Why Platforms Will Win In the e-Waste Market

We’ve seen platforms disrupt many markets, and it’s likely they’ll do the same in e-waste markets. Why? Because platforms are better equipped to reduce transactions and create network effects. They can also solve key challenges like writing complete contracts and managing long-tail distribution issues associated with end-of-life material streams.

Let’s explore these platform advantages by examining the telecom industry and how it handles electronic waste (e-waste).

The global telecom industry is massive, expected to generate $2.1 trillion in revenue this year. The industry is projected to reach $2.8 trillion by 2030, growing at a CAGR of 6.5% between now and the end of the decade.¹ Much of this growth is driven by new network infrastructure deployments and increasing mobile data demand.

As companies such as Verizon, AT&T, Deutsche Telekom, and Vodafone invest in new assets, they inevitably remove old ones. This includes a range of materials, such as:

• Network Equipment: Wireless towers, antennas, fiber optic cables, switches, routers, and base stations, which have long lifecycles (up to 30 years) but require upgrades as technology advances.

• Customer Premises Equipment (CPE): Devices like modems, routers, set-top boxes, mobile phones, and landline phones, with shorter lifecycles that are often refurbished or recycled.

• Copper and Fiber Scrap: Retired copper cables and reclaimed fiber optic materials recycled for reuse.

• Backup Power Systems: Generators, batteries, and related electronic equipment.

• IT and Telecom Electronics: Servers, data center gear needing secure data erasure before disposition.

• Miscellaneous Components: Small parts like switches, connectors, and cables.

Telecom companies typically have a team responsible for managing asset disposition and e-waste. This team often includes cross-functional members or input from IT, compliance, procurement, and finance departments. Teams may be called the IT Asset Disposition (ITAD) Team, Asset Recovery Team, Environmental Compliance and Asset Disposition Team, or the Sustainable Asset Management Team. Their responsibilities include clearing unwanted materials, tracking assets, arranging pickups, managing insurance, financial reporting, and compliance reporting. They also oversee third-party service providers that process the materials.

These teams face two significant challenges:

Writing complete contracts is a major hurdle. Specifying rights, obligations, and remedies for every possible future scenario or contingency between contracting parties is inherently difficult. This becomes even more challenging when dealing with end-of-life electronic assets. As noted above, these assets are diverse, and it’s hard to predict when and where they’ll become available. Economists call this the problem of incomplete contracts, which has important consequences.² Service providers tend to pad contracts to cover unforeseen contingencies, leading to higher prices. Clients and service providers may interpret obligations differently, resulting in disputes, work stoppages, and costly renegotiations.

Another issue is the long-tail problem, which arises when unusual requests come in.³ For instance, a telecom company typically handles wireless towers, antennas, fiber optic cables, switches, routers, and base stations, but then suddenly needs to process 50 used generators. This requires removing materials outside of the normal flow. The long-tail problem can also be geographic, such as when material pickup requests come from unexpected sites, like a new location 700 miles away.

The long-tail problem is closely tied to the issue of incomplete contracts, as both deal with the difficulty of addressing a wide range of potential outcomes and transactions within a contractual or economic framework.

To promote circularity while managing these challenges, the teams must navigate a core tension: creating contracts that are robust enough to enforce circular practices and extended supplier responsibility, yet flexible enough to accommodate the unpredictable long-tail of material types and geographic instances. Rigid, long-term contracts may fail to adapt to evolving technologies, regulations, and new waste streams, while overly flexible or vague contracts risk supplier underperformance and failure to meet circularity objectives. Incomplete contracts inherently invite renegotiation and cooperation challenges as new scenarios emerge.

These challenges can be addressed in two ways: 1) continuing with the traditional RFP process and trying to write comprehensive contracts; or 2) joining a platform with multiple service providers and processing waste as individual jobs.

