Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.
IR/PS CSR Case #08-09

Evaluating the Need for ERecycling and Kyocera’s Impact on
the Environment in San Diego

By: Mira Mendoza

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND PACIFIC STUDIESUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO

Prepared for Professor Peter Gourevitch
Edited by Kristen Parks
Corporate Social Responsibility
Fall 2008
Abstract
With every year technology is developing more rapidly. VCRs and Cassette players are
already obsolete, and CDs and DVDs are on their way out. E-waste recycling is losing its
value due to manufacturers utilizing more plastic and low value metals, which leads tomore harmful waste ending up in the landfills. Are companies that produce
environmentally friendly products, such as solar panels or rechargeable batteries, being
held up to proper environmental standards? This paper evaluates the environmental
activities of Kyocera Corporation. Overall findings indicate that Kyocera is committed toenvironmental protection and is not known to harm the environment in San Diego, but
the lack of transparency about its recycling process undermines its credibility in proper
waste management. The paper also reveals environmental violations by KWC’s sistercompany Kyocera America, Inc.

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

2

Table of Contents
I. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3
II. Importance of E-waste Recycling............................................................................... 4
A. The Harm of E-waste .................................................................................................. 4
B. Cell Phone Recycling in the U.S................................................................................. 6
C. Benefits of Recycling .................................................................................................. 7
III. Kyocera Corporation ................................................................................................. 8
A. Company Overview..................................................................................................... 8
C. Environmental Management Standards and Monitoring ......................................... 10
IV. Kyocera Corporation in San Diego......................................................................... 10
A. Kyocera Wireless, Corp. (KWC) and Recycling....................................................... 11
B. Quality Management System and Environmental Management System................... 13
C. Environmental Management System Implementation .............................................. 14
D. Internal ISO Audit Plan............................................................................................ 15
E. Kyocera America, Inc. (KAI) .................................................................................... 16
F. Department of Toxic Substances Control Lawsuit ................................................... 17
V. Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 19
VI. Discussion and further research questions: ........................................................... 20
VII. Appendix.................................................................................................................. 21
Appendix A: History of Kyocera’s Group Environmental Activities ............................ 21
Appendix B: KWC’s ISO 14001 Certificate ................................................................. 22
Appendix C: KWC Internal ISO Audit Plan.................................................................. 23
Appendix D: Lawsuit against KWC filed by DTSC on September 13, 2007................. 26

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

3

I. Introduction
Advancements in technology are always welcomed, but technological innovations canalso add to environmental concern. Today the electronic industry is moving toward lowcost non-reusable electronic products, which are not built to last long, so that soon
enough they will become obsolete and replaced by new inventions.
Excessive use of energy, solid waste, hazardous waste and greenhouse gas emissions
result from manufacturing, packaging and consumption of high-tech products. Even
though there is a growing trend in ISO 14000 certifications among technologicalcompanies, there is also a noticeable growth of e-waste1 associated with manufacturing ofelectronic products. As electronic products are made using fewer precious metals andmore plastics and low-value materials, the recovered value from recycling of theseproducts is decreasing over time.2 This reduces the incentives for manufactures torecycle, causing more e-waste to end up in landfills, which poses a significant threat tohumans and wildlife due to the possibility of unleashed toxic elements such as lead,
cadmium, mercury, and arsenic into the environment. For the purposes of this study, theauthor will consider e-waste a hazardous waste, and deem it harmful for the human healthand the environment.
In section II the case study will take a closer look at the environmental risks associatedwith increased obsolete electronic products. It will discuss the harm posed by improperly
disposed cellular phones and the benefits that result from recycling of the phones. Section
III will introduce Kyocera Corporation and its Corporate Social Responsibility values,
specifically environmental management standards. Section IV will describe Kyocera
Corporation’s environmental impact on the San Diego community through detailed
evaluation of the Kyocera Wireless, Cor. and Kyocera America, Inc. environmental
practices. The paper concludes that overall environmental practices of Kyocera in San

1

Electronic equipment, components, and related composite materials, which either became obsolete or
have been generated through consumer or business activity.
2
San Diego Regional Technology Alliance, San Diego-Tijuana High Tech Waste Prevention & Recycling
Workbook, www.crossborderbusiness.com/publicdocs/2006-CGMktgMaterials/Ewaste-0205.pdf(Accessed November 28, 2008)

