The short lifespans and rapid innovation cycles of electronic products result in the loss of valuable and critical resources (Bakker, Wang, Huisman, & den Hollander, 2014; Baldé et al., 2024). Strategies aimed at extending product lifetimes, such as design for repair, focus on improving the ease of manual disassembly (De Fazio, Bakker, Flipsen, & Balkenende, 2021). However, connections optimized for repairability can hinder the mechanical separation of materials during recycling. This highlights a critical trade-off: improving repairability can often conflict with recyclability, emphasizing the need for balanced design approaches that address both recovery goals. Navigating these trade-offs requires a deeper understanding of how materials and connection types in electronics affect circular strategies. This research aims to investigate tensions between repairability and recyclability by analyzing a diverse set of electronic products and relating the findings to their design architecture. This study seeks to inform design strategies that optimize for both repairability and recyclability, thus prolonging product lifetime while minimizing resource losses at end-of-life.

Within a circular economy, prioritizing product integrity and durability is crucial for circular product design. However, in addition to efforts in strategies like reuse and repair, products inevitably require recycling. This paper critically assesses the current state of Design for Recycling guidelines and methods in the field of electronics, focusing on their Efficacy and Effectiveness. We conducted a literature review using Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Following the methodology outlined by Hagen-Zanker and Mallett [1], we identified relevant literature and used snowballing to find additional sources. The search led to 16 articles (1993–2023) proposing methods, tools, guidelines, or frameworks targeting product designers and aimed at the design for improved recyclability of electronics. The final Design for Recycling methods and guidelines were assessed using an adapted version of the method evaluation framework [2] in the context of method content theory [3]. The inclusion of only 18 sources in the review, consisting of nine peer-reviewed and nine non peer-reviewed articles, indicated a limited development in the field since 1993. Many of the methods and guidelines presented were insufficient based on common recycling and design practices, they also lacked validation through recycling tests and were rarely tested with design practitioners. The findings show an urgent need for a substantiated and validated Design for Recycling method, which helps lower the environmental impact of electronics, is tailored to design practitioners, and aligns with common recycling practices.