In the traditional RFP approach, a telecom company typically selects an e-waste service provider through a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) process. This process begins with issuing a detailed RFP document outlining the scope of services required, including collection, transportation, processing, recycling, and regulatory compliance. Interested providers respond with proposals demonstrating their capabilities, certifications, experience, pricing, and sustainability practices. The telecom company then evaluates the proposals based on compliance, service coverage, flexibility to handle various materials, cost-effectiveness, and environmental and data security standards. After shortlisting qualified providers, the company may conduct interviews or site visits before finalizing a contract that formalizes responsibilities, service levels, and circular economy goals. However, supplier coverage is limited to one or a few providers with fixed scopes, making agility difficult and amendments slow. Risk is concentrated in a single provider, so any failure can impact the entire disposition process. The procurement process is resource-intensive and slow to adapt to changing needs, and contract rigidity often suppresses innovation and the incorporation of circular economy metrics.

In contrast, a telecom company can leverage a platform. When a telecom company joins a platform with a large network of e-waste service providers, the onboarding process typically starts with assessing the platform’s capabilities and fit with the company’s needs. The telecom team engages with platform representatives to understand service coverage, compliance standards, technology tools for job tracking, and reporting features supporting sustainability goals. The company submits detailed information about its e-waste streams, volumes, geographic coverage, and specific service requirements. The platform then facilitates access to its vetted network of specialized providers, enabling the telecom company to providers based on material type, location, and expertise. This is done on a job-by-job basis.

Onboarding often includes integration of data systems or APIs to automate ordering, tracking, and reporting flows, as well as training for internal teams on using the platform interface. By simplifying procurement and enabling flexible, scalable service delivery, the platform helps the telecom company address the complexities of diverse and variable e-waste streams efficiently while advancing circular economy targets.

Platforms outperform traditional service providers in the e-waste market because they address key challenges in writing complete contracts and managing the long-tail distribution of material streams more effectively at scale. Traditional methods rely on fixed contracts that often fail to cover every possible scenario due to limited foresight and high transaction costs. In contrast, platforms operate as dynamic marketplaces with modular, job-specific contracts tailored to each unique disposition task, enhancing flexibility, transparency, and continuous performance tracking. They also excel in handling the long-tail problem by connecting telecom companies to a broad network of specialized providers across various geographies and material types, enabling quick and cost-effective matches.

Additionally, platforms streamline procurement processes by eliminating lengthy RFPs and leveraging competitive bidding, which can reduce costs and environmental impact through localized recycling efforts. Finally, platforms incentivize innovation by encouraging providers to improve circular metrics such as reuse rates and carbon footprint reduction, fostering ongoing advancements and better alignment with circular economy goals. This combination of adaptability, efficiency, and innovation positions platforms as the superior model for sustainable e-waste management.

Conclusion

As platforms gain traction in the e-waste market, they can significantly contribute to telecom companies’ circular economy goals. They can do this on a large scale. By addressing the core issues of incomplete contracts and diverse material streams, platforms offer a flexible, dynamic, and transparent model that traditional service providers can’t compete with. They can link telecom companies with a vast network of specialized providers who can process a wide range of materials across different regions, enabling efficient, cost-effective, and compliant e-waste management.

Platforms simplify procurement, reduce administrative tasks, and encourage innovation by motivating providers to improve circularity metrics like reuse rates and carbon footprint reduction. This adaptability and efficiency are vital for keeping valuable materials in circulation, minimizing waste, and driving sustainability on a large scale.

As the global telecom industry continues to grow and modernize, adopting platform-based e-waste solutions will be crucial for meeting circular economy goals, reducing environmental impact, and unlocking new economic opportunities. Platforms represent the future of sustainable e-waste management, promoting a more circular and responsible electronics lifecycle.

For a deeper dive on how platforms unlock value recovery, improve compliance and advance environmentally responsible disposition of electronic infrastructure see: Link.

For further insights into platforms, critical material security and the circular economy see the panel I moderated at the 2025 MIT Platform Strategy Summit with Microsoft, Schnieder Electric, Global Recycle Exchange and Alta Resource Technology. Link.

Footnotes

1. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/global-telecom-services-market

2. Aghion, Philippe, and Richard Holden. “Incomplete contracts and the theory of the firm: What have we learned over the past 25 years?.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 25, no. 2 (2011): 181-197.

3. Elberse, Anita. “Should you invest in the long tail?.” Harvard business review 86, no. 7/8 (2008): 88.