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

4

Diego are positive and environmental standards are well enforced. However, it isimportant to note that as cell phone manufacturing and recycling are being outsourced thetransparency of Kyocera’s environmental enforcement is being undermined. Moreover, ahazardous waste lawsuit filed against Kyocera America, Inc by Department of Toxic
Substances Control proves that not every company in the Kyocera group is equallyenvironmentally responsible.
II. Importance of E-waste Recycling
A. The Harm of E-waste
Even though, federal law in the U.S. doesn’t prevent consumers from placing electronic
products in trash for disposal,3 cell phones that end up in the landfills all contain toxic
agents, such as lead, arsenic, nickel, and brominated flame retardants (BFRs). Although,the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has disregarded commissioned
research that recommended cell phones be classified as hazardous waste,4 various
solvents, acids and toxic gasses are among the byproducts of cell phone manufacturing.
According to a study by the University of Florida, 28 of the 38 cell phones produced in
the U.S. contain the amount of lead that exceeds the EPA hazardous-waste standard.5
Hazardous waste presents immediate risks to humans, animals, plants, and theenvironment. It needs to be specially handled for detoxification and safe disposal. In the
U.S., Section 1004(7) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) legallydefines hazardous waste as:"A solid waste, or a combination of solid wastes, which becauseof its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or
infectious characteristics may: (a) cause, or significantly

3

Gartner, John, Manufacturers Address Hazards of E-Waste, AlterNet, April 25, 2004,
http://www.alternet.org/environment/18506/?page=entire (accessed December 7, 2008).
4
Cell phone recycling report card, Earthworks, www.recyclemycellphone.org/RecyclingReport_v2.pdf,(accessed December 9, 2008)
5
We have no safe place for dead cell phones to go: and no regulations for dealing with the problem,
Wireless Consumers Alliance, http://www.wirelessconsumers.org/site/pp.asp?c=giJYJ3OOF&b=27743

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

5

contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious
irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (b) pose asubstantial present or potential hazard to human health or theenvironment when improperly treated, stored, transported,
disposed of, or otherwise managed."6
The EPA has a list of more than 500 specific hazardous wastes, among which are thechemicals and metals present in e-waste. E-waste can pollute drinking water, and has
been proven to cause cancer and birth defects. The full extent of its health impacts is
unknown. It is often much easier to just “dump” used electronic products than recycle
them. Recycling e-waste is a complicated process, which induces e-waste dumping in thedeveloping countries with weak regulatory climates.7 For example, a lot of electronic
waste from San Diego is known to end up across the border in Tijuana.
Unfortunately, Mexico is pretty defenseless from such practices. Mexico's hazardous
waste imports have doubled, and the number of waste-producing U.S. owned
maquiladora factories have increased since 1994, when NAFTA liberalized trade.
Although, NAFTA has many environmental provisions in place to prevent pollution, withthis trade agreement the cross-boundary movement became easier and more hazardous
waste from the U.S. is ending up on the Mexican side of the border. The 1993 USMexico Integrated Border Environmental Plan, established a computer database ofhazardous waste movements between the US and Mexico. While the system has
improved data collection, only about 12% of the hazardous waste generated in Mexico isproperly managed. Hazardous waste is more problematic south of the U.S. border,
because Mexico has fewer adequate hazardous waste management facilities and weaker
legal regulations, which limits its capacity to handle toxic waste properly.8

6

Hazardous Waste Characteristics Scoping Study, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid
Waste, November 15, 1996.
7
Cell phone recycling report card, Earthworks, www.recyclemycellphone.org/RecyclingReport_v2.pdf,(accessed December 9, 2008)
8
Clapp, Jennifer, Piles of poisons: Despite NAFTA's green promises, hazardous waste problems are
deepening in Mexico, Alternatives Journal, Spring 2002,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6685/is_/ai_n28907953 (Accessed on December 10, 2008)

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

6

B. Cell Phone Recycling in the U.S.
The rate of replacing cell phones and other electronics is growing every year creating aproblem of how to dispose of all the obsolete devices. According to the EPA, two million
tons of electronic waste is put into landfills every year, and in 2005 alone, more than 130
million cell phones were discarded (almost 65,000 tons of waste). Even though, the EPA
doesn’t consider discarded cell phones to be hazardous waste, cell phones do release
many toxins harmful to the environment and human health. As of now, there isn’t afederal law enforcing cell phone recycling systems. Without such legislation, the EPA
voluntary guidelines do not provide adequate incentives for manufacturers and retailers torecycle, consequently, only less than 8% of all cell phones are recycled or refurbished.
Although, most cell phones can be reused or recycled, 98% of them are not.9
Due to the lack of federal regulation, many states passed their own laws to enforce cell
phone recycling systems. California was the first one to set an example. In September
2004, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into California law the first U.S. cell
phone recycling bill. The Cell Phone Recycling Act prohibits retailers to sell cell phones
in California unless they entirely comply with the law, meaning they have a system inplace to collect retired cell phones for reuse, recycling, or environmentally sounddisposal. The law also mandated for the California Department of Toxic SubstanceControl (DTSC) to provide annual reports on the cell phone recycling in California. In
2006, Californians reached 17% recycling rate for the year, over 3 million phones, which
was much higher than the national rate. After the California bill passed many other states
started passing their own legislations.10

