Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
i
Examining the value-action gap among
consumers in relation to mobile phone
reuse and recycling
2015
Student ID: 12821869
Student name: Pavlin Matia
Word count: 15,600
Date of submission: 14 September 2015
Degree course: MSc Environment and Sustainability
ii
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank those who took the time to participate in this study. Special thanks are
also owed to Adam Thorn, Angela Ayios, Julian Filochowski and my supervisor, Phil
Cumming.
iii
Abstract
As environmental concerns have become widespread, many consumers have
expressed a desire to embrace more sustainable lifestyles. Yet, despite verbal
commitment, few have made behavioural changes to reduce their environmental
impact. The discrepancy between intention and action, known as the value-action
gap, has been the subject of numerous studies. However, no consensus exists on
what causes it or how it may be addressed. Furthermore, it has not previously been
examined in relation to reuse and recycling of mobile phones, which are the most
ubiquitous and frequently replaced electronic products in the world.
To fill this knowledge gap and contribute towards overcoming the problem, twenty-
one semi-structured interviews were conducted with mobile phone owners living in
London and the South-East of England. The results indicate that participants
believed older phones should be reused or recycled. These beliefs were driven by
their attitudes towards the environment, perceived value in the phones and their
components, awareness of the environmental consequences, desire for personal
gain, and knowledge of reuse or recycling opportunities.
Although participants believed older phones should be reused or recycled, the
majority (81%) stockpiled them at home. Psychological barriers such as privacy
concerns, perceived obsolescence, lack of trust in the recycling process, and
laziness, coupled with practical barriers such as inconvenience, lack of
encouragement and unawareness of reuse/recycling opportunities were found to
be the main causes of stockpiling. To reconcile the discrepancy between their
expressed willingness to reuse or recycle phones and their behaviour, participants
applied neutralisation techniques such as the denial of responsibility, denial of harm
and appeal to higher loyalties.
iv
Table of acronyms
Theory of Reasoned Action TRA
Theory of Planned Behaviour TPB
Information Deficit ID
Value-Belief-Norm VBN
Value-Action Gap VAG
End of Life EoL
Waste, Electrical and Electronic Equipment WEEE
United Nations Environmental Programme UNEP
Pro-Environmental Behaviour PEB
Norm-Activation Theory NAT
Product Life Extension PLE
Waste & Resources Action Programme WRAP
Non-Governmental Organisation NGO
Perceived Behavioural Control PBC
Social Research Association SRA
Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxins PBTs
v
Table of contents
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Efforts to address the problem ....................................................................................... 3
1.3 Research rationalisation .................................................................................................. 5
1.4 Aim and objectives ........................................................................................................... 6
1.5 Research synopsis .............................................................................................................. 7
2. Literature review .......................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Drivers of pro-environmental behaviour ..................................................................... 9
2.1.1 The role of environmental knowledge ......................................................................... 9
2.1.2 The role of attitude and social pressure .................................................................... 10
2.1.3 Perceived behavioural control .................................................................................... 12
2.2 Other factors influencing pro-environmental behaviour ..................................... 15
2.3 Barriers to pro-environmental behaviour .................................................................. 17
2.3.1 Individuality barriers ......................................................................................................... 17
2.3.2 Responsibility barriers ...................................................................................................... 18
2.3.3 Practicality barriers .......................................................................................................... 18
2.3.4 Barriers specific to mobile phone reuse and recycling ........................................ 20
2.4 Neutralisation techniques .............................................................................................. 21
2.5 Rationale for research question .................................................................................. 23
2.5 Summary............................................................................................................................. 24
3. Methodology ............................................................................................................. 25
3.1 Research design............................................................................................................... 25
3.1.1 Philosophy .......................................................................................................................... 25
3.1.2 Approach ........................................................................................................................... 26
3.1.3 Research technique ....................................................................................................... 27
3.1.4 Data gathering ................................................................................................................. 28
3.1.5 Alternative methods considered ................................................................................ 29
3.1.6 Sampling ............................................................................................................................. 30
3.1.7 Participant profiles ........................................................................................................... 33
3.1.8 Pilot interviews ................................................................................................................... 33
3.2 Data analysis ..................................................................................................................... 33
3.2.1 Data reduction: Inductive coding .............................................................................. 33
3.2.2 Grounded theory formulation ...................................................................................... 34
3.3 Ethical considerations ..................................................................................................... 34
3.4 Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 35
3.4.1 Time constraints ................................................................................................................ 35
3.4.2 Geographical limitations ............................................................................................... 36
vi
3.4.3 Participant homogeneity .............................................................................................. 36
4. Data analysis and discussion ................................................................................... 37
4.1 Phone disposal methods among participants ........................................................ 37
4.2 Factors encouraging reuse and recycling of phones ........................................... 39
4.2.1 Personal gain .................................................................................................................... 39
4.2.2 Attitude towards the environment ............................................................................. 40
4.2.3 Altruistic intentions ........................................................................................................... 41
4.2.4 Perceived significance of value of device .............................................................. 42
4.2.5 Knowledge of reuse and recycling opportunities .................................................. 43
4.2.6 Awareness of environmental consequences .......................................................... 43
4.3 Barriers to pro-environmental behaviour .................................................................. 44
4.3.1 Data security and privacy concerns ......................................................................... 44
4.3.2 Data storage and sentimental value ......................................................................... 45
4.3.3 Unawareness of recycling schemes and reuse opportunities ............................ 46
4.3.4 Perceived obsolescence............................................................................................... 47
4.3.5 Backup option and lack of trust in technology ...................................................... 48
4.3.6 Lack of trust in the process ............................................................................................ 48
4.3.7 Perceived insignificance of value of device ........................................................... 49
4.3.8 Indifference and laziness ............................................................................................... 49
4.3.9 Lack of encouragement ............................................................................................... 50
4.3.10 Inconvenience ................................................................................................................. 51
4.4 The stigma of reuse ......................................................................................................... 52
4.5 Methods of neutralisation .............................................................................................. 53
4.5.1 Denial of responsibility .................................................................................................... 53
4.5.2 Denial of injury .................................................................................................................. 54
4.5.3 Appeal to higher loyalties ............................................................................................. 54
4.5.4 Summary............................................................................................................................. 55
5. Theoretical conceptualisation .................................................................................. 57
6. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 61
6.1 Limitations and scope for further research ............................................................... 62
7. Bibliography ............................................................................................................... 64
8. Appendices................................................................................................................ 80
8.1 Appendix 1: Elements of a modern smartphone ................................................... 80
8.2 Appendix 2: Information sheet .................................................................................... 81
8.3 Appendix 3: Consent form ............................................................................................ 82
8.4 Appendix 4: Participant profiles .................................................................................. 83
8.5 Appendix 5: List of interview questions ...................................................................... 85
8.6 Appendix 6: Sample transcribed interview .............................................................. 86
vii
Table of figures
Figure 1: Simplified lifecycle of phones and environmental impacts .............................. 5
Figure 2: Information deficit model ..................................................................................... 10
Figure 3: The Theory of Reasoned Action .......................................................................... 11
Figure 4: The Theory of Planned Behaviour. ....................................................................... 13
Figure 5: Model of altruistic behaviour ............................................................................... 16
Figure 6: Barriers between environmental concern and action .................................... 19
Figure 7: The research onion ................................................................................................ 26
Figure 8: Inductive vs deductive research approach...................................................... 27
Figure 9: Selecting a non-probability sampling technique ............................................. 32
Figure 10: Framework of the value-action gap ................................................................ 60
1
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Over the last three decades, as environmental concerns have become widespread
among consumers, many have expressed a desire to embrace more sustainable
lifestyles (Chai et al., 2015). Yet, despite verbal commitment, few have made
behavioural changes to reduce their environmental impact (Blake, 1999). This
discrepancy between expressed intention and action is of growing concern to
academics, policymakers and social institutions that seek to reduce the harmful
effects of human existence on the planet (Kennedy et al., 2009).
Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the rates of natural resource depletion
and waste creation have experienced accelerated growth and now represent
major global sustainability challenges (Huang and Troung, 2008). During the 2012
Earth Summit, world leaders from 192 countries acknowledged these problems and
pledged to “increase resource efficiency and reduce waste” (UNCSD, 2012, p. 10).
Much of the increased demand for natural resources over recent years has come
from the production of electronic devices, such as mobile phones, which are made
from dozens of components (Nnorom and Osibanjo, 2009). Studies have found
mobile phone manufacturing to be a resource-intensive process that results in
considerable harm to the environment and creates hazardous electronic waste (see
Sahu and Srinivasan, 2008; Yadav et al., 2014). Yet the number of mobile phones
produced and then disposed of through landfill every year continues to grow (Polák
and Drápalová, 2012).
2
Since their introduction into the market over thirty years ago, mobile phones have
become the most ubiquitous and frequently replaced electronic product in the
world (Geyer and Blass, 2010; Wilhelm, 2012). Despite nearing saturation in the West,
ownership of these devices continues to grow thanks to rapid technological
improvements, falling production costs and rising demand from emerging
economies (Piano et al., 2013). It is estimated that the number of mobile phones in
existence increased from 4.7 billion in 2009 to 6.8 billion in 2013 (Yadav et al., 2014).
In high-income countries, most phones are replaced within 24 months of purchase,
and many are still working when they are disposed of (Wilhelm, 2012). Every year,
mobile phones contribute to the creation of around 50 million metric tonnes of
electronic waste (Sahu and Srinivasan, 2008). Given the explosive growth in
ownership and the amount of electronic waste going to landfill, the need to
encourage the reuse and recycling of these devices has become essential (Yu et
al., 2010).
Recent studies estimate that fewer than 10% of older mobile phones are sent for
recycling (Geyer and Blass, 2010; RICS, 2011; Wilhelm, 2012). Around 18% are gifted
to friends and family for reuse, and 7-9% are sold to refurbishing companies or
individuals (Ongondo and Williams, 2011b). The remainder are either stockpiled
(55%) or thrown away with general waste (Canning, 2006; Li et al., 2012; Ylä-Mella et
al., 2015). In the US, more than 141 million phones went to landfill in 2010 (Green
Alliance, 2015). For each mobile phone still being used in the UK, up to four are kept
in drawers by consumers (ibid). Although electronic waste represents only around 5%
of municipal household waste, UNEP (2009) estimates that by 2020 the number of
mobile phones discarded annually will be approximately seven times larger than in
2007.
3
Research into consumers’ willingness to recycle mobile phones at the end of their life
(EoL) has found that the majority (84%) are prepared to dispose of their devices
sustainably (Osibanjo and Nnorom, 2008; Ongondo and Williams, 2011b).
Nevertheless, reuse and recycling rates remain low (Geyer and Blass, 2010). The
reason for this, according to a number of environmental psychology scholars, is the
value-action gap (see Blake, 1999; Fehr, 2005; Chung and Leung, 2007). The value-
action gap (also known as the “green gap” or “attitude-behaviour gap”) describes
situations where there is a discrepancy between an individual’s values and their
behaviour (Mittal, 1988).
The value-action gap is not a new phenomenon: it has been the subject of
numerous studies (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002; Gleim and Lawson, 2014). Yet, no
consensus exists on its causes and how it could be addressed (Mittal, 1988; Belk et
al., 2005; Gleim and Lawson, 2014). This discrepancy between verbal commitment
and behaviour has weakened the effectiveness of many environmental initiatives
and policies in the past (Chung and Leung, 2007). It is therefore necessary to
understand the factors that create the value-action gap in pursuit of possible
strategies to overcome the problem and increase mobile phone reuse and
recycling rates (ibid).
1.2 Efforts to address the problem
Mobile phones have become an essential tool for communication, productivity and
entertainment (Glisson et al., 2011). Rapid technological developments, increased
affordability and frequent replacement due to perceived obsolescence have
created a growing waste problem (Yadav et al., 2014). In Britain alone, over 18
million mobile phones are replaced annually (Fonebak, 2008).
4
Some manufacturers, retailers and recyclers have attempted to reduce the
environmental impacts by launching take-back recycling programmes (Ongondo
and Williams, 2011a). In total, there are over a hundred reuse and recycling schemes
in existence across Britain and many more operating in other countries (ibid). In
addition, a growing market has emerged dealing with the sale of pre-owned
phones (Glisson et al., 2011). Despite the existence of such schemes, reports estimate
that globally only 12% of phone upgrades involve the reuse or recycling of older
devices (Green Alliance, 2015). There is now widespread consensus that redundant
mobile phones represent a significant environmental problem requiring urgent
attention (Geyer and Blass, 2010).
In Europe, the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive has come
into force to address the electronic waste issue. However, the requirements of this
directive are difficult to enforce for household waste disposal (DIBS, 2014). Even if
adherence to such requirements were made easier for consumers, the compact size
of these devices makes them prone to improper disposal (Huang and Truong, 2008).
Although various studies have proposed methods of dealing with the problem,
disposal through landfill is considered an unacceptable end-of-life management
option (Geyer and Blass, 2010).
Addressing this issue requires a move away from traditional consumption patterns,
which have been prevalent for decades, towards a more circular system favouring
product life extension, reuse and recycling (Andersen, 2007). Although there is no
single route into the circular economy, there are many ways to keep mobile phones
in use and away from landfill (Green Alliance, 2015). Refurbishing devices, recycling
components and recovering resources could substantially reduce reliance on the
raw materials needed in mobile production, conceivably by up to 80% (Cramer,
5
2011). A phone used for an additional year could cut the device’s overall lifecycle
CO2 emissions by 30% and help prevent hazardous waste ending up in landfill
(Green Alliance, 2015). However, achieving such results is dependent upon the
behaviour of consumers who are responsible for determining the fate of these
devices (Sahu and Srinivasen, 2008).
1.3 Research rationalisation
Phones are among the most harmful electronic items found in large quantities in
waste streams (Bains et al., 2006). Mobile phone manufacturing involves combining
hazardous substances (lead, cadmium, mercury, palladium, etc.) with non-
biodegradable, rare earth metals, to make the components (Nnorom and Osibanjo,
2009). When phones are sent to landfill, persistent bioaccumulative toxins (PBTs)
leach into the earth, causing harmful contamination (Lincoln et al., 2007; Nnorom
and Osibanjo, 2009). Figure 1 shows a simplified mobile phone lifecycle and the
associated environmental impacts (Bossuet, 2014).
Figure 1: Simplified lifecycle of phones and environmental impacts (Bossuet, 2014).
Processing of raw
materialsManufacturing of
devicesProduct use
High energy
consumption.
High consumption of raw
materials, water and
solvents.
Air pollution, soil
pollution, and
contamination of ground
water.
Threat to workers’ health
and safety.
High energy
consumption.
High consumption of
chemical products and
water.
Possible pollution of air
and water.
Radiation and dissipation
of heat.
Threats to workers’ health
and safety.
Energy consumption.
Radiation and disposal of
heat.
Potential threat to user’s
health.
Exposure to the
environment.
Problems with recycling,
non-biodegradable.
Possible leakage of toxic
waste into the water, air
and natural environment.
Impacts of discharge on
the health and safety of
workers and the local
community.
End of life
Besides causing harm and creating waste, stockpiling or discarding mobile phones
through landfill results in a significant loss of resources (Yadav and Yadav, 2014). A
number of precious metals such as gold, copper and zinc (see Appendix 1) are used
6
in the mobile phone manufacturing process (Nicoll, 2009). Once sent to landfill,
these metals are difficult to recover (Cramer, 2011).
The term “mobile phone” is used in this research in reference to basic multimedia,
feature and smart phones. Since there is value to be derived from, and
environmental harm caused by, all three types of device (see Nicoll, 2009), this study
makes no distinction between them.
Although studies have examined how consumers dispose of mobile phones (see
Canning, 2006; Ongondo and Williams, 2011b; Wilhelm et al., 2011; Polák and
Drápalová, 2012; Yin et al., 2013), little effort has been made to understand why
these disposal methods are chosen (Wan et al., 2014). According to Canning (2006),
for mobile phone recovery, reuse and recycling activities to be expanded, research
should be carried out specifically to examine the behaviours associated with
disposal. Understanding the drivers of consumer behaviour is critical in developing
strategies for achieving the necessary behavioural change (Piacentini et al., 2012).
1.4 Aim and objectives
Given that existing research has shown a discrepancy between verbal commitment
and actual reuse and recycling of mobile phones, the aim of this research was to
examine the factors that cause the value-action gap among consumers.
The objectives were to:
- Examine the factors that encourage consumers to reuse or recycle their mobile
phones;
- Evaluate the barriers discouraging or preventing consumers from engaging in
such behaviour;
- Analyse how consumers justify behaviour inconsistent with their stated intentions.
7
1.5 Research synopsis
Chapter 2 provides a summary of the key literature on the drivers of pro-
environmental behaviour, the barriers that help create the value-action gap and
the techniques used to neutralise negative behavioural impacts.
Chapter 3 reflects on the research methods, philosophy and assumptions
underpinning this study.
Chapter 4 presents the analysis of the 21 interviews with research participants.
Chapter 5 outlines the theoretical concept developed from the results of this
research.
Chapter 6 presents the conclusions, limitations and scope for further research.
8
2. Literature review
Research into consumer willingness to recycle or reuse older phones has shown that
attitudes towards such behaviour are highly favourable (Ongondo and Williams,
2011b; Yin et al., 2013). Nevertheless, most phones end up in landfill, in an incinerator
or in a drawer (Reedy, 2009). The causes of the value-action gap have thus far not
been examined in relation to mobile phone reuse and recycling. They have,
however, been extensively studied within research into environmental commitment
and pro-environmental behaviour (e.g. Chung and Leung, 2007; Kennedy et al.,
2009; Mairesse et al., 2012; Chaplin and Wyton, 2014; Gleim and Lawson, 2014). Over
a third of studies on environmental psychology have examined the discrepancy
between intention and action (Kaiser, 1996). Nonetheless, answering the questions
“Why do people act pro-environmentally?” and “What are the barriers to pro-
environmental behaviour?” remains challenging (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002,
p. 240).
According to Gleim and Lawson (2014), most consumers care about the
environment but are unwilling to deal with the challenges of recycling, to spend
more on green products or to risk embarrassment by using inferior goods. For most,
the personal cost of pro-environmental behaviour is often considered greater than
the associated benefit (Vlek and Karen, 1992).
