I grew up in Jordan, where recycling was not an everyday thing, and separating waste from trash was not practiced. However, there was a culture of repair, maybe because it made more sense financially to people, but the norm was that if something broke, you tried to repair it, even if the item was inexpensive. If it is broken but still works, and you want to buy a new one, you would give it to another person who might be in need. And growing up, I used to observe my father fixing things around the house, like a water pipe, a chair, a simple electric device… I built an affinity to do things with my hands, and this might have influenced my decision to study mechanical engineering. After my degree, I worked as a design engineer in a fabrication lab called TechWorks. The lab falls under an NGO called the Crown Prince Foundation (CPF). TechWorks was one of many initiatives by the CPF focusing on developing the Jordanian community and ecosystem. In one project, the CPF collaborated with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to develop a makerspace inside a refugee camp named AL Zaatari. I was selected to work with a group of refugees to help them learn how to run the machines and use design software to build projects for the camp community. They showed me the projects they built with hand tools and found materials. I was amazed at how they use limited resources and scrap objects to build things that have value, such as a clothes dryer they built from a broken bike, a fan, a salvaged coil from a heater, and some metal wires. As I walked around the camp, there was a duality of how waste was present. On one hand, it was abundant and a symbol of neglect, on the other hand, it was used as a source of innovation. It is no secret that disadvantaged and marginalized communities are the ones that suffer most from waste accumulation and pollution of industrialization.[1] However, in the midst of the crisis, people found opportunities to make meaningful things and to enjoy luxuries that are otherwise so remote.
My connection with circularity and the repair became more intentional after I joined the Healthy Materials Lab at Parsons as a researcher. I got introduced to the concept of design for remanufacturing and how effective it is for the purposes of recycling, repairing, and reusing. The Healthy Materials Lab is a research lab with the mission to transform how the building industry evaluates and uses materials by prioritizing both human and environmental health. After studying the design for remanufacturing concept in construction assemblies, I wanted to explore it more in everyday products, and especially where separating materials is most complicated: in consumer electronics. And here I reflected, how can these features – being able to deconstruct and build products with simple hand tools and having easier access to useful parts and components - change the experience of the making team and the whole community in Al Zaatari Camp. And henceforth, I started my journey of exploring circularity in household appliances.
With today’s increasing reliance on consumer products in our daily lives, there is an expanding impact of design on social, health, and environmental systems. The rise in consumption of such products has consequently escalated challenges in both resource management and waste mitigation. According to a report by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2018, it shows that in that year alone, out of nearly 2.2 million tons of small appliance waste in the US, only 5.6% were recycled.[2] The World Health Organization reported that e-waste is one of the fastest-growing solid waste streams in the world, with approximately 62 million tons globally produced in 2022, and only 22.3% documented as collected and recycled.[3] This discrepancy shows the insufficiency of current waste management. An additional persisting problem is that many practice informal e-waste recycling, which has its own dangers to health and the environment, including the release of toxic substances such as lead into our ecosystems.[4]
Waste management has been a topic of discussion for a long time, yet manufacturers are not effectively working towards sustainability. Faced with complex supply chains and the higher costs of sustainable materials, many companies prioritize short-term profits, favoring lower manufacturing costs and optimizing user experience only during the consumption phase. The book Natural Capitalism (1999) has challenged the economic logic of this industrial system, arguing that the failure to account for the full ecological costs of production leads to systemic inefficiencies and long-term environmental degradation.[5]
However, the answer to a healthier practice might not be in recycling, since the recycling process of e-waste usually includes a very complex process of sorting materials, high energy consumption throughout the process, and substantial material degradation with each recycling cycle, all of which might lead to a higher carbon footprint. According to the book Cradle to Cradle (2002), conventional recycling tends to diminish the quality of materials, limiting their usefulness in future applications. Instead, the book advocates for a radical rethinking of product design, mimicking natural systems and creating “technical nutrients” in which waste becomes food for new products.[6]
Architect William McDonough envisions how systems and products could be designed in a way that allows them, at the end of their life, to be disassembled, then repurposed or biodegraded, eliminating waste and inventing a fully closed-loop life cycle.[7] This concept, Design for Disassembly (DFD), has been adopted by many designers, especially in architecture, interiors, and furniture. Some electronics have also adopted values of the design for disassembly, like the Fairphone, which is a smartphone designed to be taken apart for easier repair, component replacement, and longer use-life.[8] In the realm of small appliances, some companies are also moving towards modular or easier-to-dismantle products, but there aren’t many products or studies that adopt a fully closed-loop design.
Household electronics are particularly illustrative of these systemic challenges. Literature over the past few decades has continued to critique the current industrial system, and many movements are addressing topics such as sustainable design principles, material choices, user repairability, and policy reform. Kitchen appliances are seeing some progress; for instance, in France in 2023, the recycling rate of electric kettles rose by 15%.[9] Still, this is far from enough to offset the growing consumption and dependence on such products. The interconnected systems of industrialization, waste management, and global supply chains, intertwined with geopolitics, capitalism, and demand for cheap, convenient goods, leave the topic deeply complex and far from sustainable.
So, what could I, an individual designer, in 8 months, do in the face of this system? To understand how we arrived at this paradigm, it is essential to study the emergence and development of consumer electronics.
Between the 1930s and 1950s, the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) launched a series of exhibitions and initiatives named Good Design, highlighting well-designed everyday objects to show the democratizing potential of design.[10] This democratizing potential started gaining momentum earlier, during the late 19th century, when there was a rapid evolution in scientific and technological innovation and industrialization. This was a prime time for designers, who were seen as innovators and who introduced innovations that would change the lifestyle of people henceforth. The industrial revolution was behind this acceleration, especially by introducing mass production, which made products more affordable and accessible, and prioritizing function over form and quality.[11] Then came movements like the Arts and Crafts Movement, led by William Morris, which reacted against industrialization’s poor craftsmanship, advocating for hand-made designs that elevated imperfections as a symbol of beauty.[12] The MoMA reflected similar ideals and propelled the concept of Good Design along with industrialization to show high-quality, practical, and aesthetically pleasing objects for everyday life. After the MoMA exhibitions, designers later used the Good Design concept to refer to “well-designed, relatively affordable, contemporary consumer products.”[13]
These ideals were further refined during the mid-20th century through what came to be known as mid-century modern design. Designers such as Charles and Ray Eames and Dieter Rams embodied the ethos of minimalism and “form follows function”[14]. Their work emphasized clean lines, efficiency, and the belief that well-designed products should improve everyday life. These principles influence today’s design discourses, including those around sustainability and circularity.[15]