9

Cell phone recycling report card, Earthworks, www.recyclemycellphone.org/RecyclingReport_v2.pdf,(accessed December 9, 2008)
10
Farwig, Brandi, Raising Cell Phone Recycling Rates through Legislation, Posted on October 19, 2007,
http://recellular.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/raising-cell-phone-recycling-rates-through-legislation/(accessed December 9, 2008).

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

7

C. Benefits of Recycling
Reuse, recycling and reclamation of hazardous waste can prevent environmental damage,protect scarce natural resources, provide economic benefits, and reduce dependency on
raw materials and energy. Recycling hazardous waste decreases pollution (air, water, andsoil) and reduces emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) associated with the extraction,refining, and processing of raw materials and product manufacturing. If all the previously
discarded cell phones in the U.S. had been recycled, it would have prevented the creationof 14 million tons of mine waste. Mining is the single largest toxic polluter in the UnitedStates. For example, to source the gold in the circuit board for a single cell phone, at least
220 pounds of waste is generated.11
In addition to being good for the environment, hazardous waste recycling has significant
economic benefits. It increases production efficiency and reduces costs associated withpurchasing raw materials and waste management. If all the discarded until now cell
phones were recycled, $150 million of metals would be recovered, including $100.5
million of gold and $18.6 million of silver.12 Disposal of hazardous waste can also bevery costly, so through effective recycling programs a business may be able to eliminate
the generation of hazardous waste and avoid RCRA regulatory requirements. The “green”
image associated with hazardous waste recycling efforts is a big part of Corporate Social
Responsibility for any business that desires to please its shareholders and consumers.13
Kyocera Corporation is well known for its proactive recycling programs.

11

Cell phone recycling report card, Earthworks, www.recyclemycellphone.org/RecyclingReport_v2.pdf,(Accessed December 9, 2008)
12
Cell phone recycling report card, Earthworks, www.recyclemycellphone.org/RecyclingReport_v2.pdf,(Accessed December 9, 2008)13
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste Recycling Benefits,
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/recycling/benefits.htm, (Accessed November 28, 2008)

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

8

III. Kyocera Corporation14
A. Company Overview
Kyocera Corporation was established in 1959 in Japan and today consists of 189
companies and has 66,496 employees. Its capital is about $US 1.24 billion and its net
income is about $US 1.15 billion. Although, Kyocera operates globally 39.4% of its sales
in 2008 were in Japan and 19.3% in the U.S. Kyocera is well known for its contribution
to the environmental protection through its solar panels, but electronic devices accountfor 22.8% of its sales and information equipment for 21.5%. See Table A.
Table A. Fiscal 2008 Consolidated Sales by Segment (Year ended March 31, 2008)

Kyocera is one of the world's largest vertically integrated producers and suppliers of solar
energy products. The company claims that it is expanding its solar energy business to

14

Information for this section comes from Kyocera’s Corporate website, www.kyocera.com.

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

9

make a greater contribution to the environment, energy and the quality of human life on a
global scale. Although many of Kyocera’s solar products have contributed significantly
to the conservation of the environment, does the company itself face up to its corporatesocial responsibility?

B. Environmental Values at Kyocera
Kyocera’s Philosophy is “To do what is right as a human being”, with which thecompany declares its commitment to fair management and operation in compliance withthe most fundamental human ethical and moral values and social norms. The Kyocera
Group is aiming for well-balanced CSR activities from three perspectives: business,social and environmental. This case study will only evaluate the environmental values of
the group.
Kyocera recognizes the burden that business activities can place on the environment. The
company understands that environmental protection is most sustainable when it is also
economically feasible. The group contributes to environmental preservation worldwide
by developing technologies and products with environmental and economic benefits,
such as solar modules and pollution-reducing fine ceramic components. Kyocera has
been developing solar energy technologies continuously since 1975.
Kyocera maintains that it contributes to the environmental protection not only through its
products, but also by ensuring that its manufacturing facilities and methods areenvironmentally friendly throughout all development, production and distribution
processes. This includes installing solar power generating systems on facility rooftops,
energy and resource conservation, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, waste reduction
and recycling, preventing air pollution and water contamination and chemical substancesmanagement. For example, the Kyocera Group requires the subsidiaries that produce fineceramic raw materials, chemical products and other chemical substances to purify
discharged wastewater to a “state cleaner than the waterway into which they are being
released.”Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