This chapter presents a summary of the literature on factors that drive pro-
environmental behaviour, barriers that help create the value-action gap, and
methods by which negative behavioural impacts are neutralised. The first part
argues that behaviour is driven by intention and in support draws upon the Theory of
Reasoned Action and the Theory of Planned Behaviour. The next section examines
the individual, responsibility and practical barriers that prevent intention from
9
transitioning into behaviour. The chapter concludes by examining the theory of
neutralisation and its use in resolving the conflict individuals experience when their
behaviour contradicts their intention.
2.1 Drivers of pro-environmental behaviour
In the past, many believed that if consumers knew more about the environmental
impact of their actions, they would systematically engage in pro-environmental
behaviour (Owens, 2000). The term “pro-environmental behaviour” describes actions
that seek to minimise negative impacts on the environment (Kollmuss and Agyeman,
2002). A consumer is an individual who acquires, uses and disposes of products
(Arnold and Thomson, 2005). Parker (2007) defines “reuse” as a generic term applied
to all actions in which an end-of-life (EoL) product is put back into service without
major modification to its primary function. The terms “reuse and recycling” and “pro-
environmental behaviour” are used interchangeably throughout this study because
the former are part of the latter.
2.1.1 The role of environmental knowledge
Early models developed during the 1970s suggest that environmental knowledge
influences attitudes towards the environment and this in turn leads to pro-
environmental behaviour (see Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). Such linear models
(see Figure 2) are known as the “information deficit” and are still used by many
governments and NGOs (Owens, 2000). Despite their widespread adoption, they
were proven inaccurate in numerous studies (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002).
According to Monroe (1993), knowledge alone does not lead to positive
environmental behaviour.
10
In his research, Rajecki (1982) found that experience was more effective in
influencing behaviour than knowledge. He also found that social norms were much
more effective in shaping the attitudes of individuals towards certain behaviour than
information (Trivedi et al., 2015). Other studies have shown no direct relationship
between education and pro-environmental behaviour (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith,
1999). According to Hwang et al. (2000), even those with low levels of environmental
knowledge sometimes engage in pro-environmental behaviour.
Figure 2: Information deficit model (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002).
Environmental
knowledge
Environmental
attitudes
Pro-environmental
behaviour
2.1.2 The role of attitude and social pressure
Although information alone does not lead to behaviour, Ajzen and Fishbein (1980)
argue that, as rational beings, individuals systematically use information in their
decision-making process. To offer a better understanding of the relationship
between attitudes and behaviour, Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) developed the Theory
of Reasoned Action (TRA). This theory argues that behaviour is the outcome of
intention (Ramayah and Rahbar, 2013). It suggests that individuals behave in a way
they intend and do not behave in a way which they do not intend (Sommer, 2011).
As Figure 3 shows, the theory outlines two major factors that shape behavioural
intention: a personal or “attitudinal” factor and a social or “normative” factor
(Vallerand et al., 1992).
The personal factor refers to the individual’s attitude towards certain behaviour
(Tonglet et al., 2004a). The term “attitude” is defined in this research as the sum of
11
beliefs towards certain behaviour (Ramayah and Rahbar, 2013). Attitude is formed
through the evaluation of the efforts needed to engage in a particular behaviour
and the consequences of non-engagement (Ajzen, 1988). The second factor refers
to the individual’s assessment of the social pressure to engage and the
consequences of non-engagement in the behaviour (Vallerand et al., 1992). This
factor deals specifically with perceived social expectations and motivation to
behave in a way society expects (Ajzen, 1988). According to Aceti (2002),
individuals are motivated to engage in pro-environmental behaviour, such as
recycling, when they experience pressure from friends and family. Once formulated,
attitudes and subjective norms fuel consumer intention towards pro-environmental
behaviour (Vallerand et al., 1992).
Ajzen (1988) argues that individuals perform certain actions when they evaluate
them positively and when they believe that society wants them to perform those
actions. According to TRA, consumers will reuse or recycle mobile phones if they
consider such actions to be the right thing to do and believe that others would
encourage this behaviour (Dillard and Shen, 2002).
Figure 3: The Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980).
A person’s beliefs that the behaviour
leads to certain outcomes and his
evaluation of these outcomes
A person’s beliefs that specific
individuals or groups think he should
or should not perform the behaviour
and his motivation to comply with
the specific referents
Attitude toward
behaviour
Subjective norms
Behavioural intention Behaviour
Over the last three decades, TRA has become the most influential, and best
supported, attitude-behaviour model (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). It has received
considerable attention in the field of consumer behaviour and has been proven to
12
accurately predict behaviour across multiple fields (see Budd, 1986; Sheppard et al.,
1988; Sommer, 2011). Despite becoming a dominant theory in the study of
environmental psychology, it has been the object of growing criticism (see
Sheppard et al., 1988; Ramayah and Rahbar, 2013). According to Armitage and
Conner (2001), TRA can predict simple behaviour that is within the control of the
individual. However, using this model to predict intention to perform behaviour
outside the control of the individual may not lead to accurate results (Ibid).
Some scholars have criticised the theory for proposing that variables such as age,
gender and previous experiences shape attitudes but do not directly influence
behaviour (East, 1993). Although early studies found no direct impact from these
factors on behaviour (Vining and Ebreo, 1990; Boldero, 1995), other research
suggests they play an important role in behavioural decisions (Lansana, 1993; Davies
et al., 2002). By suggesting that these variables only affect attitudes, Kippax and
Crawford (1994) argue that TRA is bound to fail.
2.1.3 Perceived behavioural control
The Theory of Reasoned Action assumes that behaviour is under the control of the
individual and that the individual can determine whether to engage in a given
behaviour (Tonglet et al., 2004a). In recognition of the limitations of this assumption,
particularly when attempting to predict behaviour outside an individual’s control,
Ajzen (1991) proposed a revised model. The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)
argues that behavioural intention is driven by attitude, subjective norms and
perceived behavioural control (Sommer, 2011). In the new theory, attitude and
subjective norms remain unchanged from the TRA; however, perceived behavioural
control (PBC) is added in order to acknowledge the potential difficulty of performing
certain actions (Ajzen, 1991). Perceived behavioural control is assumed to reflect
13
both an individual’s past experiences and anticipated obstacles to behaviour (Wan
et al., 2014).
Figure 4: The Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991).
Attitudes towards
behaviour
Subjective norms
Perceived behavioural
control
Behavioural intention Behaviour
The central premise of TPB is that behavioural decisions stem from a reasoned
process in which behaviour is influenced by attitudes, social norms and perceived
behavioural control (Smith et al., 2007). Individuals are likely to feel they have more
control over their behaviour if they have positive attitudes towards the behaviour
and believe society wants them to engage in it (Tonglet et al., 2004a).
PBC is comprised of facilitating factors such as convenience, availability of resources
and self-efficacy – the individual’s belief that they can perform a given action taking
into account aspects such as adequacy of knowledge (Bezzina and Dimech, 2011).
Within the Theory of Planned Behaviour, PBC is positioned as both a determinant of
behaviour and a factor that influences intention (Ajzen, 1991). This is the case
because if the perceived level of control over behaviour is low, the action becomes
harder to complete (Kalafatis et al., 1999).
Although the new model addresses some of the criticisms of the original theory, it
does not address them all (Smith et al., 2007). Boldero (1995) and Davies et al. (2002)
argue that the theory does not fully predict the drivers of pro-environmental
14
behaviour. They propose the addition of further variables to increase its accuracy
(Tonglet et al., 2004a). According to Boldero (1995), pro-environmental behaviour,
such as recycling, requires effort from the individual because recycling involves
following a process. A decision against disposing of products (e.g. phones) in the
general waste bin but instead considering recycling requires several factors to be
taken into consideration (Tonglet et al., 2004a).
In the original TRA, Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) acknowledge that certain external
factors, such as previous experience, may influence behaviour. They maintain,
however, that these factors only affect behaviour indirectly by influencing attitudes
(Wan et al., 2014). In the TPB, Ajzen (1991) accepts that other factors can directly
influence behavioural intentions. He thus allows for the addition of other variables to
strengthen the model’s predictive capacity (Tonglet et al., 2004a).
Gifford and Nilsson (2014) suggest that previous experiences, personality, values,
age, gender, religion and social class all play a role in influencing pro-environmental
behaviour. They argue that TPB can help capture important aspects of the variability
between environmental concern and pro-environmental behaviour. However, they
maintain that a full account of the factors influencing behavioural intention must
include a “broad range of personal and social influences” (Gifford and Nilsson, 2014,
p. 2).
In their study, Wan et al. (2014) propose the addition of variables such as awareness
of consequences, moral norms and ease of engagement. They argue that
convenience is an important factor in determining intentions to recycle, as is
knowledge of the consequences (Wan et al., 2014). Tonglet et al. (2004a) found that
environmental concern does indeed encourage pro-environmental behaviour.
Despite its criticisms, TPB has been widely accepted in major attitude-behaviour
15
studies around the world (see Vallerand et al., 1992; Kalafatis et al., 1999; Tonglet et
al., 2004a; Sommer, 2011; Wan et al., 2014).
2.2 Other factors influencing pro-environmental behaviour
According to Armitage and Conner (2001), a definitive framework for predicting
behaviour does not yet exist. Although most studies into pro-environmental
behaviour reference the work of Fishbein and Ajzen (1975; 1991), alternative models
have emerged (Gifford and Nilsson, 2014).
Some scholars argue that pro-environmental behaviour is the result of deeply rooted
cultural factors (Douglas and Wildavsky, 1982; Dake, 1992). Others associate it with
ethics (Kempton et al., 1996), guilt (Elgaaied, 2012), altruism (Stern et al., 1993),
emerging social phenomena such as post-materialism (Abramson and Inglehart,
1994) and the new ecological paradigm (Dunlap et al., 2000).
According to Hornik et al. (1995), extrinsic incentives, such as monetary rewards, are
often successful in encouraging pro-environmental behaviour. However, it is widely
accepted that such rewards do not create long-lasting behavioural change
(Bezzina and Dimech, 2011). Although demographics have often been examined in
studies into pro-environmental behaviour, findings indicate inconsistencies in
whether aspects such as age and gender play an important role in influencing
behaviour (ibid).
The concept of altruism as a driver of behaviour was first proposed by Heberlein
(1972), who suggests that since the environment can be considered a public good,
altruistic motivations are needed to encourage pro-environmental behaviour. Using
the Norm-Activation Theory (NAT), Schwartz (1977) argues that social norms do not
influence behaviour directly (Bezzina and Dimech, 2011). Instead, he proposes that
16
social norms are converted into personal norms and acted upon as a result of an
awareness of behavioural consequences and a feeling of obligation to perform the
behaviour (Harland et al., 2007).
The Norm-Activation Theory (Figure 5) suggests that individuals create self-
expectations about pro-environmental behaviour which lead them to feel a moral
obligation to act (Harland et al, 2007). When social norms are internalised, behaviour
is driven by an individual’s conscience rather than by society’s expectations
(Schwartz, 1977).
Figure 5: Model of altruistic behaviour (Schwartz, 1977).
Social NormsPersonal
NormsBehaviour
Awareness of
consequences
Ascription to
responsibilities
Some scholars have merged various concepts and theories in an effort to create a
more accurate model that determines the drivers of behaviour (Anderson et al.,
2005). The Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) Theory proposed by Stern et al. (2000) links Value
Theory with Norm-Activation Theory in a loose sequence of variables that lead to
pro-environmental behaviour (Anderson et al., 2005). The theory argues that values
influence beliefs, which in turn shape personal norms and ultimately lead to pro-
environmental behaviour (Stern et al., 2000). According to Stern et al. (2000),
individuals who value the benefits that the environment provides will engage in pro-
environmental behaviour (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002).
17
2.3 Barriers to pro-environmental behaviour
Although accepted by many (see Vallerand et al., 1992; Kalafatis et al., 1999;
Sommer et al., 2011; Gifford and Nilsson, 2014), attitude-behaviour models have
been criticised because they “fail to incorporate structural and institutional
arrangements that enable or constrain individual environmental action” (Blake,
1999, p. 265). According to Blake (1999), while these frameworks help examine the
complex relationship between attitude, intention and action, they do not fully
recognise the barriers that restrict pro-environmental behaviour (Lorenzoni et al.,
2007).
Blake (1999) argues that the value-action gap does not simply arise from a person’s
negative perception of pro-environmental behaviour but also because of individual
and physical barriers (Rogers et al., 2008). Liska (1984) suggests that engagement in
pro-environmental behaviour is often constrained by factors such as lack of
resources, opportunities and time, factors which attitude-behavioural models do not
adequately recognise. Young et al. (2010) found lack of information and
inconvenience among the biggest barriers to pro-environmental behaviour. Von
Borgstede and Biel (2002) propose that such factors can be considered to be
individual and situational barriers. However, Blake (1999) suggests that pro-
environmental behaviour is constrained by individual, responsibility-related and
practicality barriers (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002).
2.3.1 Individuality barriers
Individuality barriers are attributed to personal attitudes, cognitive structure and the
extent to which environmental concerns are outweighed by factors such as self-
deception, indifference and laziness (Rogers et al., 2008). In such situations,
18
environmental concerns are overcome by more powerful desires and needs (Blake,
1999). When individuals are not enticed into pro-environmental behaviour, their lack
of interest becomes apparent from their actions (Ylä-Melle et al., 2015).
Even if consumers are interested in pro-environmental behaviour, they may simply
self-exclude by viewing themselves as the wrong person to engage in specific pro-
environmental behaviour (Blake, 1999). An individual may argue it is inappropriate
for them to participate in certain pro-environmental activities (e.g. campaigning).
Barriers such as laziness, indifference and self-exclusion are believed to be
particularly influential among those who lack strong environmental concerns
(Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002).
2.3.2 Responsibility barriers
Responsibility barriers may lead the consumer to evaluate the role of institutions in
driving pro-environmental behaviour and to conclude that the consumer should not
be responsible for addressing environmental problems (Owens and Driffill, 2008).
Even if consumers feel a strong desire to behave in an environmentally responsible
way, they may believe that as consumers they have little power to make a
difference, which reinforces apathy and selfishness (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002).
Furthermore, if consumers lack trust in or are antagonistic towards institutions, they
may be reluctant to follow prescribed actions. An institutional bad example may
lead to disengagement or even retaliation (Ylä-Melle et al., 2015).
2.3.3 Practicality barriers
The final set of barriers reflects the practicality of engagement in pro-environmental
behaviour (Kennedy et al., 2009). According to Blake (1999), while individual and
responsibility barriers discourage consumers from engaging in pro-environmental
19
behaviour, they do not actually prevent them from doing so. Practicality barriers,
however, have the potential to prevent participation altogether (Kollmuss and
Agyeman, 2002).
Practicality barriers may include lack of time, opportunity or resources (Tonglet et al.,
2004a). In their study into recycling behaviour in China, Yin et al. (2013) found 33.4%
of participants did not recycle due to lack of facilities. Similarly, Gleim and Lawson
(2014) found inconvenience to be the reason 18.75% of participants did not engage
in pro-environmental behaviour. A study by WRAP (2007) concluded that 52% of
households did not recycle because they were unsure how to use recycling facilities.
According to Aceti (2002), consumers who find pro-environmental behaviour
inconvenient are unlikely to engage in the behaviour. Although many researchers
argue that knowledge alone does not lead to behaviour (Monroe, 1993; McKenzie-
Mohr and Smith, 1999; Hwang et al., 2000), when knowledge about how to
participate in pro-environmental behaviour is lacking, this becomes a reason for
non-engagement (Ongondo and Williams, 2011b).
Figure 6: Barriers between environmental concern and action (Blake, 1999).
Pro-environmental
behaviour
Environmental
concern
Individuality
(e.g. Laziness, lack
of interest, wrong
person).
Responsibility
(e.g. Lack of
efficacy, no need,
lack of trust)
Practicality
(e.g. lack of time,
lack of facilities, lack
of information)
Individual
barriers
Individual in
social context Social/institutional
barriers
20
2.3.4 Barriers specific to mobile phone reuse and recycling
The above model by Blake (1999) categorises many of the barriers preventing pro-
environmental behaviour. However, it does not take into consideration factors, such
as cultural norms, which make pro-environmental behaviour difficult to achieve
(Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). According to Hansmann et al. (2006), individuals
become routinely accustomed to certain behaviour patterns, particularly when
immersed in a society that does not value resource preservation. Since the obstacles
to behaviour such as paper recycling are likely to differ to some extent from barriers
to mobile phone recycling (see Kennedy et al., 2009), this next section examines
barriers that are specific to pro-environmental behaviour with regard to mobile
phones.
The increased storage capacity, improvements in user experience and availability of
high-resolution cameras have changed the way mobile phones are used (Goode,
2010). Consumers now store more private data on their devices than ever before,
and while this offers numerous benefits, studies have shown data security has
become a serious issue (Schwamm and Rowe, 2014; Simon and Anderson, 2015).
Glisson and Storer (2013) examined the extent to which personal data continues to
reside on phones after the user has attempted to remove it. They successfully
recovered 11,000 items of private data from the 49 mobile phones tested (Glisson
and Storer, 2013). In addition, Schwamm and Rowe (2014) found that the “data
reset” feature fails to completely remove sensitive data from modern phones.
Besides worrying about data security, most consumers acquire phones in a manner
designed to lock them into unsustainable behaviour patterns (Yates, 2008). Many
consumers feel unable to alter their consumption patterns (ibid). This is because most
mobile phones are obtained on a two-year agreement through a service provider
21
that discourages product life extension by offering a new device with increased
benefits (Huang and Troung, 2008). Those choosing to retain their existing phone
when the contract ends are not always rewarded for their decision (Huang and
Troung, 2008). When consumers continue using their phone beyond the initial
contract, they sometimes experience a feeling of deprivation (Mahmud et al., 2013).
The feeling of personal deprivation is exacerbated by manufacturers who use
obsolescence techniques to diminish the value of older devices by frequently
releasing new models (Slade, 2009). Perceived obsolescence entices the purchase
of products based on fashion trends, the desire to own the latest models and the
perception that older items are inferior (Slade, 2009). Planned obsolescence, by
contrast, reduces the durability and usefulness of older products, lessening the
likelihood of life-extension and reuse (Slade, 2009).
