creating disproportionate environmental burdens”.
Some of these export categories include plastics, clothes and electronic waste. With the increasing patterns of electronic products, e-waste has emerged as a crucial aspect of waste colonialism with severe impacts on recipient communities and countries. The transboundary movement of e-waste which increased since the 1990s was led by economic and structural factors of less regulations, cheap labour and loose environmental laws in the global south as compared to strict regulations and high costs in the north thus making the export more profitable than local recycling. The profits of this trade are accrued by the big corporates of the North and importers of South but the burdens are shifted to poor and marginalised communities within the global south.
The waste colonialism continues historical patterns of exploitation and reinforces colonial power relations as it gives indirect access to land of poor countries for the waste disposal of the global North which is further rooted in the inherent power imbalance between high and low-income countries (Sridhar & Kumar, 2019). It is burdening the Global South with environmental hazards produced elsewhere thus resulting in what Max Liboiron (2021) called “Pollution is Colonialism” i.e. handling of pollution leading to continuation of colonial land relations and power structures.
Much of the e-waste ends up in poor global south countries like Ghana, Nigeria, Malaysia, Pakistan, Tanzania, India and Thailand etc (Vidal, 2013 ; Chen, 2008; Longdon, 2023). Cities like Agbobloshie in Ghana have emerged as the largest e-waste recipient sites where the informal processing and dumping happens. Most of this e-waste trade is illegal or quasi-legal, often exploiting loopholes in international law. For instance, electronic waste is frequently misclassified as second-hand equipment meant for reuse, which evades scrutiny under existing legal frameworks such as the Basel Convention (Sridhar & Kumar, 2019). While the Convention and its Ban Amendment prohibit the export of hazardous waste from developed to developing countries, enforcement is lax and major e-waste producing nations like the United States have not ratified the Ban Amendment.
Environmental and Health Consequences
In the global south, where the majority of e-waste ends up, the process of reclying is informal and largely unregulated. It is led by junk dealers with very few resources and engages poor and marginalised people in manual processes. The informal recycling of e-waste involves manual dismantling, open-air burning of wires, acid baths for metal extraction, and crude melting—all practices that release toxic substances like lead, mercury, cadmium, and brominated flame retardants into the environment (Annamalai, 2015). These toxins contaminate air, soil, and water, creating long-term health risks for workers and surrounding communities.
The Global E-Waste Monitor and other studies have pointed out that children and women are especially vulnerable. They are often employed in this sector due to the low skill requirements and economic necessity, exposing them to neurotoxic substances that can result in developmental delays, reproductive issues, and chronic illnesses (UNHRC, 2022). As per Owen et al. (2025), informal e-waste recycling violates multiple human rights, including the rights to health, clean environment, and safe working conditions. It exposes communities to serious health risks, including respiratory diseases, neurological damage, and carcinogens. Furthermore, the environmental damage extends beyond localized pollution. Leachates from e-waste contaminant dumps can infiltrate groundwater sources, while airborne toxins contribute to broader atmospheric pollution.
A Look Into The Indian Landscape
India, a major recipient of such waste, exemplifies the dynamics of waste colonialism. Despite being a signatory to the Basel Convention, India’s ports receive large quantities of e-waste disguised as working electronics. Once in India, these items often end up in informal recycling hubs such as Seelampur in Delhi, Moradabad in Uttar Pradesh, and other urban areas where dismantling occurs in hazardous conditions.
The Domestic Legal Environment in India has taken significant action to combat e-waste at home. An expert committee was established as a result of the Supreme Court’s 1997 intervention, and the E-Waste (Management and Handling) Rules were eventually updated in 2011 and 2022. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), which requires manufacturers to assume accountability for the end-of-life disposal of their electronic products, was established by these regulations.
The 2022 rules, for the first time, include recycling targets and penalties for non-compliance. However, implementation has been uneven. Large corporations often outsource compliance to Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs), some of which exist only on paper (TERI White Paper, 2023). As per report by Kalra (2025), companies like LG and Samsung even sued the Indian government over EPR regulations in 2025, highlighting the resistance from powerful corporate lobbies.
