Who Bears the Hidden Cost when the World’s e-waste Burden Falls on the Global South?

In today’s digital age, we live in an ever-accelerating cycle of technological consumption. Every year, millions of people around the world rush to replace their smartphones, laptops, televisions, and other electronic devices with newer, faster, thinner models. But there’s a pressing question we rarely ask: Where do all the old devices go?

The answer points overwhelmingly in one direction: the Global South, the vast stretch of developing countries across Africa, Asia, and Latin America. While these countries generate less e-waste per capita than their wealthier counterparts, they have become the final destination for much of the world’s electronic junk. Behind the glittering sheen of the digital revolution lies a harsh truth: poor and developing nations have become the dumping ground for the world’s electronic waste. And in this narrative, we must ask seriously: Who really bears the hidden cost of technological progress?

The Global E-Waste Explosion and Structural Injustice

In 2022, the world broke yet another record: 62 million tons of e-waste were generated globally, an 82% increase from a decade prior. That figure is projected to reach 82 million tons by 2030 if current trends persist. Alarmingly, only about 17% of this waste is formally collected and recycled; the rest is channeled into murky pathways, dumped in landfills, burned in the open air, or shipped illegally to Global South nations.

Data shows that countries like Ghana, Nigeria, India, and Indonesia are among the most burdened. In Ghana, for instance, the Agbogbloshie district in Accra has become a global symbol of e-waste disaster: each year, hundreds of thousands of tons of used electronics from Europe and North America arrive, most of it irreparably damaged. There, cables are burned to extract copper, circuit boards are soaked in acid, and toxic metals seep into the soil, air, and water. Research has found that chicken eggs near Agbogbloshie contain dioxin levels 220 times higher than the European Union’s safety threshold.

In India, the world’s third-largest e-waste producer, over 90% of e-waste is handled by the informal sector, often involving open-air burning and manual metal separation without protective equipment. In Indonesia, roughly 1.9 million tonnes of e-waste per year end up with informal collectors, while Nigeria processes about 500,000 tonnes annually, much of it illegally imported under the guise of “second-hand goods.”

Who Suffers the Most? Not the consumers in wealthier nations. Not the global corporations profiting from record electronics sales. Not the investors enjoying healthy returns. The ones who pay the price are the local poor: scavengers, informal workers, and children who live and work in the shadows of the e-waste economy.

They inhale the fumes of burning wires, touch heavy metals without protection, and carry toxic residues back into their homes and bodies. Long-term health consequences are mounting. Epidemiological studies in Ghana and Nigeria have shown that communities living near e-waste dumps face significantly elevated infant and neonatal mortality rates (Njoku et al., 2023). Neonatal death rates, once around 3–4%, have more than doubled in areas near e-waste activity. Exposure to lead, cadmium, dioxins, and PCBs can cause nerve damage, developmental delays, birth defects, immune system disorders, and cancer.

What makes this even more tragic is that those bearing the brunt are often communities entirely dependent on the informal e-waste economy just to survive. This transforms the e-waste crisis into a combined public health emergency, a social justice issue, and a profound moral challenge.

ESG: Sweet Promises or Real Accountability?

Under the framework of ESG (environmental, social, and governance), corporations are expected to uphold responsibilities in three key areas:

·        Environmental: minimizing ecological impacts, including proper waste management.

·        Social: respecting the rights of workers, local communities, and affected populations.

·        Governance: ensuring legal compliance, avoiding corruption, and maintaining transparency.

Yet in the realm of e-waste, ESG violations are glaring. Many multinational electronics companies, despite earning massive profits, take little responsibility for the end-of-life phase of their products. Few have take-back systems in developing countries, allowing their discarded devices to end up in informal markets or open dumps. Worse still, some directly or indirectly participate in illegal waste trading, exploiting regulatory loopholes and weak enforcement.