To achieve obsolescence, most manufacturers only provide software updates and
technical support for the duration of the original contract, meaning that phones that
are kept in use for longer gradually lose access to features and functions (Dobie,
2012). By creating products with shorter lives, manufacturers provide an incentive for
continuous replacement and a disincentive to pro-environmental behaviour such as
reuse and recycling (Bulow, 1986).
2.4 Neutralisation techniques
To overcome barriers to pro-environmental behaviour, customers need to internalise
the environmental impacts of their actions (Davies et al., 2002). When these impacts
are not internalised, behaviour contradictory to stated intention is likely, and
strategies to deal with experienced conflict may be developed (Piacentini et al.,
2012). Since the theory of neutralisation was established by Sykes and Matza (1957),
22
it has become one of the most widely referenced theories in the study of
behavioural justification (Piacentini et al., 2012). The theory suggests that by
neutralising behaviour, individuals attempt to mitigate or eliminate the impact of
their actions (Grove et al., 1989). According to Hansmann et al. (2006, p. 140),
behaviour neutralisation is “self-defence against possible accusations and
punishments”.
Cheng et al. (2014) argue that consumers often use neutralisation techniques to
reconcile a discrepancy between their behaviour and a positive self-image they
wish to reflect. According to Piacentini et al. (2012), understanding neutralisation
techniques can help address the value-action gap. They define neutralisation as a
tool that facilitates intention-contradicting behaviour (Piacentini et al., 2012). In their
study, Sykes and Matza (1957) identified five methods used to rationalise behaviour.
These methods are the denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of victim,
condemnation of the condemners and the appeal to higher loyalties (Cheng et al.,
2014).
The denial of responsibility occurs when the individual suggests that their behaviour is
the result of external forces (Hansmann, 2006). In the case of mobile phone reuse
and recycling, an individual may claim they were unable to find alternative uses for
their phone because it was malfunctioning, and they could not recycle it due to
unavailability of recycling facilities. When using this technique, individuals attempt to
convince themselves of their innocence, arguing that their behaviour was caused
by external factors (Piacentini et al., 2012).
The denial of injury technique argues that the impact of the behaviour is not severe
as no party is caused harm as a direct result of the behaviour (Barlow et al., 2013).
23
For instance, an individual may argue that stockpiling an older phone has no
harmful impacts on the environment because they did not send it to landfill.
Denial of victim involves claiming that the behaviour is justified because the victim
deserved it (Cheng et al., 2014). This technique can be used to relinquish personal
blame and find another party at fault for causing the impact. In such cases, even if
the consumer is willing to accept the impact of their behaviour, they may argue that
their actions are justified due to the circumstances (Sykes and Matza, 1957).
The condemnation of the condemners technique involves accusing those who
disapprove of the behaviour of engaging in similar practices (Piacentini et al., 2012).
Using this technique, the individual seeks to shift focus away from his or her own
behaviour and onto the motives of those who disapprove of their actions (Sykes and
Matza, 1957). A consumer who replaces their still-working phone may argue that
those who disapprove of frequent device replacement do the same themselves.
Finally, there is the appeal to higher loyalties (Sykes and Matza, 1957). This entails
claiming that the offending behaviour led to other positive outcomes (Cheng et al.,
2014). A consumer might argue that while they speedily disposed of their phone in
the general waste bin, this allowed them to devote the time saved, for example, to
caring for their elderly parents.
2.5 Rationale for research question
Despite the number of studies carried out, existing literature shows a lack of
consensus on the causes of the value-action gap (see Mittal et al., 1988; Kollmuss
and Agyeman, 2002; Gleim and Lawson, 2014). Although multiple frameworks have
been proposed to determine the drivers of pro-environmental behaviour (e.g.
Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975, 1991; Schwartz, 1977; Stern et al., 2000), a definitive
24
method for predicting such behaviour has not yet been identified (Conner, 2001).
Furthermore, while attempts have been made to outline some of the barriers to
behaviour, some significant obstacles (e.g. data security concerns) have been
inadequately examined. For these reasons and those mentioned in Chapter 1, there
is a need for further examination of these aspects in the hope that it may help shed
light on the causes of the value-action gap and contribute towards the
development of strategies to achieve behavioural change.
2.5 Summary
In the past, it was believed that knowledge of environmental issues led to pro-
environmental behaviour (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). However, such
assumptions have been proven inaccurate (Monreo, 1993; Hwang, 2000). The TRA
and TPB have emerged to argue that pro-environmental behaviour is driven by
intentions (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975, 1980). These theories postulate that intentions
are shaped by attitudes, social pressure and perceived ability to engage in a given
behaviour (Smith et al., 2007).
Despite their widespread acceptance, behavioural models have been criticised for
failing to take into full consideration the barriers preventing intention from becoming
action (Blake, 1999). Individual, responsibility and practicality barriers hinder
engagement in pro-environmental behaviour (Blake, 1999; Huang and Troung, 2008;
Glisson and Storer, 2013). When the environmental impacts of behaviour are not
internalised, consumers may act in a way that contradicts stated intention
(Piacentini et al., 2012). They may then develop neutralisation techniques to
reconcile any conflict they may be experiencing (Grove et al., 1989; Piacentini et
al., 2012).
25
3. Methodology
This chapter presents a summary of the research methodology underpinning this
study. The first section outlines the research approach, philosophy and data
gathering method applied to the study. The second provides details of the data
analysis process and the ethical considerations taken into account during the
research process. The chapter concludes by reflecting on the limitations of this
research.
3.1 Research design
A research design is an outline of the research methods that reflects the
philosophical assumptions and approaches that have influenced the data
gathering process (Myers, 2013). Understanding these aspects is necessary because
they shed important light on the researcher’s interpretation of the data (Saunders et
al., 2009).
3.1.1 Philosophy
The research philosophy refers to the assumptions made by the researcher that
guide the data gathering process (Myers, 2013). All researchers make some
assumptions about the meaning of the data and how it should be interpreted. To
provide clarity on the aspects that influence the data gathering and analysis
process, Saunders et al. (2009) developed the “onion” model, shown in Figure 7. The
model consists of layers that detail the possible strategies and techniques that a
researcher may adopt.
26
In the model, Saunders et al. (2009) propose several possible philosophies that can
be applied to research. The positivist philosophy, often implemented in quantitative
studies, considers valid only things that are observable (Lee and Lings, 2013). It
maintains that theory is verifiable through observation (ibid). Interpretivism, the
philosophy that was adopted in this study, suggests that research situations are
unique and too complex to be theorised by definite laws (Saunders et al, 2009).
Interpretivism promotes greater understanding of human behaviour in a subjective
manner based on data interpretation rather than verification (Bryman and Bell,
2007).
Figure 7: The research onion (Saunders et al., 2009).
Interpretivism
Positivism
Realism
Pragmatism
Deductive
Inductive
Experiment
Survey
Case
study
Action
Research
Grounded
theory
Ethnography
Archival
research
Mono method
Mixed
method
Multi method
Cross-sectional
Longitudinal
Data collection
and data
analysis
Techniques and
procedures
Time horizons
Choices
Strategies
Approaches
Philosophies
3.1.2 Approach
According to Bryman and Bell (2007), when gathering primary data, researchers
may use an inductive or a deductive approach. The deductive approach evaluates
existing theory and builds hypotheses that are then tested using various research
27
methods (Saunders et al., 2009). The main aim of deductive research is to test theory
(Hussey and Hussey, 1997). The inductive approach, which formed the basis of this
research, builds theory by observing empirical data (Hussey and Hussey, 1997). As
Figure 8 shows, inductive research involves building theory from the collection and
analysis of primary data (Saunders et al., 2009). As the aim of this study was to
develop an understanding of the causes of the value-action gap, the inductive
approach was considered the more appropriate.
Figure 8: Inductive vs deductive research approach (Lee and Lings, 2013).
Theory
Generate
hypothesis
about the
world
Collect data
Make
generalisation
from data
Induction
Deduction
3.1.3 Research technique
When conducting studies, researchers may gather qualitative or quantitative data
or use a combination of both techniques (Saunders et al., 2009). Qualitative
research methods take an inductive approach and often consist of interviews or
focus groups whereby open-ended questions help generate knowledge that can
be used to develop theory (Bryman and Bell, 2007). Quantitative research, in
28
contrast, comprises a series of questions to help the researcher gather measurable
data (Bryman and Bell, 2007). Researchers who favour qualitative methods argue it is
impossible to understand human psychology without talking to people (Myers, 2009).
This study used qualitative research methods because it sought to build grounded
theory regarding the causes of the value-action gap.
3.1.4 Data gathering
Interviews are among the most popular methods used in qualitative research (Lee
and Lings, 2013). An interview is an open-ended discussion that can provide rich,
detailed knowledge based on the experiences, feelings and opinions of the
participants (Lee and Lings, 2013). Interviews are usually conducted in a “semi-
structured” or “unstructured” way (Saunders and Lewis, 2012). Semi-structured
interviews consist of a set number of questions addressing multiple themes and
topics (Lee and Lings, 2013). Unstructured interviews limit the number of topics to
one, and allow participants the freedom to respond in any way they wish (Saunders
and Lewis, 2012).
Semi-structured interviews were conducted as part of this research, for three
reasons. First, they enable the researcher to address multiple topics and ask probing
questions specifically related to the research topic (Lee and Lings, 2013). Secondly,
they permit flexibility by allowing the tailoring of questions based on answers already
received and by enabling changes to the order in which they are asked (Saunders
et al, 2009). Finally, semi-structured interviews were conducted because existing
studies have not focused on gathering in-depth qualitative data on mobile phone
reuse and recycling behaviour, which has led to a knowledge gap (see Canning,
2006).
29
According to Rubin and Rubin (1995), if a researcher is interested in why people
engage in certain behaviour, interviews are the most suitable data gathering
method. One of the main criticisms of semi-structured interviews is that the data
gathered may not be statistically representative of the entire population if a small
sample size is used (Saunders et al., 1999). To overcome this limitation, this study has
refrained from drawing statistical conclusions about the entire population of mobile
phone consumers.
3.1.5 Alternative methods considered
In the preparation of the research design, quantitative research methods were
considered unsuitable because the numerical data they provide does not help
explain why particular behaviour occurs (Myers, 2009). Within qualitative research
methods, focus groups and observations were considered as possible data
gathering methods. Focus groups are similar to interviews in that they explore a topic
in detail (Bryman and Bell, 2007). Focus groups were not used because they are
difficult to control: stronger personalities in a group often dominate discussions and
influence the views of more passive participants (Saunders et al., 2009).
Observations, as the name suggests, involve observing the behaviour of research
participants. Observations are an effective tool for gaining insight into the
phenomenon being observed (Cohen et al., 2000). However, as the purpose of this
research was to examine the drivers and barriers to pro-environmental behaviour,
some of which cannot readily be observed (e.g. motivations, lack of interest),
observational research was considered unsuitable for this study.
30
3.1.6 Sampling
A sample is a sub-group of the population that can represent the whole population
(Saunders and Lewis, 2012). Sampling is required in research involving people
because often researchers cannot obtain information from the entire population
(Saunders et al., 2009). Non-probability sampling is used if the size of the population is
unknown or a sampling framework is not available (Saunders and Lewis, 2012). To
help researchers select an appropriate sampling technique, Saunders et al. (2009)
developed the non-probability sampling selection framework shown in Figure 9. This
framework helped identify purposive sampling as the most suitable sampling
method for this research.
Purposive sampling is a non-probability sampling technique involving the use of the
researcher’s subjective judgement to select individuals to become the research
participants (Saunders et al., 2009). Purposive sampling can have an extreme-case,
homogeneity, heterogeneity, critical-case or typical-case focus (Saunders et al.,
2009). As this research focused on the behaviour of the average consumer,
purposive sampling with a “typical-case” focus was used to select participants.
Researchers who use non-probability sampling techniques must exercise caution to
avoid making generalisations about the entire population (Greenfield, 2002).
Furthermore, there is the added risk of bias due to potential non-representation
(Graziano and Raulin, 2004).
To overcome these limitations, the researcher has refrained from drawing inferences
about the entire population. To ensure that participants reflected the “typical”
consumer, the following criteria were applied when selecting participants:
- Participants are selected from several sources.
31
- They are mobile phone owners over the age of 18.
- They can independently make purchasing and disposal decisions.
- They have no known bias towards the themes explored in this research.
- They are not unduly restricted in their decision-making (e.g. by financial
constraints).
32
Decide to consider
sampling.
Can data be
collected from
the entire
population?
YES
No sample needed
Must statistical
inferences be
made from the
sample?
Is a suitable
sampling frame
available?
NO
YES
Use self-selection sampling
Use snowball sampling
Use extreme case sampling
Use heterogeneous sampling
Use homogeneous sampling
Use critical case sampling
Use typical case sampling
Use convenience sampling
Use quota sampling
Use probability sampling
YES
Must it be likely
that the sample is
representative?
NO
NO
Are relevant
quota variables
available?
Uncertain that
sample will be
representative?
YES
NO
YES
Is the purpose of
the research just
exploratory?
NO
YES
Are individual
cases difficult to
identify?
NO
YES
Is the sample to
be selected very
small?
NO
Use purposive
sampling with an
appropriate focus
YES
Is there little
variation in the
population?
NO
YESRevisit
questions
above
NO
YES
Figure 9: Selecting a non-probability sampling technique (Saunders et al., 2009).
33
3.1.7 Participant profiles
Altogether, 21 individuals took part in the study. The ages ranged from early twenties
to late fifties, with the majority being between 30 and 40 years old. All participants
were resident in London or the South-East of England and were in full-time
employment in various private and public-sector roles. Further information about the
research participants is provided in Appendix 4.
3.1.8 Pilot interviews
Before the interviews were carried out, two pilot interviews were conducted and
analysed. The feedback from those participants, coupled with analysis of the
interviews, helped in the development of the research questions. A list of the
questions asked during the interviews and a sample transcribed interview are
provided in Appendices 5 and 6.
3.2 Data analysis
Upon completion, each recorded interview was transcribed, analysed and coded
to enable meaningful conclusions to be drawn from the data gathered.
3.2.1 Data reduction: Inductive coding
Coding helps turn large quantities of data into something meaningful that
contributes to the research topic (Myers, 2013). Coding is the process of tagging or
labelling used to assign meaning to the data gathered during the study (Miles and
Huberman, 1994). Coding qualitative data is needed in order to report on the
frequency of answers and to relate them to variables within the research (Sapsford
and Jupp, 1996). Inductive coding is a bottom-up approach that involves using the
gathered data to derive theory (Thomas, 2006).
34
The coding process began with open coding, involving analysis of the transcribed
interviews to identify, name and categorise the phenomena found in primary data
(Myers, 2013). During this process, three categories of data emerged: data relating
to motivations to reuse or recycle mobile phones, data explaining the barriers
preventing pro-environmental behaviour and data relating to justification methods
in neutralisation techniques. The second stage of the process involves selective
(sometimes called “axial”) coding, which entails relating the categories to each
other in an attempt to find causal relationships (Denzin and Lincoln, 2008). The final
stage of the coding process, known as theoretical coding, involved the formulation
of theory (Myers, 2013).
3.2.2 Grounded theory formulation
Once coding was completed, a hierarchical analysis of the data categories was
conducted to help start the process of grounded theory building. Grounded theory
entails the systematic building of theory on human behaviour from empirical data
(Myers, 2013). It provides a justification for small-scale research and the use of
purposive sampling methods (Denscombe, 2003). It involves ongoing comparison of
the coded data in search of similarities and differences (Myers, 2013).
3.3 Ethical considerations
Ethics play an important role in any research project, as ethical issues can manifest
themselves throughout the data gathering process (Bryman and Bell, 2007).
Saunders et al. (2009) define ethical research as the process of conducting research
that is morally defensible to the participants involved. To address ethical issues, this
study was conducted in accordance with the Social Research Association’s ethical
code of conduct (see SRA Guidelines, 2003). Participants were assured:
35
- Voluntary participation based on informed consent;
- Total anonymity for the entirety of the research process;
- The right not to be adversely impacted by the research or its outcome;
- The right to withdraw at any time during or after the data gathering process.
Before each interview, participants were explicitly informed of the purpose of the
research and their entitlement to anonymity. They were told of their right to refuse to
respond or to terminate the process at any time. Each participant was given a copy
of the Birkbeck research information sheet and asked to sign a consent form. The
data gathered during the study was stored on a password-protected personal
computer. Interviews were structured to ensure anonymity, and participant names
were not used. Instead, participants were identified by the order in which they were
interviewed (Participant 1, 2, 3, etc.).
3.4 Limitations
According to Mauch and Park (2003), a limitation is a factor outside the researcher’s
control that could affect the research. During this research, several limitations were
identified.
3.4.1 Time constraints
When conducting a study, researchers must remember that time is a precious
resource to be managed effectively (Mauch and Park, 2003). This is particularly the
case when research is conducted alongside other commitments, such as full-time
employment. At the start of this research, a schedule was devised, with four weeks
allowed for primary data gathering. However, time proved a difficult resource to
manage because participants were often unable to attend interviews at the
scheduled time. This delayed the process by an additional five weeks. Time
36
constraints also limited the number of interviews that could be conducted and the
period available for data analysis.
3.4.2 Geographical limitations
Although the study does not make statistical inferences about the entire population,
it does rely on a sample of the population to reach its conclusions. It must be noted
that the majority of participants were based in London and the South-East and as
such their answers may have been influenced by the reuse or recycling
opportunities associated with those geographical locations.
3.4.3 Participant homogeneity
The majority of participants were professionals in full-time employment. This
influences the level of disposable income available to them, which may have a
bearing on their phone retention period and willingness to reuse, especially
compared to individuals from poorer backgrounds. Additionally, as only 35% of
participants had children, the opportunities for phone reuse through younger family
members were limited for many participants.
37
4. Data analysis and discussion
This chapter presents the results of the primary research conducted within this study.