10

C. Environmental Management Standards and Monitoring
Kyocera established and has continued to thoroughly practice Kyocera Environmental
Management Standards. The company asserts that these standards are far more stringent
than ISO-14001 standards. Kyocera environmental management advancement systembegan in 1985, when the company established its environmental division. In 1990
Kyocera formed its Green Committee. Appendix A lists the history of Kyocera’s
Environmental Activities.
Kyocera conducts quarterly assessments to monitor the cost efficiency of investments in
Environmental Protection activities. This helps to ensure the effectiveness ofEnvironmental Protection measures within each business segment. It also claims to
conduct an internal environmental audit of each office and plant on an annual basis. In
addition, Kyocera states that annually its environmental performance is examined byexternal certification agencies.15

IV. Kyocera Corporation in San Diego
Kyocera Corporation has four subsidiaries in San Diego, Kyocera Wireless, Corp.
(KWC), Kyocera America, Inc. (KAI), Kyocera Telecommunications Research
Corporation, and Kyocera International, Inc, North American regional holding company
for Kyocera. Since out of these four companies, only KWC and KAI can have major
negative environmental impact, this study will not focus on environmental activities ofthe other two companies. Kyocera Group has an image of socially responsible company
in San Diego. KWC and KAI are both ISO 9000-2000 and ISO 14,000 certified. The
companies have won city, state and federal awards for its environmentally friendly
manufacturing and recycling practices.

15

This may vary for different companies within the group.

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

11

A. Kyocera Wireless, Corp. (KWC) and Recycling
The largest Kyocera subsidiary in San Diego is Kyocera Wireless, Corp. (KWC) formedin February 2000 when Kyocera acquired the terrestrial handset division fromQUALCOMM, Inc. KWC produces mobile handsets and other wireless products.
KWC claims that it is committed to the prevention of pollution, protection of natural
resources, waste reduction and compliance with applicable environmental legislation andregulations. The company wants to be recognized by “customers, employees andcommunity as a responsible corporate citizen” and it claims to maintain “strong
commitment to an environmentally responsible world”.16
For the first five years of its operations KWC manufactured its cell phones in San Diego.
In March of 2005 KWC shifted the majority of manufacturing operations from its San
Diego headquarters to a Tijuana facility operated by sister company Kyocera Mexicana,
S.A. de C.V. 17 A few months later, Kyocera stopped its manufacturing operations
completely, and now it is producing all of its phones in Singapore. John Chier, director of
corporate communications for KWC, said the company had to move its operations inorder to stay alive in a highly competitive market.18 This shift reduced environmental
liability for KWC, but it increased the environmental accountability for Kyocera
Mexicana due to weaker legal enforcement of environmental standards in Mexico.
Although, in the last decade a lot of electronic manufacturing in the U.S. has been
outsourced, the country has a $700 million recycling industry, which processes over 1.5
billion pounds of electronic equipment annually, yielding approximately 900 million

16

KWC website, http://www.kyocera-wireless.com/company-information/environmental-managementsystem.htm, (accessed December 9, 2008)17
Buckley, Tom, Company News, Business Mexico, Feb, 2005,
https://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/pub/0IZB_9.html, (accessed December 7, 2008).
18
Osolinsky, Lydia, Center of Attention: Eyes are on Congressmember Susan Davis as CAFTA vote nears,
Environmental Health, June 1, 2005,
http://www.environmentalhealth.org/News/News_Archive/News_centerofattention.EyesonDavis.htm(Accessed on December 9, 2008)