A striking example: when India tightened its Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regulations in 2022, requiring manufacturers to meet stringent recycling targets, major players like Daikin, Hitachi, and Samsung resisted through legal challenges, claiming the rules imposed unfair business burdens. It’s a bitter irony: on one hand, these companies parade glossy sustainability reports; on the other, they shirk the most fundamental obligations of product stewardship.

Meanwhile, cross-border e-waste trafficking flourishes. The Basel Action Network reports that 6% of Europe’s e-waste is exported illegally to developing nations, facilitated by document forgery, bribery, and evasions of international treaties like the Basel Convention. This constitutes a blatant failure of governance under ESG, turning what should be a transparent, legal system into a shadow network of environmental crime.

Why Must the Global South Pay?

The answer is disturbingly simple: it’s cheaper to export the problem than to solve it domestically. Managing hazardous waste in environmentally sound facilities in the Global North costs significantly more than shipping it away. Meanwhile, developing countries offer the “perfect market” with lax regulations, weak enforcement, high poverty rates, and millions dependent on informal labor.

This creates a structural injustice: the Global North enjoys the benefits of the digital revolution, while the Global South shoulders the environmental, social, and health burdens. Children in Ghana, scavengers in Lagos, and informal workers in Jakarta never shared in the prosperity of the digital boom, yet they pay for its consequences with their health, their environment, and their futures.

This injustice is not accidental; it is the direct result of global systems designed to externalize costs onto those least able to resist. When international corporations cut corners, when governments prioritize profit over regulation, and when consumers turn a blind eye to where their discarded devices end up, the burden inevitably lands on the Global South.

What makes this even more alarming is that these communities are not just passive victims; they are trapped in a cycle where survival depends on participating in the very system that harms them. Informal recyclers and scrap workers, many of them women and children, rely on e-waste processing for income, despite the toxic risks. Without alternatives, they face a grim choice: endure long-term health damage or face immediate economic hardship.

Breaking this cycle requires more than technical solutions or well-meaning pledges. It demands a global reckoning with how we assign value, responsibility, and justice across borders. The question is no longer whether the Global North has a role to play; it is whether it will finally assume that role with the seriousness and urgency the crisis demands.

Making Global Responsibility Real

1. Adopt Circular Economy Models

Corporations must abandon the linear “produce–consume–discard” pattern and shift to circular models: extending product lifespans, facilitating repairs, and reintegrating materials into the supply chain. Modular design, buyback schemes, and leasing services like Device-as-a-Service can significantly reduce e-waste at the source.

2.  Expand Global Producer Responsibility

Extended Producer Responsibility must apply worldwide, not just in rich countries. Electronics manufacturers should be required to take responsibility for their products’ waste impacts across all markets, including by building local collection centers, funding safe recycling facilities, and transparently tracking waste flows.

3.   Empower the Informal Sector

Instead of marginalizing informal workers, sustainability solutions must integrate them by providing training, protective equipment, fair compensation, and pathways into the formal system. Only by improving social conditions can companies truly fulfill the “S” in ESG.

4.   Strengthen Transparency and Enforcement

Governments must demand transparent corporate reporting on product returns, recycling rates, and waste destinations. Cross-border legal enforcement must be fortified to dismantle illegal waste trafficking networks, with stiff penalties for corporate offenders.

Ultimately, the question is not just who pays; it is who takes responsibility. ESG principles will only be meaningful if companies acknowledge the social and environmental costs of their products, if governments close legal loopholes and punish violators, and if civil society raises its voice to demand justice.

Without this, ESG will remain a myth, while on the ground, places like Agbogbloshie, Jabon, Lagos, and Dharavi continue to bleed. Children will keep inhaling the fumes of burning wires, workers will soak their hands in acid to extract gold, and rivers will carry poisons downstream into rice fields and homes.

The central question remains: Who bears the hidden cost when the world’s e-waste burden falls on the Global South? And how long will we let them pay with their health and lives? Without real accountability, ESG promises risk becoming hollow words, masking a deep moral failure. It is time to ensure those carrying the weight of the e-waste crisis are no longer left to suffer for a problem they did not create.