The first section provides an overview of current phone disposal methods among
research participants. The second outlines the factors that encourage reuse and
recycling of mobile phones. The third provides an analysis of the barriers that hinder
engagement in such pro-environmental behaviour, helping to create the value-
action gap. The chapter concludes by analysing the techniques used to neutralise
the impact of intention-contradicting behaviour.
4.1 Phone disposal methods among participants
Duration of use among research participants was found to be short, with the majority
(16 of 21 participants) replacing their phones within the standard two-year contract
cycle. Only five participants (1, 6, 7, 10 and 21) had continued using their phones
beyond the initial contract period. Four participants did not acquire their phones
through a contract, preferring to buy them outright. Of the five participants who had
continued using their phone beyond the initial contract, most replaced after around
3 years of total use due to performance slowdown. These findings are consistent with
the results of the research conducted by Ongondo and Williams (2011b), Osibanjo
and Nnorom (2008) and Li et al. (2014), who found that the majority of mobile
phones were replaced within 2 years in developed countries.
Contract renewal was found to be the primary reason for the replacement of
mobile phones among participants. According to Participant 18, the reason they
replaced their still-working phone after two years was “simply because my network
can provide me a new phone at no extra cost”. As the interview process continued,
further evidence emerged suggesting that migration to contracts has accelerated
38
the replacement rate, with Participant 16 stating, “I used to hold on to them a lot
longer, but then I went on contract”. A broken or faulty device triggered
replacement for only four participants. Seventeen participants stated that their
mobile phone was still functional, but at reduced capacity, when it was replaced.
This contrasts sharply with the results of the studies by Wilhelm et al. (2011) and
Ongondo and Williams (2011b), who found device failure to be a primary reason for
replacement.
Additional differences between this study and existing research emerged when
participants were asked what they did with their older mobile phones. Stockpiling
was found to be the preferred method of dealing with older phones, with 81% of
participants keeping at least one phone in storage. The remaining participants had
either reused or recycled their phone, and no phones were sent to landfill. These
results show a considerably higher rate of stockpiling than found in studies by
Ongondo and Williams (2011b), Wilhelm et al. (2011) and Ylä-Mella et al. (2015), who
indicate that around 55% of consumers stockpiled their phones. Over the last few
years, many participants (3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 14) had recycled, reused or sold
a phone. However, more than half of them had additional phones stockpiled at
home.
The study has thus found that mobile phone stockpiling is the preferred disposal
method among the majority of participants who mainly replace their device simply
because they are offered a new contract with a new phone. To develop an
understanding of the role that environmental concerns play in the behaviour of
participants, the researcher asked those who had recycled or arranged for the
reuse of phones in the past to explain why they had done this. Additionally, all
39
participants were asked what they believed should be done with older phones –
and why. The results of these questions are provided in the next section.
4.2 Factors encouraging reuse and recycling of phones
In the literature review, numerous drivers of pro-environmental behaviour were
identified. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975, 1991) suggest that pro-environmental behaviour
is driven by individual attitudes, social expectations and perceived control in
completing the action. Monetary incentives, altruism, awareness of consequences
and other factors such as age, gender and previous experience were proposed as
potential variables driving pro-environmental behaviour (East, 1993; Hornik et al.,
1995; Harland et al., 2007). Environmental knowledge alone was shown to have little
impact on such behaviour (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith, 1999; Hwang et al., 2000). This
research has found six drivers that encourage consumers to reuse or recycle their
mobile phone.
4.2.1 Personal gain
During the interviews, five participants stated they would want to sell or recycle their
older phone for financial gain. Of these, only four had done so. Personal gain as a
driver for pro-environmental behaviour has been previously examined by Ramayah
et al. (2013), who suggest that individuals will participate if they perceive personal
gain from such behaviour. According to Hornik et al. (1995), financial rewards are
among the major factors that encourage recycling behaviour. Ylä-Mella et al. (2015)
found that 57% of participants would be encouraged to recycle if a cash incentive
was offered. This research has found some evidence supporting the claim that
financial incentives encourage participants to sell phones for reuse or recycling.
However, as only five participants were motivated by personal gain, the
40
effectiveness of financial incentives as a major driver of pro-environmental
behaviour remains questionable.
Participants who recycled their phone for personal gain did so mainly through their
supplier (Participants 4, 9 and 10) and received a discount on their new contract.
They stated that the discount offered “was definitely a driving reason for recycling”
(Participant 9). Had they not received the financial incentive through their provider,
they would have “tried to recycle through a third-party company” (Participant 4).
Only one participant had sold their phone through a channel other than their
provider: Participant 13 had placed their old phone in an online auction to “get
back some money” originally invested in the device, adding that “most of us tend to
go for financial incentives”. Although Participant 6 had not recycled their phone or
sold it for reuse, they had retained it believing they could “get some money for it”.
The perception of financial value in the device encouraged these participants to
want to ensure that their phone is sent for reuse or recycling once they have finished
using it.
4.2.2 Attitude towards the environment
As mentioned in Section 2.1.3, the Theory of Planned Behaviour hypothesises that
intention towards pro-environmental behaviour is influenced by an individual’s
attitude towards the outcome of that behaviour (Tonglet et al., 2004a). Support for
this hypothesis was provided by Participant 21, who stated, “If I throw a phone away
and it’s not recycled, I am contributing to the waste problem”. Participant 8
reflected a similar attitude: “I feel that I shouldn’t put something that should have
gone for recycling in the general waste bin”. Five other participants (3, 11, 7, 6 and
10) reflected similar views, with Participant 10 suggesting that their attitude towards
41
waste minimisation was the reason they went through carriages in trains “picking up
all the rubbish” to ensure it was recycled.
Although the research found evidence to suggest attitudes do indeed drive
behaviour, the main factors that shape attitudes were found to differ from those
identified by existing literature. Ajzen (1988) suggests that attitudes are influenced by
an individual’s evaluation of the effort needed to engage in a particular behaviour
and the consequences of non-engagement. However, this research has found that
an individual’s attitude is not simply formed by this evaluation. The results revealed
that a person’s upbringing has a significant impact on their attitude towards reuse
and recycling. For instance, Participant 21 stated, “I was raised with the belief that
you shouldn’t waste things”. Participant 9 said, “Growing up, I’ve been surrounded
by people who have influenced this on me”, while Participant 10 further emphasised
that “I think it [attitude] comes from my upbringing”.
4.2.3 Altruistic intentions
While attitude has been well established in the existing literature as a driver of
intention towards pro-environmental behaviour, the impact of altruistic intentions has
been less well defined (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). Some evidence supporting
the influence of altruistic intentions on behaviour emerged during this research.
When Participant 16 was asked why they believed that sending their old phone to a
developing country for reuse was the best way to deal with the device, they
responded, “If people recycled their phone, it would enable poorer people to have
access to a phone”. Participant 20 suggested sending phones for reuse in
developing countries was important because “there are people who don’t have a
phone in the developing world”. This view was reinforced by Participant 11, who
stated, “You feel good about it because it goes to a poor country”. These
42
participants were motivated to ensure reuse of their phone because they
acknowledged that such behaviour could improve the lives of others. However, as
the majority of participants did not state altruistic intentions as a motivation for
wanting to reuse or recycle their phone, this research found that other factors play a
greater role in driving such behaviour.
4.2.4 Perceived significance of value of device
Existing studies on phone reuse and recycling behaviour have placed little focus on
the perceived environmental value of the device and its components as a driver for
such behaviour (see Yin et al., 2013; Osibanjo and Nnorom, 2008). They have only
confirmed positive consumer perceptions about the monetary value of phones (Ylä-
Mella et al., 2015). However, as Ongondo and Williams (2011b) noted, it was unclear
whether participants were aware of the non-monetary or environmental value of
reusing or recycling mobile phones. This research has found considerable evidence
that participants were well aware of the environmental value of reusing or recycling
phones and their components. Participant 6 stated, “I completely believe that
someone else could be making use of it [the phone] or its parts”.
Further acknowledgement of the environmental value of phone reuse and recycling
came from Participant 12, who claimed, “there’s value in pretty much everything
we throw away”. According to Participant 14, recyclers should “dismantle [mobile
phones] and reuse the parts”. Participant 5 believed that “the materials that go into
phones are quite rare”. In total, nine participants believed there was value in older
phones and this was a driver of their desire to facilitate reuse and recycling.
Perceived significance of the value of the device is presented in this research as a
driver of intention to reuse or recycle, while perceived insignificance is presented as
a barrier to such behaviour. As shown in Section 4.3.7, this is because those who
43
believed their phone to hold little value were less likely to recycle it or arrange for its
reuse.
4.2.5 Knowledge of reuse and recycling opportunities
As mentioned earlier, many scholars believe that knowledge alone does not lead to
reuse and recycling behaviour (Monroe, 1993; McKenzie-Mohr and Smith, 1999;
Hwang et al., 2000). However, Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) argue that individuals use
information as part of their decision-making process. This research has found
evidence suggesting that when knowledge was coupled with other factors, it
encouraged reuse and recycling among participants. For example, Participant 16
stated they intended to give their older phone to their nephew because they “are
on pay-as-you-go, so it’s nice for them to have an upgrade”. In this situation, the
knowledge that other people could use the phone, coupled with an altruistic desire
to help family members, encouraged the participant to offer the phone for reuse.
Similarly, Participant 7 stated that they were motivated to give their phone to a
family member because “they needed a new phone and it would save them
having to buy one”. Participants 4 and 8 cited knowledge of how to recycle
coupled with convenience as the reasons they were encouraged to engage in such
behaviour.
4.2.6 Awareness of environmental consequences
Existing studies indicate that pro-environmental behaviour is encouraged when an
individual is aware of the consequences of non-engagement (Vining and Ebreo,
1990; Davies et al., 2002). According to Schwartz (1977), awareness of
consequences results in a sense of obligation to engage in pro-environmental
behaviour. One third of participants in this research cited awareness of
44
consequences as a driver towards their intention to reuse and recycle their phones.
Participant 19 emphasised the consequences of hazardous waste on human health,
stating, “electronic waste from developed countries ends up in Africa, where people
that take them apart keep getting ill”. Highlighting the impact of resource depletion,
Participant 15 said, “We are putting a lot of things in the bin … If we keep doing this,
we will soon run out of resources”.
4.3 Barriers to pro-environmental behaviour
Having identified the major factors that encouraged participants to reuse or recycle
their mobile phones, this section examines the barriers that prevented most from
doing so.
4.3.1 Data security and privacy concerns
Some scholars argue that individuals who care about the environment do not
engage in pro-environmental behaviour because they fear it may put them at a
disadvantage (Gleim and Lawson, 2014). According to Vlek and Karen (1992), many
consider the personal costs of pro-environmental behaviour greater than the
benefits. This research has found that the feeling of personal cost is greatly increased
when engagement in pro-environmental behaviour raises data security concerns,
such as loss of privacy.
The issue of data security has hardly featured in existing studies on mobile phone
reuse and recycling. The most extensive studies have been conducted by Glisson et
al. (2011) and Glisson and Storer (2013), who have examined the ease with which
data can be extracted from older devices. More recently, Schwamm and Rowe
(2014) and Simon and Anderson (2015) have outlined the limitations of the “factory
reset” feature on modern smartphones and highlighted the extent to which it fails to
45
remove private data. While these studies highlighted the risks taken when older
phones are placed in the hands of other individuals, they did not examine the
extent to which these same associated risks discourage phone reuse and recycling.
By examining the extent to which potential data privacy concerns deterred
consumers from recycling or allowing others to reuse their phones, this study can be
considered the first to shed light on this topic. During the interview process, twenty
participants expressed concerns over privacy. It was by far the most frequently cited
factor discouraging participants from allowing reuse of their phone or from sending it
to recyclers. Participant 20 stated they “wouldn’t give a phone to charity because I
am concerned about data security”. Similarly, Participant 5 noted, “the data
security issue is a big concern”. Citing previous experiences, Participant 16 claimed
they “know of several affairs [infidelities] that have been discovered by people who
were given an old phone”.
Data security was found to be of such high concern to participants that one had
“spent about two hours taking a hard drive out of an old computer” so that they
could “smash it up” (Participant 14). During the interviews, it became clear that data
security was “significantly more important” (Participant 8) to those who took part in
the study than concern for the environment.
4.3.2 Data storage and sentimental value
Some studies have shown a link between sentimental value and stockpiling (see
Frost and Gross, 1993; Mueller et al., 2009). During this research, however, little
evidence emerged suggesting that sentimental value was a major reason for
stockpiling older phones. For an item to be considered of sentimental value, it must
be recognised as valuable for what it is and what it represents and not what it can
46
do (Hatzimoysis, 2003). During the interview process, only two participants expressed
an emotional attachment to their older phones.
Although the phones themselves were not considered to have sentimental value,
the information contained on them was of special value to some participants. Seven
participants stated that one of the reasons they had retained their old phone was
because “there were numbers on the phone” (Participant 14) and the device acted
as a “backup of the information” (Participant 8). Participant 21 provided one
notable example of the extent to which participants valued the data contained on
their older phone. They stated, “I was poking round my phone and I found two
photos of my father, and the week after I took those photos he was killed … Those
are the last photos I’ll ever have of my father … I was carrying these photos for years
without ever downloading them”.
4.3.3 Unawareness of recycling schemes and reuse opportunities
Section 4.2.5 of this research outlined the extent to which knowledge of reuse and
recycling opportunities encourages consumers to recycle their phones. It is argued
here and in similar studies that knowledge alone does not lead to pro-environmental
behaviour (see Monroe, 1993; McKenzie-Mohr and Smith, 1999; Hwang et al., 2000).
However, this research has found that unawareness of appropriate reuse and
recycling opportunities becomes a barrier to pro-environmental behaviour.
When participants were asked why they had not taken steps to ensure their phone
was reused or recycled, one third responded that part of the reason was that they
“don’t know where to take it” (Participant 7). Among these participants, there was
consensus that most mobile phone suppliers “don’t provide enough information”
(Participant 18). As a result, consumers “don’t know what to do with them”
47
(Participant 21). According to Participant 10, existing recycling opportunities are
poorly communicated. These findings are consistent with the results of the study
conducted by Ongondo and Williams (2011b). They support the perspective that
instrumental barriers, such as a lack of information, make engagement in pro-
environmental behaviour impossible (see Blake, 1999).
4.3.4 Perceived obsolescence
During the research, some participants acknowledged the possibility of offering their
older phones to family or friends for reuse. However, they were quick to dismiss such
options, believing that “nobody would use the phones because they are old”
(Participant 10). Since the concept of obsolescence was coined by Stevens (1960), it
has been used to accelerate the consumption of goods and has led consumers to
believe their existing products to be obsolete (Bulow, 1986).
Susceptibility to perceived obsolescence was found to be high among participants
in this research. Although most (seventeen participants) stated that their phone was
still working when they replaced it, many believed their device to be obsolete. This,
coupled with the temptation of a new device from their supplier, became the
primary reasons why most participants did not continue using their phone after the
initial contract period.
Participant 21 said they would happily give away their phone for reuse, but did not
“know anyone who wants an out-of-date, bashed-up Blackberry”. Similar views were
expressed by others, who described their older phones as “not very reliable”
(Participant 16) and “already struggling with the updates” (Participant 19). In total,
thirteen participants stated that part of the reason they did not recycle or pass on
their phone to others for reuse was because believed the device to be obsolete. An
48
investigation into the extent to which the obsolescence described by participants
was simply perceived or “built in” was beyond the scope of this study, but could
form the basis for future research.
4.3.5 Backup option and lack of trust in technology
Existing research has shown that consumers often keep phones as a backup even
though they rarely find it necessary to go back to the older device (Huang and
Truong, 2008). As mentioned in the literature review, a study into the recycling
behaviour of students by Ongondo and Williams (2011b) found that 57% of
participants had replaced their phone because it had broken. Fears about phones
breaking or malfunctioning were found to be a major reason for stockpiling (Li et al.,
2012; Ylä-Mella et al., 2015).
The anticipated failure of the device was not a concern for most participants in this
research. One third of participants had retained their older phones as a backup. Of
these, only two had done so out of fear of a technology failure. Participant 11 cited
“sometimes technology fails” as the reason for keeping a backup phone. Participant
5, who indicated that the backup phone was kept “in case the new one died”,
reflected similar views. Others were less worried about technology, claiming that the
older phone was kept “in case I lose my new phone” (Participant 16).
4.3.6 Lack of trust in the process
Although many participants trusted that their mobile phone would last the length of
their contract, some felt they could not trust the reuse and recycling companies. As
Participant 14 stated, “I am not sure how they are reused or what happens to the
phones … More information could give more confidence about these schemes”. A
similar view was reflected by Participant 7, who stated, “I worry because you don’t
49
know who’s going to take your phone and what they might do”. Others claimed
they “don’t understand enough about the process” (Participant 8) or “what they
[recyclers] do with the phones” (Participant 10). Participant 21 stated that they
would not send their old phone to third-party companies “unless I am sure it’s being
recycled in some way”. These results help strengthen the argument raised by Blake
(1999), who claims that if individuals do not trust in the process, they are unlikely to
engage in pro-environmental behaviour.
4.3.7 Perceived insignificance of value of device
As mentioned in Section 4.2.4, consumers are enticed to arrange the reuse and
recycling of their older phones if they perceive them to hold value. However, when
the device is believed to hold little to no value, participants are more likely to
engage in stockpiling. A quarter of participants believed their old phone to have
little to no value. These participants considered their device to be “not a very good
phone” (Participant 2) which is “probably worth nothing now” (Participant 17)
because “you can’t really do anything with it” (Participant 11). Even as devices for
reuse in developing countries, they were considered “too power hungry for people
that can’t afford much electricity” (Participant 10). Ongondo and Williams (2011b),
who found that a quarter of participants chose to stockpile their phones because
they believed them to have no value, reflected similar results in their study.
4.3.8 Indifference and laziness
Existing research suggests that if consumers are not compelled to engage in pro-
environmental behaviour, their lack of interest will soon become evident by their
behaviour (Ylä-Melle et al., 2015). Indifference and laziness have been suggested as
key barriers among individuals who do not have a high concern for environmental
50
well-being and tend to give higher priority to their own well-being than that of others
(Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). In such situations, environmental concerns are often
overtaken by more powerful desires and needs (Blake, 1999). In this research,
however, lack of interest and laziness were found to be high even among
participants who expressed considerable concern for the environment.