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

12

pounds of recyclable materials. The electronics recycling industry in the U.S. employs
more than 7000 workers and includes more than 400 companies. Participating inrecycling can be very profitable for manufactures. According to KWC director of quality
standards John Knudsen, his company made $1.14 million in 2003 by accepting old cell
phones and sending them off to be recycled. Knudsen said the company's goal is "zeropercent industrial waste." KWC recycles cell phone batteries, plastic housings, circuit
card assemblies, and trace metals.19
KWC ships the cell phones designated for recycling to Metech International in
Mapleville, Road Island. Metech International is an integrated electronics recycler andprecious metals refiner with recycling facilities in California, Massachusetts, and North
Carolina. These facilities provide base metal and precious metal recovery services, asset
recovery services, de-manufacturing and certified destruction services. Metech is fully
accountable for environmental harm that can be caused by recycling processes.20 After thecompany receives cell phones from KWC, it evaluates the composition of metals, andthen forwards the handsets to smelting plants in Japan and Europe, because the cost of
meeting environmental regulations in the U.S. is too high and the profit margin too low.21
By outsourcing their recycling KWC is not liable for hazardous waste mishandling or any
other environmental violation during recycling process.
Even though KWC doesn’t process recycling itself, it received many recycling awards.
The City of San Diego Environmental Services Task Force honored KWC with the 2001
Director’s Recycling Award one year after the company was acquired fromQUALCOMM, Inc. KWC earned this award for recycling and redirecting more than
60% (2 million pounds) of its total waste material achieving a cost savings of $2,418,560.
KWC reclaimed more than 3 million batteries from wireless phones in 2000.22 KWC

19Gartner, John, Manufacturers Address Hazards of E-Waste, AlterNet, April 25, 2004,
http://www.alternet.org/environment/18506/?page=entire (accessed December 7, 2008)
20
Metech International, http://www.metechgroup.com/, (accessed December 7, 2008).
21
Gartner, John, Manufacturers Address Hazards of E-Waste, AlterNet, April 25, 2004,
http://www.alternet.org/environment/18506/?page=entire (accessed December 7, 2008).
22
KWC Corp. Honored for Environmental Responsibility, Business Wire, July 23, 2001,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_/ai_76708085, (Accessed December 9, 2008).

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

13

continued its commitment to recycling and consumption of reclaimed water and in 2006
it reached recycling rate of 82% of total waste, used more than 4.5 million gallons ofreclaimed water, and contributed more than $78,000 in recycling revenue and almost$500,000 in cost saving to the bottom line23.
For eight consecutive years KWC earned the Recycler of the Year Award, which showsthat every year since its conception the company has been recognized for its recycling
efforts by the city of San Diego. The Environmental Services Department’s Annual
Waste Reduction and Diversion Awards Program recognize businesses and organizationsin the City of San Diego that have implemented successful waste reduction, recycling andrecycled product procurement programs. Award applicants are eligible for two different
award levels Recycler of the Year and Director’s Recycling Award. The Recycler of theYear Award is the highest honor given to the applicants with the most comprehensive,
innovative and/or improved recycling program. During last eight years, KWC also has
been one of the most active Climate Wise-Energy Star Partners, saving 931,396 kWhthrough energy conservation measures.24
B. Quality Management System and Environmental Management System
KWC takes commitment to quality very seriously. The company was one of the first ISO
9001:200025 certified companies in the world (certified on December 15, 2000). KWC
has a strict Quality Management System (QMS) in place; and according to Kyocera’s
philosophy, customer satisfaction is always a priority.
Besides being committed to quality, KWC also focuses on the protection of the23

Williams, Dennis, Mayor Sanders Leads Awards Program
Honoring Local Environmental Achievements, Environmental Services News Release, June 8, 2007,
http://www.sandiego.gov/environmental-services/geninfo/news/pdf/070608_business.pdf, (Accessed
December 9, 2008).
24
City of SD Waste Reduction & Diversion Award, http://www.sandiego.gov/environmentalservices/geninfo/news/pdf/2003awardsprogram.pdf, (Accessed December 9, 2008).
25
ISO 9001:2000 combines the three standards 9001, 9002, and 9003 into one, called 9001. The 2000
version emphasizes the concept of process management (the monitoring and optimizing of a company's
tasks and activities, instead of just inspecting the final product). It also demands involvement by upper
executives to avoid delegation of quality functions to junior administrators.