Meanwhile, the informal sector continues to dominate e-waste recycling in India. An estimated one million workers are engaged in this sector, many of whom lack basic protective gear or knowledge of safe handling procedures (Sridhar and Kumar, 2019). The case is further complicated by the fact that labor engagement is shaped by caste, class and gender which means women and children from marginalized communities are more likely to be engaged in such tasks. These operations offer livelihoods to a significant urban population thus embedded in the political economy but they are outside the regulatory regimes of the state and often expose them to harmful effects.
Rethinking E-Waste : The Way Forward
E-Waste colonialism is not merely a technological or logistical issue but a complex political issue that touches on issues of colonialism, class, and power structures thus needs to be rethought from the Environmental Justice perspective. It needs to ensure that benefits and burdens of e-waste are distributed equitably across the globe and the global south is neither burdened with waste created elsewhere nor used as scapegoat for taking the blame of western countries. A justice-oriented strategy must acknowledge the systemic injustices that create and maintain waste colonialism in order to go beyond techno-managerial fixes. Some of the possible ways forward can be through recognising the following points.
The excessive amount of waste generated is not necessarily a result of genuine needs but also of capitalist culture of overconsumption and accumulation, especially in western countries (Longdon, 2023). This requires a change towards sustainable consumption patterns through awareness and focus on reduction of the 3R (reduce, recuse, recycle). It would further require changes in design of products to curb intensional short lifespans and provide options for repair (Longdon, 2023; Thales group, 2025). However, this would require government support and regulation like that of the Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive of the European Union, so as to not fall short of corporate interests.
The international regulatory mechanism needs to be strengthened for which the foremost agreement i.e. Basel convention needs to be revisited to correct the loopholes such as labelling it as second hand or as donations. It would also require a robust enforcement mechanism and placing greater responsibility on developed countries to balance the inherent power imbalance which can be done through diplomacy and persuasion.
Further, the trade in e-waste can not be left to market forces alone which can harm communities in pursuit of profits. It needs state intervention and civil society consultations. As per Basel convention, exporters must ensure that the destination country has technology and infrastructure to handle the hazardous waste. However it is often overlooked which gives us a case for promoting technology transfers from developed to developing world and provision of reparations if it causes significant harm to the local population and environment.
However, the whole responsibility can’t be left on international rules alone as the affected countries must strengthen enforcement mechanisms which require bringing legal measures and policies, curbing illegal imports through port vigilance and punishing offenders.
The case of China can serve as guidance as it used to be the world’s largest importer of solid wastes, including e-waste, till 2017. However the government recognised the associated problems and banned import of 24 categories of solid waste from 2018 onwards which was further extended to all the solid wastes with effect from 2021 onwards (European union, n.d.). This has resulted in significant improvements in the local environment and air quality (Shi and Zhang, 2023). Similarly, the European Union’s efforts through the new circular economy action plan with its focus on the electronics and ICT sector offer a positive step forward for reducing and managing E-waste (CEAP, 2020).
However, any such policies must be grounded in the contextual realities of the global south rather than mimicking the EU, Chinese or any other model. There is a need for recognition and consultation with all stakeholders including civil society and actual workers since any government action would impact the network of informal workers associated with waste processing, especially in the case of India.
Despite regulatory failures and state inaction the civil society initiatives offer a hopeful alternative in resistance and grassroot action. Waste-picker cooperatives, such as the Hasiru Dala in Bengaluru and the Safai Sena in Delhi, have started community-based recycling initiatives and pushed for safer working conditions and official recognition of informal workers. On a global scale, groups such as the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) have been advocating for complete export prohibition of toxic wastes and environmental justice.
One alternative way of perceiving e-waste can be in the form of ‘urban mine’ i.e. means a source of valuable raw material (Corwin, 2019). E-waste contains not just hazardous elements like lead, mercury, and cadmium but also the valuable metals such as gold, silver, copper & lithium (Anderson, 2025). And the concentration of these metals is more than natural ores that means, if properly tapped, the e-waste can quench the thirst of manufactures for raw materials and also reduce the burden on natural resources (Borthakur, 2022). The global loss of valuable materials which is estimated at USD 37 billion annually reflects a missed opportunity for resource recovery and sustainable circular economies (Balde et al., 2024).