During the interview process, all participants expressed concern about the
environment, yet the majority had stockpiled their phone at home. When asked
why, three participants (11, 12 and 17) stated they had not got round to sending
their phone for reuse or recycling, even though some of them had made no use of
their old device for over 18 months (Participants 12 and 17). Others frankly admitted
that they were well aware how to recycle their phones but had not done so
because of laziness (Participants 6 and 18).
4.3.9 Lack of encouragement
Current literature has shown a positive relationship between social expectations and
engagement in pro-environmental behaviour (Trivedi et al., 2015). Fishbein and
Ajzen (1975) argue that social norms are a major factor driving behaviour. If
individuals believe that engagement in pro-environmental behaviour is the “normal”
thing to do, they are likely to engage in such behaviour (Dillard and Shen, 2002). In
their study, Hansmann et al. (2006) noted that the behaviour of individuals is
determined by the culture of the society to which they belong. During the interview
process, several participants attributed the low reuse and recycling rates for mobile
phones to the absence of a culture which values such action and a lack of
encouragement from society.
51
Some participants believed “there is no culture of recycling phones” (Participant 2)
and that individuals “don’t have the same views as they did in the past about
getting the most from things” (Participant 6). As a result, there “isn’t much of a
societal focus on recycling these sorts of devices” (Participant 13). The existing
culture encourages a “throwaway society” (Participant 14) that does not “value the
importance of reuse and recycling” (Participant 3). In total, nine participants
attributed the low reuse and recycling rates to a lack of social encouragement and
a culture that is not especially interested in recycling electronic devices. These results
contradict the argument of Schwartz (1997), who suggests that social expectations
do not influence behaviour. Instead, they help strengthen the notion that when
consumers are immersed in a culture that is not resource-conscious, they are less
likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviour (see Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002).
4.3.10 Inconvenience
While some participants chose not to arrange for the reuse or recycling of their older
phones due to laziness, six participants cited inconvenience as one of the reasons
they had not done so. They believed that sending a phone to be reused or recycled
was not an effortless process. “I’d have to go on the Internet, find an address and
then send it off,” stated Participant 2. According to Participant 11, “You have to get
all the data off and that takes time” and then “you have the added work of
shipping it to someone” (Participant 21). Overall, the act was described as “a
complicated process” (Participant 17) which discourages users because “it’s easier
not to recycle” (Participant 3). These findings reinforce the claim that if engagement
in pro-environmental behaviour appears difficult, individuals are unlikely to
participate (Bezzina and Dimech, 2011). However, they disagree with the
52
conclusions reached by Ongondo and Williams (2011a, p. 1313), who argue that
mobile phone recycling schemes are “easy to use and convenient”.
4.4 The stigma of reuse
As mentioned earlier, keeping phones in use for longer can substantially reduce their
negative impact on the environment and can therefore be considered the most
appropriate way to deal with an older phone (see Green Alliance, 2015). Continued
use of products either by the original owner or by another individual is not
uncommon. According to an ICM (2006) study, consumers are open to reuse, with 1
in 7 household items coming from a second-hand source. However, this research
found that when it comes to used mobile phones, the majority of participants
(sixteen) had unfavourable attitudes towards this behaviour.
During the interviews, participants were asked whether they were willing to help
extend the life of mobile phones by accepting a pre-owned device from family,
friends or their service provider. Almost half (nine participants) expressed negative
feelings at the prospect of owning a used device. Five were happy to acquire an
older phone “as long as it does everything I need it to” (Participant 7) while the rest
were not sure because they “had not thought about it” (Participant 4).
Participants who were unwilling to acquire older phones believed that when you
receive an old phone “you’re inheriting someone else’s problems” (Participant 21).
When using an older phone, “there’s some sort of trade-off” (Participant 13)
because “you don’t know what you’re getting” (Participant 18), and “after a while
the battery might die” (Participant 17). Furthermore, the “knowledge that something
has been used diminishes its appeal” (Participant 9) because “it feels like it belongs
to someone else” (Participant 10). Despite agreeing that “used phones are more
53
environmentally friendly” (Participant 13), they would “prefer a new one”
(Participant 3).
4.5 Methods of neutralisation
At the start of the interviews, all participants had declared that reducing their
negative impact on the environment was very important to them. However, as the
previous sections have shown, the majority replace their still-working phones on a
frequent basis and do not arrange for the reuse or recycling of their older devices.
Existing literature argues that when a discrepancy exists between intention and
behaviour, individuals may develop neutralisation techniques to deal with any
conflict they may be experiencing (see Hansmann et al., 2006; Piacentini et al.,
2012). Neutralisation techniques help reconcile the inconsistency between an
individual’s behaviour and the positive self-image they wish to reflect (Cheng et al.,
2014). In their theory of neutralisation, Sykes and Matza (1957) proposed five
neutralisation techniques. However, during this research only three emerged.
4.5.1 Denial of responsibility
In total, eight participants argued that their behaviour was a consequence of their
circumstances. These participants believed the decision to store their older phones
at home was justified because they “don’t know where to take it” (Participant 7) as
“there are no recycling facilities” (Participant 18) for phones. Information “is not
readily available” (Participant 10), as a result “most people aren’t aware of how to
recycle” (Participant 18). Furthermore, the local council is “not making any effort”
(Participant 6) to encourage the recycling of electronic products. Gifting phones to
family and friends is also not an option because “everyone already has a phone”
(Participant 16). As a result, “it’s hard to find someone who is willing to take your old
54
phone” (Participant 14). Using such justifications, participants attempt to convince
themselves that they are not responsible for the impact of their behaviour because it
was caused by external factors (see Cheng et al., 2014).
4.5.2 Denial of injury
While some participants attempted to blame external forces for their decision not to
reuse or recycle their phone, others saw no harm in their behaviour. Six participants
believed that “one backup phone is fine” (Participant 20). They maintained that
their actions do not harm the environment because they “wouldn’t just throw away
a phone” (Participant 17). They were not worried about the environmental impacts
of their older phones because they have “kept them as a backup” (Participant 13)
and “never actually sent them to landfill” (Participant 8). Overall, these participants
“don’t think having phones stored at home is a big problem as long as they are not
thrown away” (Participant 20). These individuals justify their behaviour by arguing
that stockpiling causes no harm to the environment.
4.5.3 Appeal to higher loyalties
A third neutralisation technique that emerged during the research, though less
frequently cited, was the appeal to higher loyalties. As discussed in the literature
review, when individuals use this neutralisation technique, they argue that their
actions in fact lead to a greater good (Cheng et al., 2014). Through not engaging in
one activity, such as recycling, individuals argue that they were able to engage in
another, such as looking after their children, and this resulted in a positive outcome
(see Sykes and Matza, 1957). Participant 6 stated that the lack of time and effort
they invested in arranging for the reuse or recycling of their older phones was
justified because they had “a daughter and a full-time job”. Other participants
55
stated that they “are just so busy” (Participant 11) and have “their lives, families and
jobs to worry about” (Participant 7). Overall, five participants felt unable to arrange
for the reuse or recycling of their phones because they “had busy lives” (Participant
10).
4.5.4 Summary
The short duration of mobile phone use among participants was consistent with
existing studies. The majority (sixteen participants) replaced their device within the
two-year contract cycle. Although nearly half had previously recycled or arranged
for the reuse of older phones, they had retained others at home. Stockpiling was
found to be above the level shown in earlier studies. In total, 81% of participants
stockpiled phones after 24 months. Nonetheless, all participants believed that older
phones should be reused or recycled. Some argued that phones have a monetary
value and so should be sent to recyclers in exchange for cash. Others claimed
phones should be reused or recycled to minimise waste and reduce reliance on
natural resources. A small number of participants cited altruistic reasons for wanting
to recycle, while others wanted to engage in such behaviour because they knew
the consequences of non-engagement. Shedding light on an under-studied area,
the research found participants were aware of the resource and environmental
value of recycling or reusing phones.
Although participants were positive about reusing and recycling phones, most had
not done so. A total of 10 barriers were found to contribute to the value-action gap
in mobile phone reuse and recycling. Data security, an issue that has thus far
received little attention in studies on pro-environmental behaviour, was found to be
the most frequently cited barrier. Perceived obsolescence, unawareness of
opportunities, lack of encouragement, and laziness were among the other barriers
56
preventing or deterring participants from arranging for their phone to be reused or
recycled. The majority were also unwilling to use older phones themselves, believing
the compromise to be too great. To reconcile the discrepancy between their
intention to reuse or recycle their phone and their actual behaviour, participants
used denial of responsibility, denial of harm and appeal to higher loyalties as
neutralisation techniques.
57
5. Theoretical conceptualisation
This research was the first to examine the value-action gap in relation to mobile
phone reuse and recycling. The results indicate there is indeed a discrepancy
between intention and action when it comes to such behaviour. However, as other
studies have argued (see Gleim and Lawson, 2014; Chung and Leung, 2007;
Mairesse et al., 2012), the causes of the value-action gap are attributable to several
factors. The participants in this research generally expressed concern for the
environment and were keen to help reduce their environmental impact by recycling
or allowing others to reuse their phone. The drivers of the desire to engage in such
behaviour were found to include personal gain, attitudes towards the environment,
knowledge of opportunities and awareness of consequences.
Although these drivers all encouraged pro-environmental behaviour among
participants, some were more influential than others. A positive attitude towards the
environment was found to be more effective at driving pro-environmental behaviour
than the desire for personal gain. Furthermore, the perceived environmental value in
recycling and reusing phones and their components was more effective in
encouraging such behaviour than knowledge of the environmental consequences
of non-engagement. Although altruism – the desire to do good – has been
proposed in other studies as a driver of pro-environmental behaviour (see Heberlein,
1972; Stern et al., 1993), it was not found to be a major driver within this research.
Privacy concerns, laziness, inconvenience and perceived obsolescence were some
of the reasons that led to mobile phones being stored at home after 24 months.
Data security and privacy concerns, factors which have not been well examined in
the existing literature (see Glisson et al., 2011), were found to be the biggest barriers
to mobile phone reuse and recycling. This is primarily because modern mobile
58
phones store a considerable amount of personal data, and because the process of
permanently wiping data from phones is difficult to complete successfully (Simon
and Anderson, 2015).
Social pressure and encouragement, when lacking, were found to be major barriers
to pro-environmental behaviour because the actions of individuals are often
attributed to the society to which they belong (Hansmann et al., 2006). Some
participants did not believe that society expected them to recycle or to arrange for
the reuse of their phone, and therefore did not feel guilty about non-engagement.
Previous studies found a lack of trust in technology to be among the primary reasons
that consumers retained older phones as a backup (Li et al., 2012; Ylä-Mella et al.,
2015). However, this research indicates that perceived obsolescence is a more
prevalent reason for stockpiling than lack of trust in technology. Additionally, a third
of participants consider the process of arranging for the reuse and recycling of
mobile phones to be an inconvenient, complicated process.
The use of neutralisation techniques was shown to be common among participants.
Many were keen to shed responsibility for their actions, claiming their behaviour was
the result of external factors. Others attempted to deny that their behaviour caused
harm to the environment, and a small number suggested that by simply stockpiling
their phone they were able to achieve other positive outcomes.
The findings of this study have been used to produce Figure 10 below, which is a
theoretical framework of the value-action gap in relation to mobile phone reuse
and recycling. As shown in the diagram, this research maintains the view proposed
by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975, 1991) that behaviour is driven by intention. However,
the factors that influence intention to reuse or recycle phones were found to differ
59
from those proposed by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975, 1991). This research argues that
attitudes towards the environment, desire for personal gain, knowledge of
consequences, awareness of reuse/recycling opportunities and perceived
significance of the value of the device encourage pro-environmental behaviour.
For stated intentions to be translated into pro-environmental behaviour, consumers
must overcome a series of barriers that may hinder, or in some cases block, such
behaviour. These barriers are presented in this research as psychological and
practical. Psychological barriers, which include fears about data security, perceived
obsolescence of the device, and laziness, are internal to the individual and are
experienced subjectively. These barriers are created by the perceptions that
individuals have about reuse and recycling, and can discourage such behaviour.
Practical barriers are those that can prevent engagement in such behaviour. They
include lack of knowledge, inconvenience and lack of encouragement.
Consumers who manage to overcome both types of barriers are those who engage
in pro-environmental behaviour (Davies et al., 2002). When consumers are unable to
overcome these barriers, they engage in stockpiling, and use the neutralisation
techniques to reconcile internal conflicts and any discrepancy between their
behaviour and the positive image they wish to reflect (Cheng et al., 2014).
60
Figure 10: Causes of the value-action gap in relation to mobile phone reuse and recycling (Source: Author).
Attitude towards
environment
Personal gain
Knowledge of
consequences
Knowledge of reuse/
recycling
opportunities
Behavioural intentions
Reuse/recycling
Stockpiling Denial of responsibility
Denial of harm
Appeal to higher
loyalties
Privacy concerns
Perceived
obsolescence
Lack of trust in process
Backup option
Perceived
insignificance of value
of device
Lack of interest/laziness
Psychological barriers Practical barriers
Inconvenience
Lack of
encouragement
Unawareness of
reuse/recycling
opportunities
Data storage
Drivers of intention Behaviour neutralisation
Perceived significance
of value of device
61
6. Conclusion
Mobile phones have become the most ubiquitous and frequently replaced
electronic products in the world. In developed countries, they are replaced within
two years, and fewer than 30% are recycled or put back into use after this period.
Phones are made from precious resources that are becoming scarce; most end up
in a drawer or as electronic waste in landfill, where leaching causes environmental
damage.
Despite research indicating consumer willingness to reuse and recycle older phones,
the number of devices ending up in landfill continues to rise. Although the value-
action gap has been examined in numerous studies, there remains no consensus on
its causes. Furthermore, it has not been studied specifically in relation to mobile
phone reuse and recycling. Given these conditions, this research sets out to fill the
knowledge gap by examining the causes of the value-action gap in mobile phone
reuse and recycling.
Twenty-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with mobile phone
consumers based in London and the South-East. Participants were selected using a
purposive sampling technique. They were asked what they believed should be done
with older phones. Participants stated without exception that they should be reused
or recycled. Concerns for the environmental consequences of waste and resource
depletion, desire for monetary gain, awareness of reuse/recycling opportunities,
personal attitudes and perceived environmental value of the device/components
were the main reasons why consumers believed this should be done.
The majority of participants had not continued using their phone after 18-24 months.
Instead, they opted for a new device because they were tempted by offers from
62
their service provider and because they believed their existing phone to be
approaching obsolescence. When they had received their new phone, 81% of
participants had not recycled or arranged reuse of their older phone, choosing
instead to stockpile it at home. Several factors were at the root of this behaviour.
These factors were classified as psychological and practical barriers. Psychological
barriers ranged from concerns about data security to perceived obsolescence of
the devices and laziness. Practical barriers were found to include inconvenience
and lack of social encouragement.
The use of neutralisation was high among participants, with denial of responsibility
being the most common neutralisation technique used to argue that the behaviour
was caused by external factors. Denial of injury was also used to suggest that
stockpiling does not cause environmental harm. A smaller number of participants
claimed their behaviour resulted in other positive outcomes.
This research concludes that the factors mentioned above drive consumer intentions
towards reusing and recycling phones. However, psychological and practical
barriers prevent these intentions from being translated into behaviour. When
consumer behaviour differs from stated intentions, three neutralisation techniques
are used to reconcile the discrepancy between intention and behaviour.
6.1 Limitations and scope for further research
Although this study has reached a coherent conclusion about the causes of the
value-action gap in relation to mobile phone reuse and recycling, consideration
must be given to the factors that have influenced these results. Above all, the
research was conducted using only 21 participants from broadly similar
backgrounds, with all participants being in full-time employment. Had there been a
63
mixture of employed and unemployed participants, the results may have been
significantly different. Future research could be conducted using a large sample to
investigate the extent to which the availability of disposable income determines
whether consumers continue using their phone beyond the initial contract period
and whether they are likely to pass devices on for reuse by family members.
As mentioned in the methodology chapter, all the participants were residents of
London and the South-East of England: if the research were replicated in other
regions or countries, it might lead to different results. The role played by factors such
as age and gender were not tested in this research. Future studies could examine
whether there are differences in disposal behaviours among those of different age
groups and genders.
This study found that data security concerns presented a major barrier to those
considering passing on their older phones for reuse/recycling. Future studies using a
larger sample might investigate how prevalent such concerns are in the wider
population and what steps might be needed to allay them.
Finally, perceived obsolescence was one of the reasons why some participants did
not continue using their phone and why they did not recycle it once their contract
had ended. The question whether the obsolescence described by participants was
real or merely perceived was beyond the scope of this study; however, it may prove
a worthwhile area of study in future research.
64
7. Bibliography
Abramson, P, and Inglehart, R, (1994), Education, Security, and Postmaterialism: A
Comment on Duch and Taylor's" Postmaterialism and the Economic Condition",
American Journal of Political Science, pp. 797-814
Aceti, J, (2002), Recycling: Why people participate; Why they don’t, Cited in Bezzina,
F, and Dimech, S, (2011), Investigating the determinants of recycling behaviour in
Malta. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 22(4),
pp. 463-485
Ajzen, I, (1988), Attitudes, Personality and Behaviour (Mapping Social Psychology),
Second Edition, Open University Press
Ajzen, I,(1991) The theory of planned behaviour, Organizational Behaviour and
Human Decision Processes, 50(2), pp. 179-211
Ajzen, I, and Fishbein, M, (1980), Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behavior, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall
Andersen, M, (2007), An introductory note on the environmental economics of the
circular economy, Sustainability Science, 2(1), pp. 133-140
Armitage, C, and Conner, M, (2001), Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A
meta‐analytic review, British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), pp. 471-499
Arnold, E, and Thompson, C, (2005), Consumer culture theory (CCT): Twenty years of
research, Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), pp. 868-882
65
Bains, N, Dalrymple, I, Wright, N, Kellner, R, Geraghty, K, Goosey, M, and Lightfoot, L,
(2006), An integrated approach to electronic waste (WEEE) recycling, Circuit
World, 33(2), pp. 52-58
Barlow, J, Warkentin, M, Ormond, D, and Dennis, A, (2013), Don't make excuses!
