GRAPH 1

Explanation of the Graph

1. Types of E-Waste: The graph highlights six types of e-waste (e.g., IT/telecom equipment, cooling/freezing
devices) disposed of by companies, schools, and industries.

2. Dominant Contributors:

o Companies, especially B and C, lead in small IT/telecom e-waste.

o Schools focus on screens/monitors and lamps, with School D contributing the most.

o Industries generate heavy equipment waste (e.g., cooling/freezing).

Comparative Analysis

• Companies: Highest volume, driven by IT upgrades.

• Schools: Moderate waste, mainly monitors/lamps.

• Industries: Focus on heavy equipment, requiring specialized recycling.

This calls for tailored e-waste recycling approaches.

GRAPH 2
The graph provides an overview of how e-waste is disposed of by companies, schools, and industries, either locally,
internationally, or both.

1. Local Disposal:

o Companies dominate local disposal with 4 entities disposing e-waste within the country.

o Schools and industries each contribute to 2 local disposals.

2. International Disposal:

o Only 1 company disposes of e-waste internationally.

o No schools or industries engage in exclusive international disposal.

3. Both Local and International:

o 2 schools and 2 companies dispose of e-waste across both local and international locations.

o No industries follow this mixed approach.

Implications:

• Companies show diverse e-waste disposal methods, while schools are focused on mixed disposal.

• Industries rely solely on local disposal, indicating limited engagement in global recycling practices.

• This highlights the need for enhanced infrastructure to manage e-waste sustainably at all levels.
GRAPH 3
The graph compares annual e-waste disposal by companies, schools, and industries, categorized into three ranges:
<100 kg, 100–1,000 kg, and >1,000 kg.

Key Insights:

1. Companies: Generate the most e-waste across all categories, with significant contributions in the >1,000 kg
range (2 entries). Their operations rely heavily on electronics, leading to frequent upgrades and large-scale
disposals.

2. Schools: Mostly dispose of small amounts of e-waste, with entries in the <100 kg (2) and 100–1,000 kg (1)
categories. They lack any presence in the >1,000 kg range, reflecting lower dependency on electronics.

3. Industries: Contribute the least, with only one entry in both the <100 kg and 100–1,000 kg ranges. Their
minimal e-waste suggests better efficiency or lower usage of electronic devices.

Comparative Analysis:

• Companies dominate e-waste disposal, requiring large-scale recycling systems.

• Schools need small-scale collection drives and awareness campaigns.

• Industries should maintain their efficiency while adopting structured disposal measures.

TABLE 4
The table outlines e-waste management practices of three companies, focusing on disposal methods, reduction
efforts, recycling interest, and landfill use.

Key Insights:

1. E-Waste Volume: Companies 1 and 2 dispose of <100 kg annually, while Company 3 handles 100–1,000 kg.

2. Disposal Methods: All rely on recycling centers. Company 1 also uses landfills and returns gadgets, while
Company 3 resells or gifts usable items.

3. Reduction Measures: Companies prioritize recycling, returning, or reusing electronics. Company 3 focuses on
reuse through resale or gifting.

4. Landfill Use: Companies 1 and 3 use local landfills; Company 2 opts for international disposal.

5. Recycling and PSS: All show interest in recycling. Only Company 2 has limited PSS implementation (plastic
waste).

Comparison with Schools and Industries:

• Volume: Companies produce more e-waste than schools but less than industries.

• Disposal: Companies adopt diverse methods (recycling, reuse), while schools and industries emphasize
disposal efficiency.

• Reduction: Companies lead in active reduction and reuse, whereas schools and industries focus more on
minimal generation.

Companies' proactive strategies highlight the need for structured policies like PSS and greater transparency across
sectors.
GRAPH 5
The pie chart illustrates the distribution of methods used to dispose of e-waste:

1. Recycling Centers (43%): The majority of e-waste is responsibly sent to recycling centers, highlighting efforts
toward sustainable waste management.

2. Landfills (24%): A significant portion is dumped in landfills, posing environmental risks.

3. Collection for Recycling Events (19%): Temporary storage of e-waste until designated recycling events
reflects moderate engagement in organized disposal.

4. Return to Producers (14%): A smaller share involves returning damaged electronics to manufacturers, a
sustainable but underutilized option.

Comparative Analysis:

1. Companies: Lead in diverse disposal methods, utilizing recycling centers, returning items to producers, and
reselling/reusing usable devices. Their focus on recycling is evident but also includes landfill use.

2. Schools: Primarily rely on recycling centers and events, reflecting smaller e-waste volumes and simpler
disposal mechanisms.

3. Industries: Likely emphasize recycling and disposal efficiency, but landfill use may persist depending on
sector-specific challenges.

GRAPH 6
1. Current Scenario:

o The high percentage (80%) without e-waste management highlights a lack of awareness,
infrastructure, or regulatory enforcement.

o The minority with e-waste plans (20%) likely represent progressive organizations that recognize the
environmental and legal importance of managing e-waste.

2. Comparative Analysis by Sector:

o Companies:
Larger companies often prioritize corporate social responsibility (CSR) and may adopt e-waste
management to meet compliance standards or build brand reputation. However, smaller companies
may lack resources or awareness, resulting in lower adoption rates.

o Schools:
Educational institutions typically have lower awareness or access to e-waste management systems.
Many schools use outdated technology and may not have a formal disposal process, contributing to
the problem.

o Industries:
Industries, particularly in manufacturing, often generate significant e-waste. Larger industries may
have dedicated processes for managing hazardous and electronic waste due to stricter regulations.
However, small-scale industries might neglect these practices due to cost or lack of enforcement.
GRAPH 7
The graph shows the increase in e-waste over the last decade. It reveals that 58% of respondents acknowledged an
increase in e-waste, 25% reported no increase, and 17% were unsure. This data highlights a growing e-waste
problem, with more than half of respondents experiencing a rise in electronic waste generation.

Comparative Analysis of E-Waste Management:

1. Companies:

o Companies experience rising e-waste due to rapid technological upgrades and frequent equipment
replacements. Larger firms are more likely to adopt e-waste management strategies, while smaller
firms often lag due to resource constraints.

2. Schools:

o Schools typically generate e-waste through outdated computers and electronic learning devices.
Many lack formal e-waste disposal systems, leading to improper management.

3. Industries:

o Industries, particularly those in electronics manufacturing, generate significant e-waste. Large

industries often comply with stricter environmental regulations, while small-scale industries may
overlook e-waste management due to cost or lack of awareness.