Overall, we can say that the problem of e-waste and the phenomenon of waste colonialism is embedded in the global structures, power relations, production and consumer patterns. The problem is further worsened due to unequal burden on the global south and lack of accountability from developed countries. However, there are possibilities of positive changes through just strategies and change in the perspectives which would require efforts at civil society, national and international level through shared responsibility and cooperation among stakeholders by the means of holistic and contextual policies.
References
Annamalai, J. (2015). Occupational health hazards related to informal recycling of E-waste in India: An overview. Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 19(1), 61–65.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4446940
Anderson, K. (2020, May 16). Why e-waste is becoming an issue. Greenly.
https://greenly.earth/en-gb/blog/industries/why-e-waste-is-becoming-an-issue
Balde, C. P., Wang, F., Kuehr, R., Huisman, J., & Stegmann, P. (2024). Global E-Waste Monitor 2024. United Nations University. https://ewastemonitor.info/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/GEM_2024_EN_11_NOV-web.pdf
Borthakur, A. (2022, November 8). Electronic Waste in the Global South: An Overview with a Special Focus on India [Video]. Rachel Carson Center Lunchtime Colloquium. YouTube. https://youtu.be/ns7mXUON-yg
Chen, B. X. (2008, September 18). Report: U.S. E-Waste Ends Up in Asia for Recycling. Wired. https://www.wired.com/2008/09/report-u-s-e-waste-ends-up-in-asia-for-recycling/
Corwin, J. (2019) ‘Between Toxics and Gold: Devaluing Informal Labor in the Global Urban Mine’, Capitalism Nature Socialism, 31(4), pp. 106–123. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2019.1690533
European Commission. (n.d.). Trade barrier: European Union – Restriction on the import of used electronic equipment. Retrieved June 19, 2025, from https://trade.ec.europa.eu/access-to-markets/en/barriers/details?isSps=false&barrier_id=12962
European Commission. (n.d.). Circular economy action plan. Environment. Retrieved June 19, 2025, from https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/circular-economy-action-plan_en
Global E-waste Statistics Partnership. (2024). Global E-waste Monitor. Retrieved June 10, 2025 from https://globalewaste.org/
Kalra, A. (2025, April 22). Exclusive: LG, Samsung sue Indian government over electronic-waste pricing policy. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/lg-samsung-sue-indian-government-over-electronic-waste-pricing-policy-2025-04-21/
Liboiron, M. (2021). Pollution is Colonialism. Duke University Press.
https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/lob.10619
Longdon, J. (2023, July 17). What is waste colonialism? Shado Magazine. Retrieved June 18, 2025, from https://shado-mag.com/education/know/what-is-waste-colonialism/
Owen, C., Scougall, B., & Walker, S. (2025, May). Environmental injustice: How informal e-waste recycling impacts human rights. Environmental Rights Australia.
Sangaralingam, M. (2024, August 1). Waste trade: A form of colonialism. Break Free From Plastic. https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/2024/08/01/waste-trade-a-form-of-colonialism/
Shi, X., & Zhang, K. (2023). Exploring e-waste recycling behavior in the Global South: Evidence from urban China. Resources Policy, 84, 103608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103608
Sridhar, L., & Kumar, P. (2019). The New Face of Waste Colonialism: A Review of Legal Regulations Governing the Import of Waste into India. Socio-Legal Review, 15(2), 101–126.
https://repository.nls.ac.in/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=slr
Sustainability Directory. (n.d.). Global waste trade injustice. Pollution & Sustainability Directory. Retrieved June 19, 2025, from https://pollution.sustainability-directory.com/term/global-waste-trade-injustice/
Thales Group. (2025, April 1). Focus on EECONE: How the EU is bringing together electronics firms to combat e-waste. Thales Group. Retrieved June 19, 2025, from https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide-digital-identity-and-security/mobile/magazine/focus-eecone-how-eu-bringing-together
The Energy and Resources Institute. (2023). E-waste and Extended Producer Responsibility: A White Paper on Strengthening Implementation in India. TERI. https://www.teriin.org/sites/default/files/files/White_paper_E-wasteEPR.pdf
UN Human Rights Council. (2022). Report on the Right to a Healthy Environment. United Nations.
Vidal, J. (2013, December 16). Toxic E-Waste Dumped in Poor Nations, Says United Nations. The Guardian. https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/toxic-e-waste-dumped-in-poor-nations-says-united-nation