Discouraging neutralization to reduce IT policy violation, Computers and Security,
39, pp. 145-159
Bezzina, F, and Dimech, S, (2011), Investigating the determinants of recycling
behaviour in Malta. Management of Environmental Quality: An International
Journal, 22(4), pp. 463-485
Belk, R, Devinney, T, and Eckhardt, G (2005), Consumer Ethics Across Cultures,
Consumption, Markets and Culture 8(3), pp. 275–289
Blake, J, (1999), Overcoming the ‘value‐action gap’ in environmental policy:
Tensions between national policy and local experience, Local Environment, 4(3),
pp. 257-278
Boldero, J, (1995), The prediction of household recycling of newspapers: The role of
attitudes, intentions, and situational factors, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
25(5), pp. 440-462
Bossuet, L, (2014), Sustainable electronics: On the trail of reconfigurable computing,
Sustainable computer information systems, Article in-progress, 4(3), pp. 196-202
Bryman, A, and Bell, E, (2007), Business research methods, Third edition, United
Kingdom, Oxford University Press
Bulow, J, (1986), An economic theory of planned obsolescence, The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, pp. 729-750
66
Chai, A, Bradley, G, Lo, Y, and Reser, J, (2015), What time to adapt? The role of
discretionary time in sustaining the climate change value-action gap. Ecological
Economics, 116, pp. 95-107
Canning, L, (2006), Rethinking market connections: mobile phone recovery, reuse
and recycling in the UK, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 21(5), pp. 320-
329
Chaplin, G, and Wyton, P, (2014), Student engagement with sustainability:
understanding the value–action gap, International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education, 15(4), pp. 404-417
Cheng, L, Li, W, Zhai, Q, and Smyth, R, (2014), Understanding personal use of the
Internet at work: An integrated model of neutralization techniques and general
deterrence theory, Computers in Human Behavior, 38, pp. 220-228
Chung, S, and Leung, M, (2007), The value-action gap in waste recycling: The case
of undergraduates in Hong Kong, Environmental Management, 40(4), pp. 603-612
Cohen, L, Manion, L, and Morrison, K, (2000), Research Methods in Education, 5th
edition, London: Routledge Falmer, Teaching in Higher Education, 41
Cramer, B, (2012), Man’s need or man’s greed: The human rights ramifications of
green ICTs, Telematics and Informatics, 29(4), pp. 337-347
Dake, K, (1992), Myths of nature: Culture and the social construction of risk, Journal
of Social Issues, 48(4), pp. 21-37
Davies, J, Foxall, G, and Pallister, J, (2002), Beyond the intention–behaviour
mythology: an integrated model of recycling, Marketing Theory, 2(1), pp. 29-113
67
Denscombe, M, (2003), The good research guide: for small-scale social research
projects, United Kingdom, McGraw-Hill Education
Denzin, N, and Lincoln, Y, (2008), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (Vol. 2), Sage
Dillard, J, and Shen, M, (2002), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory
and practice, Sage Publications
DIBS (2014) Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) - Joint
declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission relating
to Article 9, Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32002L0096, Last accessed 23/03/2015
Dobie A, (2012), Why you'll never have the latest version of Android, available at:
http://www.androidcentral.com/why-you-ll-never-have-latest-version-android,
last accessed 09/05/2015
Douglas, M, and Wildavsky, A, (1982), How can we know the risks we face? Why risk
selection is a social process, Risk Analysis, 2(2), pp. 49-58
Dunlap, R, Liere, K, Mertig, A, and Jones, R, (2000), Measuring endorsement of the
new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale, Journal of Social Issues, 56(3),
pp. 425-442.
East, R, (1993), Changing consumer behaviour (23), London: Cassell
Elgaaied, L, (2012), Exploring the role of anticipated guilt on pro-environmental
behavior – A suggested typology of residents in France based on their recycling
patterns, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29(5), pp. 369-377
68
Fishbein, M, and Ajzen, I, (1975), Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,
Fonebak (2008) Regenersis, cited in: Ongondo, F, and Williams, I, (2011), Mobile
phone collection, reuse and recycling in the UK, Waste Management, 31(6),
pp. 1307-1315
Frost, R, and Gross, R, (1993), The hoarding of possessions, Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 31, pp. 367-381
Geyer, R, and Blass, V, (2010), The economics of cell phone reuse and recycling. The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 47(5-8), pp. 515-
525
Gifford, R, and Nilsson, A, (2014), Personal and social factors that influence pro‐
environmental concern and behaviour: A review, International Journal of
Psychology, 49(3), pp. 141-157
Gleim, M, and Lawson, S, (2014), Spanning the gap: an examination of the factors
leading to the green gap, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 31(6/7), pp. 503-514
Glisson, W, and Storer, T, (2013), Investigating Information Security Risks of Mobile
Device Use within Organizations, pp. 1-8
Glisson, W, Storer, T, Mayall, G, Moug, I, and Grispos, G, (2011), Electronic retention:
what does your mobile phone reveal about you? International Journal of
Information Security, 10(6), pp. 337-349
Goode, A, (2010), Managing mobile security: How are we doing? Network Security,
2010(2), pp. 12-15
69
Graziano, A, and Raulin, M, (2004), Research methods: A process of inquiry, 5th
edition, HarperCollins College Publishers
Green Alliance (2015) A circular economy for smart devices [Report], Available at:
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rj
a&uact=8&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.green-
alliance.org.uk%2Fresources%2FA%2520circular%2520economy%2520for%2520sma
rt%2520devices.pdf&ei=YdAWVdSvOaSQ7AaLlICYDg&usg=AFQjCNHf0tDXkZW69C
I4vbcuz2v4x2uiVQ&sig2=Wtl34y4AekEXL9ugWySm8w&bvm=bv.89381419,d.ZGU,
Last accessed 06/07/2015, Last accessed 01/08/2015
Greenfield, T, (2002), Research methods for postgraduates, Oxford University Press
Grove, S, Vitell, S, and Strutton, D, (1989), Non-normative consumer behaviour and
the techniques of neutralisation, Cited in: Piacentini, M, Chatzidakis, A, and
Banister, E, (2012), Making sense of drinking: the role of techniques of
neutralisation and counter‐neutralisation in negotiating alcohol consumption,
Sociology of Health and Illness, 34(6), pp. 841-857
Hansmann, R, Bernasconi, P, Smieszek, T, Loukopoulos, P, Scholz, R, (2006),
Justifications and self-organization as determinants of recycling behavior: the
case of used batteries, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 47, pp. 133–159
Harland, P, Staats, H, and Wilke, H, (2007), Situational and personality factors as
direct or personal norm mediated predictors of pro-environmental behaviour:
Questions derived from norm-activation theory, Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 29(4), pp. 323-334
Hatzimoysis, A, (2003), Sentimental value, The Philosophical Quarterly, 53(212),
pp. 373-379
70
Heberlein, T, (1972), The land ethic realized: Some social psychological explanations
for changing environmental attitudes, Cited in: Stern, P, (2000), New
environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant
behaviour, Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), pp. 407-424
Hornik, J, Cherian, J, and Madansky, M, (1995), Determinants of recycling behaviour:
A synthesis of research results. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 24(1), pp. 105-127
Huang, E, and Truong, K, (2008, April), Breaking the disposable technology
paradigm: opportunities for sustainable interaction design for mobile phones. In
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
pp. 323-332
Hussey, J, and Hussey, R, (1997), Business research: a practical guide for
undergraduate and postgraduate students. Basingstoke: Macmillan
Hwang Y, Kim S, and Jeng, J, (2000), Examining the causal relationships among
selected antecedents of responsible environmental behaviour; cited in Chung, S,
and Leung, M, (2007), The value-action gap in waste recycling: The case of
undergraduates in Hong Kong, Environmental management, 40(4), pp. 603-612
Kaiser, F, (1996), Environmental Attitude and Ecological Behaviour, cited in: Mairesse,
O, Macharis, C, Lebeau, K, and Turcksin, L, (2012), Understanding the attitude-
action gap: functional integration of environmental aspects in car purchase
intentions, Psicologica: International Journal of Methodology and Experimental
Psychology, 33(3), pp. 547-574
Kalafatis, S, Pollard, M, East, R, and Tsogas, M, (1999), Green marketing and Ajzen's
Theory of Planned Behaviour: a cross-market examination, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 16(5), pp. 441-460
71
Kempton, W, Boster, J, and Hartley, J, (1996), Environmental values in American
culture, MIT Press
Kennedy, E, Beckley, T, McFarlane, B, and Nadeau, S, (2009), Why we don't "walk the
talk": Understanding the environmental values/behaviour gap in Canada, Human
Ecology Review, 16(2), pp. 151-160
Kippax, S, and Crawford, J, (1993), Flaws in the Theory of Reasoned Action, The
Theory of Reasoned Action: Its application to AIDS-preventive behaviour, pp. 253-
269
Kollmuss, A and Agyeman, J, (2002), Mind the gap: why do people act
environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?
Environmental Education Research, 8(3), pp. 239-260
Lansana, F, (1993), A Comparative Analysis of Curbside Recycling Behaviour in
Urban and Suburban Communities, The Professional Geographer, 45(2), pp. 169-
179
Lee, N, and Lings, I, (2013), Doing business research: a guide to theory and practice,
Sage
Lorenzoni, I, Nicholson-Cole, S, and Whitmarsh, L, (2007), Barriers perceived to
engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy
implications, Global Environmental Change, 17(3), pp. 445-459
Lincoln, J, Ogunseitan, O, Shapiro, A, and Saphores, J, (2007), Leaching assessments
of hazardous materials in cellular telephones, Environmental Science and
Technology, 41(7), pp. 2572-2578
72
Li, B, Yang, J, Song, X, and Lu, B, (2012), Survey on disposal behaviour and awareness
of mobile phones in Chinese university students, Procedia Environmental Sciences,
16, pp. 469-476
Liska, A, (1984), A critical examination of the causal structure of the Fishbein/Ajzen
attitude-behaviour model; Cited in Wan, C, Cheung, R, and Qiping Shen, G,
(2012), Recycling attitude and behaviour in university campus: a case study in
Hong Kong, Facilities, 30(13/14), pp. 630-646
Mahmud N, Holeman I, and Puk, K, (2013), The cell phone problem/solution, Journal
of Environmental Health, pp. 140-144
Mairesse, O, Macharis, C, Lebeau, K, and Turcksin, L, (2012), Understanding the
attitude-action gap: functional integration of environmental aspects in car
purchase intentions, Psicologica: International Journal of Methodology and
Experimental Psychology, 33(3), pp. 547-574
Mauch, J, and Park, N, (2003) A Guide to the Successful Thesis and Dissertation; A
Handbook for Students and Faculty, 5(e), University of Pittsburgh, CRC Press
McKenzie-Mohr, D. and Smith, W. (1999), Fostering Sustainable Behaviour: An
Introduction To Community-Based Social Marketing; Cited in Chaplin, G, and
Wyton, P, (2014), Student engagement with sustainability: understanding the
value–action gap, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education,
15(4), pp. 404-417
Miles, M, and Huberman, A. (1994), Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook, Sage
73
Mittal, B, (1988), Achieving Higher Seat Belt Usage: The Role of Habit in Bridging the
Attitude-Behavior Gap, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, pp. 993–1016
Monroe, M, (1993), Changing environmental behaviour; Cited in Chung, S, and
Leung, M, (2007), The value-action gap in waste recycling: The case of
undergraduates in Hong Kong, Environmental management, 40(4), pp. 603-612
Myers, M, (2013), Qualitative research in business and management, Second edition,
Sage
Myers, M, (2009) Qualitative research in business and management, 1st edition, Sage
Nicoll, A, (2009), Transforming the materials economy, The new green economy,
found in Cramer, B, (2012), Man’s need or man’s greed: The human rights
ramifications of green ICTs, Telematics and Informatics, 29(4), pp. 337-347
Nnorom, I, and Osibanjo, O, (2009), Toxicity characterization of waste mobile phone
plastics, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 161(1), pp. 183-188
Nnorom, I, and Osibanjo, O, (2009), Heavy metal characterization of waste portable
rechargeable batteries used in mobile phones, International Journal of
Environmental Science and Technology, 6(4), pp. 641-650
Ongondo, F, and Williams, I, (2011a), Mobile phone collection, reuse and recycling in
the UK, Journal of Waste Management, 31(6), pp. 1307-1315
Ongondo, F, and Williams, I, (2011b), Greening academia: Use and disposal of
mobile phones among university students. Waste Management, 31(7), pp. 1617-
1634
74
Osibanjo, O, and Nnorom, I, (2008), Material flows of mobile phones and accessories
in Nigeria: environmental implications and sound end-of-life management
options, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(2), pp. 198-213
Owens, S, (2000), Engaging the public: information and deliberation in
environmental policy, Environment and Planning A, 32, pp. 1141–1148
Owens, S, and Driffill, L, (2008), How to change attitudes and behaviours in the
context of energy, Energy Policy, 36(12), pp. 4412-4418
Parker, D, (2007), An Analysis of the Spectrum of Re-use; Cited in: Watson, M, (2008),
A Review of literature and research on public attitudes, perceptions and
behaviour relating to remanufactured, repaired and reused products, Report for
the Centre for Remanufacturing and Reuse, The University of Sheffield, pp. 1-23
Polák, M, and Drápalová, L, (2012), Estimation of end of life mobile phones
generation: the case study of the Czech Republic, Journal of Waste
Management, 32(8), pp. 1583-1591
Paiano, A, Lagioia, G, and Cataldo, A, (2013), A critical analysis of the sustainability
of mobile phone use, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 73, pp. 162-171
Piacentini, M, Chatzidakis, A, and Banister, E, (2012), Making sense of drinking: the
role of techniques of neutralisation and counter‐neutralisation in negotiating
alcohol consumption, Sociology of Health and Illness, 34(6), pp. 841-857
Rajecki, D, (1982), Attitudes: themes and advances, Sunderland, MA, Sinauer
Ramayah, T, Lee, J, Lim, S, (2012), Sustaining the environment through recycling: An
empirical study, Journal of Environmental Management, 102, pp. 141-147
75
Ramayah, T, and Rahbar, E, (2013), Greening the environment through recycling: an
empirical study, Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal,
24(6), pp. 782-801
Reedy, S, (2009), Cell phone recycling off to slow start, Telephony
RICS (2011), RICS draft information paper – Rare Earth Metals, Available from:
https://consultations.rics.org/consult.ti/_rem/viewCompoundDoc?docid=921940,
last accessed 04/05/2015, last accessed 01/08/2015
Rogers, J, Simmons, E, Convery, I, and Weatherall, A, (2008), Public perceptions of
opportunities for community-based renewable energy projects, Energy Policy,
36(11), pp. 4217-4226
Rubin, H, & Rubin, I, (1995), Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data, Sage
Sahu S, and Sruinivasen N, (2008), Mobile Phone Waste: Current initiatives in Asia and
the Pacific, Tech Monitor, pp. 32-38
Sapsford, R, and Jupp, (1996), Data collection and analysis, Sage
Saunders, M, and Lewis, P, (2012), Doing research in business and management: An
essential guide to planning your project, Financial Times Prentice Hall
Saunders, M, Lewis, P, and Thornhill, A, (2009), Research methods for business
students, 4/e, Pearson Education India
Saunders, M, Lewis, P, and Thornhill, A, (2011), Research methods for business
students, 5/e, Pearson Education India
Sommer, L, (2011), The Theory of Planned Behaviour and the impact of past
behaviour, International Business & Economics Research Journal, 10(1), pp. 91-110
76
Schwartz, S, (1977), Normative Influences on Altruism, Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, 10, pp. 221-279
Schwamm, R, and Rowe, N, (2014), “Effects of the factory reset on mobile devices,”
in The Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law (JDFSL)
Simon, L, and Anderson, R, (2015), Security analysis of android factory resets. In 3rd
Mobile Security Technologies Workshop (MoST), pp. 1-10
Slade, G, (2009), Made to break: Technology and obsolescence in America,
Harvard University Press
Smith, J. R, Terry, D, Manstead, A, Louis, W, Kotterman, D, and Wolfs, J, (2007),
Interaction Effects in the Theory of Planned Behaviour: The Interplay of Self‐Identity
and Past Behaviour, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(11), pp. 2726-2750
SRA (2013) Ethical Guidelines, available at http://the-sra.org.uk/wp-
content/uploads/ethics03.pdf, last accessed 04/05/2015
Stern, P, Dietz, T, and Karlof, L, (1993), Values orientation, gender, and environmental
concern, Cited in: Kollmuss, A and Agyeman, J, (2002), Mind the gap: why do
people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental
behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), pp. 239-260
Stern, P, (2000), New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of
environmentally significant behaviour, Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), pp. 407-424
Stevens, B, (1960), Planned Obsolescence, The Rotarian (February), p. 12
Sykes, G, and Matza, D, (1957), Techniques of neutralization: A theory of
delinquency, American sociological review, pp. 664-670
77
Trivedi, R, Patel, J, and Savalia, J, (2015), Pro-environmental behaviour, locus of
control and willingness to pay for environmental friendly products, Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, 33(1), pp. 67-89
Tonglet, M, Phillips, P, and Read, A, (2004), Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to
investigate the determinants of recycling behaviour: a case study from Brixworth,
UK, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 41(3), pp. 191-214
UNCSD (2012), The future we want, pp. 1-49, available at:
http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/rio20_outcome_document_complete.