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

14

environment. Six months after it was purchased from QUALCOMM, the company
passed its ISO 14001 certification (Appendix C). KEMA Registered Quality, Dutch
consulting firm, certified KWC on August 1, 2000. KEMA is an independent auditor thatspecializes in inspections, measurements, testing and certification. It conducts externalannual audits for the compliance with ISO standards.26 In October 2003 KEMA
recertified KWC for ISO-14001 standards compliance.
Over the first three years of operations KWC has enhanced its Energy Management
Control System (EMCS), resulting in savings of $124,000 and almost 1 million kilowatt
hours (Kwh) of electricity. The company also has cut the amount of energy required to
produce each of its wireless phones by 20%. It started using reclaimed water for
irrigation, which has reduced water costs by 40% and cut the use of potable water in half.
These achievements made KWC a great candidate for the recertification. According to
Bob Auerbach, Los Angeles branch manager at KEMA Registered Quality, KWC
showed that its entire organization, from senior management to technicians, isknowledgeable about and actively involved in the Environmental Management System(EMS). KEMA views Kyocera as a community-minded company that invests a lot oftime and energy into its EMS and is very successful at it. KWC is one of only 600
communications companies in the world with the ISO 14001 accreditation.27
C. Environmental Management System Implementation
According to Corey Steward, Quality Assurance Director at KWC, the environmental
impacts of the company are evaluated internally on regular bases. From these evaluations,
goals and targets are established to reduce the severity of significant environmental
impacts. The EMS Implementation Team addresses these goals through continuous
improvement projects that focus in the following areas:• Recycling (controlling and reducing hazardous and non-hazardous waste)• Boulder EMS (environmental impact of KWC design facility in Boulder, CO.)26

Stewart, Corey, Quality Assurance, KWC, interview by the author, November 20, 2008.
KWC Corp. Earns ISO 14001 Recertification for Environmental Management System, October 01, 2003,
http://www.kyocera-wireless.com/news/20031001.htm (accessed December 9, 2008).
27

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

15• Chemical Control (monitoring acquisition and use of chemicals)• Green Manufacturing (controlling environmental impact of manufacturing)• Utilities (monitoring/reducing electric, water, gas and fuel use)
The director also acknowledged the importance of pollution reduction through recycling
and re-using materials.28 Without a doubt, KWC has been successful in the recycling
aspect of EMS. Eight consecutive years of winning the City of San Diego The Recyclerof the Year Awards is good evidence of KWC commitment to recycling and water
reclamation in San Diego. The company proved to be environmentally responsible in thecommunity. At the same time, there is very little transparency or public information
available regarding the KWC design facility in Boulder, CO and outsourced e-waste.
D. Internal ISO Audit Plan29
KWC has a rigorous internal audit system in place. Corey Stewart himself usually does
the audits. The auditor selects particular process for auditing and identifies functionalgroups involved in that process. The groups are interviewed regarding their conformance
to selected ISO standards. The findings are documented if there is a non-conformance tothe selected ISO standard, or if documented procedure or established practice is not being
followed. The nonconformance can be determined to be major or minor. A Major
Nonconformance is a violation that is systemic, results in shipment of nonconforming
product, results in environmental harm, or is a legal violation. A Minor Nonconformanceis usually non-systemic, an isolated occurrence and not likely to result in the failure of the
QMS or the EMS.
If major nonconformance is found, the violator is presented with Corrective Action Plan,
which will indicate the corrective action activity to be implemented to prevent occurrence
or recurrence of a nonconformance and the estimated implementation date. Within aweek after the audit an Audit Finding Report has to be presented to the group. The
violator is given 90 days to implement the Corrective Action Plan. After it has been

28
29

Stewart, Corey, Quality Assurance, KWC, interview by the author, November 20, 2008.
See Appendix DCopyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

16

implemented, a Verification Audit is conducted to determine if corrective action
implementation is suitable and effective. If audit findings have been resolved, the audit isofficially closed, but if an audit closure has not occurred, escalation is determined at thediscretion of the auditor.
Although the process for internal auditing at KWC seems rigorous, it should notcompensate for very infrequent outside third party monitoring. KEMA audits KWC every
three years for company’s conformance with ISO-14001 standards and reissues thecertificate, but no other external auditing takes place in between KEMA’s visits.
E. Kyocera America, Inc. (KAI)
Another San Diego based subsidiary of Kyocera is Kyocera America, Inc. (KAI), which
produces ceramic packages that house semiconductors and other electronics, such as
microwave and radio frequency devices. KAI’s services include package design,assembly, and testing. It also provides nickel, gold, copper, and tin-lead plating services,
production of which creates hazardous waste. KAI is a sister company of KWC. KAIcame to San Diego in 1971 and Kyocera was the first Japanese-owned company withproduction operations in the State of California. In 1987, KAI began operating amaquiladora in Tijuana, Mexico known as Kyocera Mexicana, S.A. de C.V. Today, KAI
is one of the world's largest manufacturers of metalized ceramic packages for the wirelessindustry.30
Contrary to KWC, its sister company, Kyocera America, Inc. is not famous for theirpositive environmental impact. KAI received only one Recycler of the Year award fromthe City of San Diego in 2001for recycling of 68.20% for all waste generated andsuccessfully diverting 858,045 pounds of material from the landfill.31 Regretfully, since2001 KAI hasn’t impressed San Diego with their recycling efforts, while KWC has