pdf, last accessed, 30/07/2015
UNEP, (2009), Mainstreaming Sustainable Consumption and Production and
Resource Efficiency into Development Planning, United Nations Environment
Programme, Available
athttp://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx1235xPA-
MainstreamingSCPintoDevPlanning.pdf, last accessed 01/08/2015
Vallerand, R, Deshaies, P, Cuerrier, J, Pelletier, L, and Mongeau, C, (1992), Ajzen and
Fishbein's theory of reasoned action as applied to moral behavior: A confirmatory
analysis, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(1), pp. 98-108
Vining, J, and Ebreo, A, (1990), What makes a recycler? A comparison of recyclers
and nonrecyclers, Environment and Behaviour, 22(1), pp. 55-73
von Borgstede, C, and Biel, A, (2002), Pro-environmental behaviour: situational
barriers and concern for the good at stake, Göteborg Psychological Reports,
32(1), pp. 1-10
78
Vlek, C, and Keren, G, (1992), Behavioural decision theory and environmental risk
management: Assessment and resolution of four’ “survival’’ dilemmas; Cited in
Harland, P, Staats, H, and Wilke, H, (2007), Situational and personality factors as
direct or personal norm mediated predictors of pro-environmental behaviour:
Questions derived from norm-activation theory, Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 29(4), pp. 323-334
Wan, C, Cheung, R, and Qiping Shen, G, (2014), Recycling attitude and behaviour in
university campus: a case study in Hong Kong, Facilities, 30(13/14), pp. 630-646
Watson, M, (2008), A Review of literature and research on public attitudes,
perceptions and behaviour relating to remanufactured, repaired and reused
products, Report for the Centre for Remanufacturing and Reuse, The University of
Sheffield, pp. 1-23
Wilhelm, W, (2012), Encouraging Sustainable Consumption thought Product Lifetime
Extension: The Case of Mobile Phones, Journal USA: Western Washington
University, pp. 17-32
WRAP (2007) Barriers to recycling at home, Available at:
http://.wrap.org.uk%2Fsites%2Ffiles%2Fwrap%2FBarriers_to_Recycling_Summary_Re
port, last accessed: 03/03/2015
Yadav, S, Yadav, S, and Kumar, P, (2014), Metal toxicity assessment of mobile phone
parts using Milli Q water, Journal of Waste Management, 34(7), pp. 1274-1278
Yin, J, Goa, Y, and Xu, H, (2013), Survey and analysis of consumers' behaviour of
waste mobile phone recycling in China, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume
65, 15 February 2014, pp. 517-525
79
Ylä-Mella, J, Pongrácz, E, and Keiski, R, (2015). Electronic waste recovery in Finland:
Customers’ perceptions towards recycling and re-use of mobile phones, Journal
of Waste Management, 10, pp. 1-11
Yu, J, Williams, E, and Ju, M, (2010), Analysis of material and energy consumption of
mobile phones in China, Energy Policy, 38(8), pp. 4135-4141
Young, W, Hwang, K, McDonald, S, and Oates, C, (2010), Sustainable consumption:
green consumer behaviour when purchasing products. Sustainable Development,
18(1), pp. 20-31
80
8. Appendices
8.1 Appendix 1: Elements of a modern smartphone (Source: Compound Interest, 2014)
81
8.2 Appendix 2: Information sheet
Information sheet
Department of Geography, Environment and Development Studies
Birkbeck
University of London
Malet Street
London WC1E 7HX
Tel. 020 7631 6000
Title of Study: Examining the value-action gap among consumers in relation to
mobile phone reuse and recycling
Name of researcher: Pavlin Matia
The study is being conducted as part of my Master’s degree in the Department of
Geography, Environment and Development Studies, Birkbeck, University of London.
The study has received ethical approval.
This study explores consumer intentions and behaviour towards mobile phone reuse
and recycling.
If you agree to participate, you will agree a convenient time and place for me to
interview you for about an hour. You are free to stop the interview and withdraw at
any time.
A code will be attached to your data so it remains totally anonymous.
The analysis of our interview will be written up in a report of the study for my degree.
You will not be identifiable in the write-up or any publication which might ensue.
The study is supervised by Phil Cumming, who may be contacted at the above
address and telephone number.
82
8.3 Appendix 3: Consent form
Consent form
Title of Study: Examining the value-action gap among consumers in relation to
mobile phone reuse and recycling
Researcher: Pavlin Matia
I have been informed about the nature of this study and willingly consent to take
part in it.
I understand that the content of the interview will be kept confidential.
I understand that I may withdraw from the study at any time.
I am over 16 years of age.
Name _________________________________________________________________
Signed ________________________________________________________________
Date __________________________________________________________________
There should be two signed copies – one for participant, one for researcher.
83
8.4 Appendix 4: Participant profiles
Participant
no. Gender Age Profession Residence
Interview
type
Interview
length
Mobile ownership
method
Ownership
length
Replacement
frequency
Type of
phone
1 Female 36 Teacher West
London
Face-to-
face
27:02
minutes
Purchased/other 2 years 3 years Smartphone
2 Male 28 Scientist North
London
Face-to-
face
25:00
minutes
Fixed-term
contract
18 months 2 years Smartphone
3 Male 51 Senior
manager
South-East Face-to-
face
30:03
minutes
Fixed-term
contract
2 years 2 years Smartphone
4 Male 34 HR manager London Face-to-
face
34:30
minutes
Fixed-term
contract
1 year 2 years Smartphone
5 Female 30 Civil servant North-West
London
Face-to-
face
32:51
minutes
Fixed-term
contract
18 months 2 years Smartphone
6 Female 32 Business
specialist
Hampshire Face-to-
face
37:04
minutes
Fixed-term
contract
1 year 2-3 years Smartphone
7 Female 30 Catering London Face-to-
face
44:45
minutes
Purchased/other 4 years 2 years/varies Smartphone
8 Female 32 Accountant London Face-to-
face
26:47
minutes
Fixed-term
contract
1 year, 10
months
2 years Smartphone
9 Male 29 Marketing London Face-to-
face
21:53
minutes
Fixed-term
contract
1 year 2 years Smartphone
10 Female 47 Client
director
South-East
London
Face-to-
face
58:43
minutes
Fixed-term
contract
3 years 3 years Smartphone
11 Male 47 Private
procurement
London Face-to-
face
33:13
minutes
Fixed-term
contract
9 months 2 years Smartphone
12 Female 36 Business
specialist
Berkshire Face-to-
face
32:26
minutes
Fixed-term
contract
2 months 2 years Smartphone
13 Male 38 Legal
researcher
London Face-to-
face
31:24
minutes
Purchased/other 4 months Varies Smartphone
84
Participant
no. Gender Age Profession Residence
Interview
type
Interview
length
Mobile ownership
method
Ownership
length
Replacement
frequency
Type of
phone
14 Female 56 Communications
specialist
Canterbury Face-to-
face
34:54
minutes
Purchased/other 1 year Varies Basic
function
15 Male 55 Banking London Face-to-
face
30:38
minutes
Fixed-term
contract
1 year 2 years Smartphone
16 Male 37 Economist London Face-to-
face
42:27
minutes
Fixed-term
contract
4 months 2 years Smartphone
17 Male 35 Social worker London Face-to-
face
28:32
minutes
Fixed-term
contract
18 months 2 years Smartphone
18 Male 30 Intelligence
analyst
London Face-to-
face
17:21
minutes
Fixed-term
contract
1 year 1 year Smartphone
19 Male 43 Project manager London Face-to-
face
29:21
minutes
Fixed-term
contract
18 months 2 years Smartphone
20 Male 45 Economist West
London
Face-to-
face
19:50
minutes
Fixed-term
contract
3 months 18 months Smartphone
21 Male 51 Teacher London Face-to-
face
63.41
minutes
Fixed-term
contract
3 years 2.5 – 3 years Smartphone
85
8.5 Appendix 5: List of interview questions
The following list of questions was used in the interviews. Most interview questions
were tailored to take into consideration the responses provided. A few additional
probing questions were asked to participants when the opportunity presented itself.
Can you tell me a bit about your background?
How long have you had your current phone?
How did you acquire it?
Prompt: Is that how you normally source your phones?
When you got your current phone, was the old phone still working?
What are your reasons for replacing your phone?
What did you do with it?
Prompt: Why did you do that?
For you personally, how important is it to avoid creating waste and to reduce
your impact on the environment?
Prompt: Why is it important?
What do you think should be done with older phones and why?
Have you done this with your older phones?
Prompt: If not, why not?
Research suggests that most phones are replaced within two years and are
not recycled or reused afterwards. Why would you say this happens?
How would you feel about using a pre-owned mobile phone as your next
device?
Prompt: Why would you say that?
When you get your next phone, how would you feel about allowing someone
else to have your current one?
86
8.6 Appendix 6: Sample transcribed interview
Interviewer: Can you tell me a bit about your background?
Participant: I am a 51-year-old man; I have lived in Britain for more than 25 years,
married to a British person. After doing a degree in Computer Science, my original
job in Canada was computer programmer. That didn’t work out, so I moved to the
UK and did a master’s degree in Economic and Social History at the London School
of Economics. Then I got a job in finance in 1990, which was a depressed time to
work in finance, and I worked in finance in various capacities until 2008, and then I
moved into teaching. Now I teach banking and finance, not for degree purposes
but to people who are working in banks and need training. So, essentially, I am their
trainer.
Interviewer: Have you been explained the purpose of the research and are you still
happy to proceed?
Participant: Yes, of course, please go ahead.
Interviewer: How long have you had your current phone?
Participant: This current one I’ve had for about three years.
Interviewer: Is that how long you usually keep your phones for?
Participant: Yes, because I’m very lazy about updating my phones. If it works then I
don’t want to change to a new phone. I’m what you call a late adopter, so my first
smartphone was a Blackberry and that was almost three years ago. I haven’t yet
gone to Vodafone and changed to a Samsung or whatever. I’m continuing to pay
full price for my phone even thought I haven’t updated.
87
Interviewer: I see. So how many phones would you estimate you’ve had over your
lifetime then?
Participant: About six or seven, I would think. Counting my Blackberry, maybe seven
or eight, something like that.
Interviewer: When you got your current phone, was the old phone still working?
Participant: No, it was giving me trouble.
Interviewer: What kind of trouble?
Participant: I think the keys weren’t working any more. It was just a little Nokia, it was
just a phone, not a smartphone, and it was just a basic phone for calling and
sending text messages. It just stopped, the keys weren’t working properly, there was
some other problem with it, and the sound was bad or something. It was basically
broken; I’m hard on my phones.
Interviewer: What did you do with it when you got your new phone?
Participant: Well, that’s an interesting question. So, basically what happens is, I have
a drawer and all of my old phones are sitting in that drawer.
Interviewer: Can I ask why that is?
Participant: Because I haven’t figured out how to get rid of them.
Interviewer: What do you mean?
Participant: Well, I’m not going to throw them in the bin because that’s wrong, I try
to recycle where I can, and also because I am a little worried about what
information is contained on the device. So that’s another issue – how much
confidential information is on them. In truth, since this is my first smartphone, until now
88
not very much – so no banking details and stuff. But still, you know, addresses, phone
numbers and things like that. This one, you have a heck of a lot of information,
valuable information on it. So one problem is security of disposal, another problem is
that I don’t want to dispose of it unless I am sure it’s being recycled in some way. I
am aware that there are materials which are unique in a mobile phone, which are
extracted from African countries where there are literally civil wars about control of
these resources. I think the story is that coltan, which is a key component in mobile
phones, I’m not sure if it’s in the antenna – I actually don’t know what coltan is –
essentially is only produced in one place in the world. Geologically, this is in the
Democratic Republic of Congo, which is, as perhaps you know, a country with one
of the worst civil wars in the world, and more than a million people have already
died in that war. Of course, we don’t hear about it because it’s poor people in
Africa killing each other and that’s what they do. By the way, that’s meant to be
ironic. So the Democratic Republic of Congo produces coltan geologically but in
official statistics it has zero production of coltan. In other words, it’s all mined and
smuggled out to surrounding countries, all of which are playing political and military
games in the Congolese civil war. The world mobile phone industry, as I understand
it, hangs on this material that’s basically obtained at the cost of God knows how
many African lives. So if I throw my phone away and it’s not properly recycled, that is
bad. I mean, I already have a phone and that’s bad enough, but I have to have a
phone for lots of reasons, I want to have a phone let’s be honest about that. So if I
throw a phone away and it’s not recycled then I am contributing to that problem.
I’m making it worse if I don’t recycle. So just to summarise my response: security and
concern about it being recycled effectively is why I still have my phones at home in
a drawer.
89
Interviewer: How does keeping your phones in a drawer at home contribute to
addressing those issues?
Participant: Well, one of these days I’m going to find a way to recycle my phones
effectively. So a couple of things: the first thing is, I loved a phone called the Nokia
6310i – I think I had three of them. They used to call it the banker’s phone because
it’s dead dumb, it was this big gold phone but it worked so brilliantly. It had
phenomenal battery life, way more than these smartphones because all it did was
text and phone people and it was made for big fingers. I don’t have particularly big
fingers for a bloke, but it tells you how small these phones have become that we
double hit the keys. In the city people held onto these phones for years, and when
Nokia stopped producing it, we kept waiting for Nokia to launch another one
because the 6310i was a successor to something which was very similar. If I showed
you one, you’d know it, it’s iconic – you Google it and you’ll find the 6310i. So I had
three of those in a row and each one eventually broke. I dropped them and they
broke. So I had a vague notion that for a while people were buying them on the
Internet and so I still have them, I still even have the original boxes. People just
wanted 6310i phones and Nokia stopped producing them. That’s when I began to
realise that Nokia had lost its way because they had a phone that customers loved
and they stopped replacing it with newer models. So for about eight years I had
6310i mobile phones, then I had a new cheap Nokia phone and that fell apart so
then I got my smartphone.
Going back to your original question, I think that I keep them because eventually I
will find a recycler. Oxfam has a recycling service but when I logged on, it redirects
you to a company that recycles phones. As you might know, with the clothing
recycling thing, it’s kind of a joke going on out there because we recycle our
90
clothing but actually these companies take our clothing and just dump it in the Third
World, in Africa, and the local textile industries can’t compete and that’s why
whenever you look at photos or on TV you see Africans wearing western clothes. So
there’s a lot of concern that charities are giving all these clothes to these companies
that are making a big profit out of them and the charities are getting very little. So
I’m a little bit worried about that, if I just ship them off to Oxfam, plus the security
issue. On the security issue, the New York Times went to Lagos and bought some
mobile phones that had been sent there and their experts found loads of private
information. These were mobile phones from Western countries. These phones are
floating around, they’ve been recycled, and they’re sent off to these emerging
markets and then they’re not recycled so that’s another worry. It’s a combination,
it’s inertia as much as anything else. I haven’t a way that makes me feel
comfortable that the phone is going to be recycled successfully.
Interviewer: Have you searched around?
Participant: Yeah, I’ve searched for it on the Web and I haven’t found the answer,
but there is a degree of inertia for sure. And then I have to think, do I keep the 6310i
phones? They are no longer worth selling; once upon a time they were, but not any
more. Also, you have the added work of shipping it to someone: I’ve got to take it to
the post office and all that.
Interviewer: You mentioned that you care about the issues surrounding the conflicts
associated with sourcing of the raw materials that go into phones…
Participant: Yes, well these are all rare materials, so why squander them?
Interviewer: What about the environmental aspects of phone production and
disposal, how important are these things to you?
91
Participant: In that very middle-class liberal way, I ignore them because I’m worried
that the answer might upset me. I suspect that it’s the use of a phone that has the
larger carbon footprint than the actual creation of the phone. It’s similar to most of
these things, I forget how many kilograms of carbon they think a Google query
generates, but that doesn’t mean I don’t use Google a lot. So I suspect it’s in fact
the daily use of the phone, the energy used and the infrastructure used every time
you make a phone call that have the higher carbon footprint in the long run than
production of a phone. But I have some concerns about the carbon footprint during
the creation of a phone. I worry because we are basically building phones with
enormous features that most of the time we don’t even use and there’s an analogy
with personal computers. There is a charity in North London which blanks your hard
drive and then ships the computers off to emerging markets. So I’ve got rid of the
last four or five computers in the house that way. I’m not sure if it’s called Computer
Fair or something, I’d have to email you the name because I can’t remember now.
When I recycled my old computers, I actually took a cab with our old computers to
them. I remember walking in there with two computers and they had a company
that had given them a hundred computers and feeling very small. I worry about
shipping desktops to emerging markets because they don’t have regular power
supplies and those desktops need a lot of energy. The old desktops burn a lot of
juice, but the laptops they can use even if they are Windows XP or whatever. So I’m
really looking for something like that for phones. I’ve not found anything yet, maybe I
need to dig harder.
Interviewer: What do you think is the best thing to do with the phones that you’ve
been storing?
92
Participant: Ship them to someone who actually recycles them. Have you heard of a
book by Adam Minter called Junkyard Planet?
Interviewer: No I haven’t.
Participant: So, okay, his focus is on metals recycling. His family were metals recyclers
in America, a Jewish-American family. There’s an interesting sub-story in the book
about why Jews recycle metals and essentially it was because when Jews arrived in
America from Poland they couldn’t get jobs doing anything else, but no one
wanted to touch the garbage so they got in the recycling business. This was in, like,
1910. That was really interesting to me. But anyway, he lives in China, he’s a journalist
in China. Most of the electronics that are sent for recycling, the most likely
destination is China. They pull them apart and they dig out the components, there
are some horrifying environmental stories, things like Apple products are apparently
really difficult to recycle, so they just burn them and you get these clouds of toxic
chemicals that contaminate the earth, the water and the air. Whenever the foreign
press finds out about these places, they move them; the government finds this all
embarrassing. The reality of it is that it’s not done properly. Ships, for example: ships
are full of asbestos but somebody has to recycle them. So they all used to get sent
to the south coast of India where they would get recycled and people died doing
that, the industrial safety in cutting a ship up is pretty poor. Nowadays India is getting
a bit expensive so they ship them to Bangladesh and Pakistan, but you have to say,
well, we have all these valuable resources going into building the ship, it’s 30 years
old, it’s scrapped but it’s still useful. That’s the point of the author in the book: we
might not like this, but if the Chinese don’t do it or the Nigerians or whoever, it just
doesn’t happen because it’s labour intensive. It’s not something that’s easy to
automate; somebody has to put it all apart. What we really want is a validated
93
chain that says from here, the phone is going to go off to Africa or somewhere in
China – or these days probably Vietnam, because China is getting expensive – and
get pulled apart and the components used to create value.
Interviewer: Do we have that validated chain at the moment?
Participant: As far as I know, we don’t have anything like that. I know Oxfam had this
recycling programme but when you go to the Oxfam site, they say you contribute a
phone and Oxfam get a quid; it’s a company that’s running this programme not
Oxfam. I don’t know what they do with it [the phone]. I need to check what
environmental certification this company has achieved.
Interviewer: You’ve mentioned that you’re keen to make sure that your phones go
somewhere they will be properly recycled. What makes you want that?
Participant: This will sound weird, but I’m a small-c conservative not a big-C
Conservative. By this I mean, at a very profound level, my parents grew up in difficult
circumstances in the 1930s in England and Canada, so I was raised with the belief
that you shouldn’t waste things. The green stuff is new and something I’ve
developed myself, but you should not waste things. Having something which
potentially has value and is made up of very valuable materials, basically these rare
metals and the plastic and silicon, we shouldn’t just throw these things away. They
should go somewhere useful. I know that [a retailer] won’t take a kettle back,
they’re supposed to take it back but they won’t. We use Freecycle a lot – I don’t
know if you’ve heard of it, but we use it a lot. Whenever I’ve got rid of a printer or
stuff like that we’ve used it because it might have been fixable. I didn’t know how to
fix it, but someone else could, and even if it doesn’t work you get four new toner
94
cartridges with it. That’s the sort of thing we do, I just hate to waste things that don’t
need to be wasted.
I’m not completely consistent in my behaviour because, as you can see, that’s a
disposable cup, I get on planes and fly places, so I am somewhat aware of my own
contradictions. But where there is an obvious route to not wasting something I try to
follow that. So we separate our garbage as best we can to recycle, we don’t have
a car because we don’t need it. The biggest problem with municipal recycling in
London is that the council will say, “Oh we can’t deal with that, you’ll need to take it
to the dump,” and that assumes I have a car, which I don’t. Sometimes the council
will say, “Yes, we’ll have to pick it up, but you have to call us on this number and
arrange it,” and then it never happens. You call them and they never answer. I think
we would get higher recycling rates in London if it wasn’t as hard to recycle some
stuff.
Interviewer: Is it hard to recycle stuff?
Participant: Yes, I think so.
Interviewer: What kind of stuff?
Participant: Special stuff like clothes, electronics and furniture are very hard to
recycle. With furniture, if you don’t have a car, it’s based on having access to a
vehicle. With paper and plastic, you’re never sure how they recycle it, but they do
give you instructions and you can get a better idea. Organic waste we recycle,
kitchen waste and garden rubbish is all easy with our local council. But it’s the
special stuff like a toaster – try getting rid of a toaster; I’ve done the North London
thing, I’m as evil as anyone. We’ve had a light that’s broken, getting the council to
come and collect it would take forever. And then we noticed somebody was doing
95
renovations; they have a skip so I’ve walked by it at 10:30 at night and tossed it in
the skip. I’ve done that often to get rid of big things.
Interviewer: Why have you done that?
Participant: Well, because there’s no easy way to get rid of a light. You have to find
a neighbour and get them to drive you to the municipal dump, prove that you live
in the council, and that’s hard.
Interviewer: Are those challenges applicable to phones?
Participant: No, because phones are light and you could ship them to someone.
Interviewer: How hard would you say it is to recycle phones?
Participant: That’s a tricky one. It’s not that easy because I actually have to find
someone, go and get it posted – you know, there’s a process. Fortunately, we still
have a post office on the high street – last high street in London with a post office –
but there’s a process which takes time and energy and it’s not in my routine. So I
wouldn’t say it’s easy but it’s probably not as much of an obstacle as I’m making it
sound in this conversation. If I really wanted to do it, then there’s some level of
thinking, why do I have to do this?
Interviewer: What could be done to make it easier?
Participant: What you really want it a website: you log on, they send you an
envelope and you send them the phone. The whole question of it is that if they
provide the postage, it’s going to cost them money, and a lot of charities will send
you an envelope and say, “Please put a stamp if you want to support this, because
we have to pay if you don’t.” I think that would make it really a lot easier. Although
96
packages don’t go into mailboxes, so you still have to take it to the post office. I
guess it also depends how big your phone is.
Interviewer: Thanks for that. According to recent research, most mobile phones in
the developed world are replaced within two years and are not reused or recycled
after this period. Why do you think this happens?
Participant: I’m a bit longer than that; I’m nearer to three years. I think most people
are in the same situation that I am. They know they shouldn’t just throw it in the bin,
but they don’t have an easy solution of getting rid of it. If it’s a toaster or a light,
people end up tossing it in a skip; they walk by a skip and toss it. A phone is
intrinsically too valuable to do that, so people don’t know how to get rid of it. I think
we are also becoming a little bit more conscious about identify theft and personal
security and stuff, so you can’t just give your phone or your computer away. I gave
one computer to my wife’s driving instructor; he was from Mauritius and couldn’t
afford to get a computer for his kids, so we gave him our old computer. Nowadays I
would probably worry about security and the need to have the hard drive properly
wiped and stuff.
I think, in the long run, if we’re all going through phones every two years and there
are 700 or 800 million people in the developed world – there must be at least that –
then we’re burning through 400 million phones a year. So they are piling up, and that
could turn out to be a significant amount of rare earth and materials. I’ve not looked
at what materials are in the phones but that could turn into a significant amount of
world production. If we could efficiently recycle that stuff, we could extract the
coltan and the plastics. Coltan is the one I know about and that one has a direct link
to what’s happening in Africa.
97
Interviewer: What do you think about the possibility of reuse?
Participant: Usually, we are hard on our phones, and so they usually die. My wife
washed her Nokia once; turns out, the old Nokias you could unscrew them and dry
them out and they worked. To me, that’s brilliant design: you make a phone that
can go through a washing machine and survive, that’s amazing; I don’t know if any
of the smartphones would do that. I notice with a lot of smartphones the screens are
cracked because people have dropped them. So in terms of giving my phone to
someone else, I suppose I would give my phone to someone else, but I don’t know
anyone who wants an out-of-date bashed-up Blackberry anyway. So the thing is
that the whole ownership model in the UK is a bit broken because you don’t own
your phone: if you’re a contract customer, you rent your phone. So then there’s an
incentive [that] every two years you get a free new phone or every 18 months you
get a free new phone. So there’s a constant incentive to upgrade. The reason I
don’t do that – in fact, I used to get quite annoyed when they called me up to try to
get me to do that – was because it works perfectly well. I don’t want to learn how to
use a new phone with a different user interface. I know Blackberry is terminal
because nobody uses them anymore. When I got it, the guy just said if you want to
do email the Blackberry is the best one.
Interviewer: You mentioned that you used to get calls about the upgrade…
Participant: Yes, they used to call me every 18 months saying that I was due an
upgrade on my handset. I would always say that I liked my handset and that I
wasn’t interested, but they kept calling and calling, these sales people, and you just
want to stop them doing that. I remember one in particular; the guy was always
calling at inconvenient moments. He just kept going on and on, and it was obvious
that he was reading a script. I got to this stage where I had to ask them to stop
98
calling because I liked my phone. Eventually it broke so I had to go into the shop to
get another one. I always go to the shops and never do it online.
Interviewer: What role do you think manufacturers and retailers play in relation to the
frequency of mobile phone replacement?
Participant: This is the problem with all consumer goods. Swedish people used to
keep their Volvo cars for an average of 13 to 15 years, which meant death for car
manufacturers. If we all keep our phones for 13 or 15 years, that’s death for them.
Who are they going to sell to? So we’re on this system where it’s a new phone with
new capabilities every year and we’ve got to have it. I remember watching my
builder when we were doing some work to the house. He had a new iPhone and all
the other builders were crowding around saying how great it was. I was there
thinking, “You have the latest iPhone? I’m paying you too much!” But for these guys
who are builders, they are not educated people, they are not stupid because
London builders tend to be quite sharp, but they don’t have lots of education and
stuff, so having a new phone impresses them and their mates, and I’m wondering
how we got to this stage. How much of the power of these phones do we really use?
I suspect most of the time a relatively small percentage of it, and we suffer for it
because the battery life is terrible. We’re always looking for places to plug chargers
in.
Interviewer: Some participants in the earlier interviews mentioned that the reason
they kept their phones was because they have so much data stored on them. Is this
reason applicable to you, and can you think of other reasons why people might
hold on to their phone?
99
Participant: That’s an interesting one. I mean, I could pull it out and show you. I was
poking round my phone and I found two photos of my father, and the week after I
took those photos he was killed. We’d been out in Hyde Park walking around, and
then he went home and got killed by a car crossing the road. Those are the last
photos I’ll ever have of my father. Fortunately, I’ve now downloaded them, but I was
carrying these photos for years without ever downloading them. So then I realised,
actually, there’s some quite valuable stuff in here, because I usually prefer to use a
real camera but this thing is incredibly handy. You walk by something in the street
and that’s really neat so you take a picture. So you know there is sentimental value
but it is quite easy to connect it to the PC and download the images and I think with
Apple phones they automatically upload it to the Cloud for you, which would be
even better because computers break.
I’ve never really felt sentimental about a phone. The old gold banker phones,
because they were so good, you had endless battery life, big keyboard and all of
that stuff. I also had a phone that used to slide out, and the thing is, that was in the
Matrix films. I used to have one of those and it felt like it was straight out of The
Matrix, but generally sentimental value wouldn’t be a high one for me. I will make a
comment: there’s a guy who’s now the boss of my boss, he’s shot way ahead of me,
and he’s really quite right-wing politically. I remember once he said, “The worst thing
is recycling, I absolutely hate recycling”. I remember thinking, what’s wrong with
recycling? Certainly my family is small-c conservative; we think recycling is a good
idea. So there’s this general cultural thing, particularly on the right of the political
spectrum, that recycling is an imposition on society and a violation of human rights.
On phones themselves, there is no culture of recycling phones in the UK; I think we
are all pretty good at recycling paper, although you look at the bins around here
and you see the wrong things in the recycling bins. It’s not like Germany or Austria
100
where they are fascist about recycling, but there isn’t a culture as far as I know
about recycling phones. No one here has thought of it. I don’t know what people
do with their phones. I think they stick them in their closet.
Interviewer: Thanks for that. I just wanted to go back to your situation. You’ve had
your phone for nearly three years now. When you do eventually get an upgrade,
how would you feel about getting a phone that someone else has previously had,
like a hand-me-down from a family member or friend, or a reconditioned device?
Participant: I have a visceral dislike of that idea, because you’re inheriting someone
else’s problems. When I actually get a new phone, I want a phone that is new.
Maybe that is not rational or maybe that’s not consistent – quite possibly, a lot of my
environmental behaviour is not consistent – but, on the face of it, I would want it.
You can get lots of reused things in this world: you can buy a used or reconditioned
computer for half the price of a new one. Yet somehow I feel that if I’m buying, I
want to buy new. I wonder what will happen if I get round to buying a car, because
I might have to buy a new car simply because I don’t want a used car. Historically,
we’ve never bought used cars, but used cars are far better value because you
don’t pay the depreciation.
Interviewer: So you’re not a huge fan of the idea?
Participant: I’ve never really thought about it, is the short answer, but I suspect I will
want a new phone. Also, because I don’t replace very often, I always go obsolete,
so I don’t want to start with an obsolete phone.
Interviewer: As someone that has expressed concern about the way phone
materials are produced, how would you justify your unwillingness to be a recipient of
a used phone?
101
Participant: I’m not sure how I’d square that, but no one has ever suggested that I
get a reused phone before. So I guess to me it would be like, well, I will recycle my
phone, so I will get new phones but I will recycle them. That’s my contribution to
solving the problem, rather than reusing someone else’s phone. It’s interesting that
you’ve raised it, because emotionally I would say “no way” to it, but intellectually I
can’t justify it.
Interviewer: Why are you emotionally against the idea?
Participant: You’re inheriting someone else’s problems. There might be something
wrong with it. It’s been used, it’s not new. The other day I found myself wandering
around a charity shop, and somebody had fantastic T-shirts for £4, and I was buying
them and books on Amazon – I always buy used because they are cheaper. So it’s
not everything that puts me off used products.
Interviewer: When you get your next phone, how would you feel about handing your
phone down to someone else for reuse?
Participant: I think I am kind of concerned about the security issue. I’m not sure
anyone would want it, but I guess someone in emerging markets might think it was
okay. Blackberry is dying technology really; I don’t know anyone who carries a
Blackberry that wasn’t a corporate device. The irony is that this is actually a very
good phone. I used it to check my email, which I am not sure is a good thing
because I think it’s distracting, but it’s actually also a good phone: it has good
reception, the battery life isn’t great, but the sound is good.
Interviewer: Would data security concerns dictate what you do with your phone
when you no longer want to use it as your personal device?
102
Participant: To be honest with you, it’s worse with the Blackberry than any phone
that I’ve ever had, because this actually has my email on it, my contacts, it has all
sorts of interesting stuff on it. All my other phones have just had my address book but
otherwise there’s not much; there’s no banking information or anything on them. This
one has actually got a lot on it. One of the things I’m actually concerned about is
this pay-by-mobile thing they are talking about, and I think we haven’t even begun
to think about the security implications of that. It’s like these touch-and-pay credit
cards which we now have. So I can just touch it on the credit-card reader for up to
£20 and it pays. I swore I’d never use it, but I’m using it now. I worry about the
security of that on phones massively because it’s a near-field device; I forget what
the technical name is. So somebody could walk near you with a reader and read it.
Of course, I know what techies are like, they say no there’s no real security issue.
They said that about Bluetooth and that’s the worst security hole anyone has ever
invented. Your phone goes into a room where there is Bluetooth and somebody
starts talking to it with no protection, which is why I always remember to turn off the
Bluetooth on my phone. The defaults are always that it’s on and the default should
be off.
Going back to your question, yes, so with the computers it’s, like, find someone who
can actually use proper erasing tools to remove the data and give a guarantee that
this is what they do. I think it does have an impact. I’ve had an old phone and I
logged onto the Oxfam website to recycle it, and for some reason I didn’t do it then
and a year later I logged back on and noticed that it goes to another company.
You send it to a company and Oxfam gets some money but you don’t know what
the other company does with it, so I didn’t send it. I think it’s on my list of things to
explore and actually find out how I can get rid of this drawer full of old phones. This is
103
waste because I’m not making valuable use of it, and surely someone out there can
make some use of them.
Interviewer: You’ve just mentioned that it’s on your list of things to explore. Why
haven’t you explored it yet?
Participant: I think other things take priority; something else grabs your attention.
There’s just enough hassle to make me think that there is hassle to solving this
problem. But talking about it now is making me feel guilty, I might actually get round
to doing it, which is okay.
Interviewer: Sorry, I don’t mean to make you feel guilty.
Participant: No, no, no, it’s interesting about social persuasion and culture. I think if
we had a culture where everybody recycled their phones then we’d all recycle our
phone, but I don’t think anyone has ever mentioned to me that I should recycle my
phones. I have no idea what other people do with their phones. The whole system is
configured in a way that doesn’t take end of life into consideration. It’s the classic
top-down, isn’t it? Create product, distribute product, sell to customer, and after
that we forget about it – that’s why the beaches of this world are filling up with
plastic. This is our civilisation’s mindset at the moment.
Interviewer: We’ve touched upon this already, but I was wondering if I could get a
bit more information on the things you said about recycling of phones not being
easy. Can you elaborate a little bit more?
Participant: Sure. The process is not transparent and it has what organisational
theorists would call a friction. To define “friction” in this context, it is something that
requires conscious effort to overcome. It’s not a frictionless process. Recycling paper
is essentially a frictionless process. I take it downstairs, we have a special bin in the
104
kitchen, and on Wednesday night it goes out into the recycling bin and gets pulled
out onto the pavement. That’s near frictionless because it’s essentially the same
process as waste disposal. Once you make it a habit, it’s just done and you have to,
because you get all this paper pilling up so you have to do it. You don’t have a
frictionless process to recycling a phone. You have to think about it and explore
options and find out information, and maybe you have to pack it up and take it to
the post office and send it.
There is also a sense that you don’t know whether it will be properly reused or
recycled. You don’t know what happens to it then, and for something like waste
paper or waste plastic you just assume that someone does something with it. With a
phone it’s different because you pay quite a lot for a phone in the end because
you’re on a two-year contract. So you think that it’s actually quite valuable, or it was
at one stage, so you just chuck it? So what do they do with it? I’m not being very
precise. I actually have a few Canon cameras sitting around with the same
problem: they’ve broken and I wonder how I can get rid of these. I think they are the
equivalent of toasters because the council has a small electrical recycling bin by the
tube station so I can put them in there. With the camera, you can be sure that once
you pull out the memory card there’s nothing left of you in it.
Interviewer: I have now come to the end of my questions, but do you have any
questions for me, or would you like to make any comments in relation to this
discussion?
Participant: I just wanted to clarify my answer to your question of why people hold
on to phones. Sentimental value, I guess, although I don’t usually get sentimental
about my phones. Having said that, I gave that example of the Nokia and the slide-
out phone; I like those a lot and still have them somewhere. I already mentioned the
105
storage of data and the data security issues. I think also because people don’t know
what to do with them. In some ways, I’ve explored it a little bit more in some
answers. It may also be that it just doesn’t seem important. When we are still using
them, these phones are our life, but then when we move on to the next one, we just
forget about the old phone – put it in a drawer and it’s gone. I also think it’s due to
the current model where you don’t typically pay for your handset. We don’t
therefore see them as valuable. There’s a whole area called behavioural economics
– this is a classic example of behavioural economics. We don’t think of this phone as
something I paid £720 for, we think of this phone as something I paid £30 a month
for. If we actually paid for the phone up front I think we would think, “Let’s give it to
someone because he needs a phone or his younger brother needs a phone”. We
would be much more interested in recycling if we paid £500 or £600 for our phones
up front. It’s a £600 phone, but that’s not how we’ve owned phones in the UK
historically. We rent them, in effect, and we don’t own them. You have probably
seen the O2 adverts where they say, “Once you have paid for your phone we’ll cut
the bill in half”. The rest aren’t doing that, so we’re being ripped off unless you rotate
your phone every two years because you’re getting a new phone. If you’re the sort
of person that keeps their phone for longer than two years, you’re actually getting
ripped off because you’ve paid for the phone but you continue to pay even after
the full cost of the device is covered. If we all bought phones for £500, we might
think of them as something with intrinsic value.
End of interview.