30
31

http://americas.kyocera.com/kai/semiparts/about/index.html

City of SD Waste Reduction & Diversion Award,
www.sandiego.gov/environmental-services/recycling/pdf/05awardprogram.pd, (Accessed December 9,2008)

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

17

received the recycling award annually.
The EPA biennially collects information regarding the generation, management, and final
disposal of hazardous waste regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976 (RCRA). According to EPA’s 2007 findings, Kyocera America, Inc
generated about 179 tons of hazardous waste but managed 0 tons. EPA does not provide
information about the waste that was stored, bulked and/or transferred off site.32 KAI
doesn’t make this information public. So what had happened to 179 tons of hazardous
waste?
F. Department of Toxic Substances Control Lawsuit
On September 13, 2007, the Attorney General's office filed a Complaint for Civil
Penalties and Injunctive Relief in the enforcement case against KAI. Department of
Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) staff conducted three inspections of KAI’s facility on
May 19, 2003, October 16, 2003, and June 28, 2005. These inspections resulted in an
enforcement action that led to the civil complaint. Through this complaint DTSC isattempting to address violations of the California Hazardous Waste Control Law(HWCL) and charges Kyocera with the responsibility to adopt standards and regulations
for the management of hazardous waste to protect the public health and environment.33
Settlement negotiations have been ongoing and the case is scheduled for jury trial in
January 2009.34 According to Gary Erbeck, Chief of the County Department ofEnvironmental Health’s Hazardous Materials Division, the case is in the process ofgetting settled and my not be tried.35

32

The United States Environmental Protection Agency, The National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste
Report (Based on 2007 Data).
33
Department of Toxic Substances Control, Complaint for Civil Penalties and Injunctive Relief September 2007, http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/Projects/Kyocera_America.cfm(accessed Nov. 27, 2008).
34
Department of Toxic Substances Control, End of the Year Report Fiscal Year 2007-08: Enforcement andEmergency Response Program (EERP), www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/upload/EERP_EOY2.pdf(Accessed Nov. 27, 2008)35
Erbeck, Gary, email message to author, December 8, 2008.

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

18

The complaint contains these accusations:36
1. Illegal Treatment of Hazardous Waste
2. Failure to Make a Hazardous Waste Determination
3. Failure to Assess Whether Hazardous Wastes Were Subject to Land Disposal
Restrictions and Whether Applicable Treatment Standards Applied
4. Illegal Storage of Hazardous Wastes
5. Failure to Properly Label Hazardous Waste Containers as "Hazardous Waste"
6. Failure to Comply with Documentation Requirements Applicable toConditionally Exempt Recyclable Hazardous Wastes
7. Failure to Obtain Assessment by Certified Engineer for Existing and New
Hazardous Waste Treatment Tanks
8. Failure to Provide Secondary Containment for Hazardous Waste Treatment Tanks
Assessed and Certified by Engineer
9. Failure to Provide Separate Secondary Containment for Incompatible Hazardous
Wastes10. Failure to Conduct Inspections of Hazardous Waste Tanks and Maintain
Appropriate Documentation
11. Failure to Have Written Inspection Schedule for All Generator Areas Within the
Facility
12. Failure to Maintain At Least 2 Feet of Freeboard for Hazardous Waste Tanks
13. Failure to Appropriately Manage Empty Hazardous Waste Containers
14. Failure to Maintain and Operate Facility to Minimize Hazardous Waste Releases
15. Failure to Comply with Hazardous Waste Exemption Requirements
16. Falsification of Documents
17. Failure to Properly Inspect and Maintain Emergency Equipment
18. Failure to Comply with Tank Closure Requirements
19. Failure to Properly Close Hazardous Waste Containers Failure to Maintain
Appropriate Employee Training Documentation
20. Failure to Maintain an Adequate Written Contingency Plan36

See Appendix E for a front page of a complaint. Download full lawsuit at
http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/Projects/Kyocera_America.cfm

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

19

V. Conclusion
With an increasing rate of technology innovation there is a growing need for recycling ofobsolete products. This paper sheds light on the harmful impact of electronic andhazardous waste on the environment and the importance of e-waste recycling, specificallydisposed cell phones. With a new trend of “disposable” electronics the recycling value isdeclining, which reduces incentives for companies to recycle.
Due to stricter environmental rules in California and in the U.S. in general, in comparison
to the developing countries, many Kyocera companies are outsourcing their production
and recycling. Such “clever” tactics help the company to maintain its “green” image andminimize lawsuits. There is also a lack of transparency associated with the hazardous
waste recycling process among Kyocera suppliers. Until the process becomes transparent
and hazardous waste management information is available to the public, the skepticism
over Kyocera’s environmental practices will remain.
The study demonstrates Kyocera Group’s environmental values and using San Diego
subsidiaries, KWC and KAI, as an example, shows two very different efforts ofEnvironment Management Systems implementation and enforcement. KWC has been arole model for their recycling efforts in the community, while KAI is fighting a lawsuit
for hazardous waste mishandling. Although CSR goals for Kyocera group are the same, it
is impossible for all 189 companies that comprise Kyocera Group to have an equal levelof compliance and undergo effective corporate monitoring.

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.
VI. Discussion and further research questions:
1. Kyocera Wireless outsources its recycling to Meterch in Rhode Island. Why thecompany does choose to send cell phones to Rhode Island if Metech also operates
recycling facilities in California?
2. For further research on environmental impact of Kyocera is worth investigating KAI
environmental activities. Do you think KAI is just hiding behind Kyocera’s Corporate
CSR department and other proactive subsidiaries like KWC?
3. Despite the encouraging growth of ISO 14000 certified companies and apparent
growth of e-waste recycling in Tijuana and San Diego, what are the future potential
market problems for recyclables?
4. What were the results of the KAI hearing scheduled for January 2009? Was there asettlement?

20

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

21

VII. Appendix
Appendix A:

History of Kyocera’s Group Environmental Activities

1985

Kyocera environmental division established

1990

Kyocera Green Committee established

1991

Kyocera Environmental Charter established

1992

Environmental Protection Promotion Plan started Kyocera Eco-ProductLabel System established

1996

Kyocera Global Environment Contribution Award established1997

ISO 14001 Certification attained at nine production plants

1998"Green Procurement" began Environmentally friendly global
headquarters opened with 214 kW PV system

1999

Received the 8th Global Environment Award, “Fujisankei
Communication Group Prize.” Attained ISO14001 Integrated
certification for environmental systems management at 42 sites
company-wide.

2000

Environmental Report released on www.kyocera.com

2001

Supported “e-mission 55” initiative to enact Kyoto Protocol

2003

Kagoshima Kokubu Plant honored for environmental excellence at
Japan's first Sustainable Management Awards

2004

First Sustainability Report Meeting held (now CSR, Economic, Social,
and Environmental Report Meeting)

2005

Fifth Environmental Protection Promotion Plan started

2006

Environmental Consciousness Evaluation System introduced

2008

Environmental booklet "Ecolife Note" issued for employees GreenManagement

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.
Appendix B:

KWC’s ISO 14001 Certificate

22

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

23

Appendix C: KWC Internal ISO Audit Plan

Internal ISO Audit Plan
Information Technology Support
Audit Number: IA-2007- Information Technology Support
This Internal audit is required by ISO 9001:2000 (Quality Management System-QMS).
KEMA (external audit organization), our registrar for ISO 9001:2000 & 14001:2004, relies
heavily on the results of internal audits annually.
ISO Documents business procedures are available on Livelink.
Additional ISO information and contacts can be obtained from the KWC ISO Center located on
the KWCNet homepage.

Audit Scope: This audit will be an examination of KWC’s Information Technology
Support. The audit will be conducted to determine conformance to the requirements
defined in ISO 9001:2000 and to KWC internal procedures.
Audit Criteria:
The following ISO requirements will be addressed during this audit.
Type of audit: QMS
ISO 9001:2000 8.2.2, 8.5.1, 8.5.2, 8.5.3
Elements to include: QMS – 5.5.1 Responsibility, Authority, and Communication, 6.2.2. Competence
Awareness and Training, 8.5.1 Continual Improvement, 8.5.2 Corrective Action, 8.5.3 Preventive Action
Documents to review:CC00084 Internal Audit Procedure (QMS & EMS)
CC00085 Internal Audit Roles & Responsibilities
CC00112 Preventive and Corrective Action
IC00614 Internal Audit Index
And other locally controlled documents

Audit Team:

Corey Stewart

Audit Contacts:

Art Wolfkind

Date of Audit:

6/07

Audit Objectives: To determine conformance of KWC’s Information Technology Support for
tasks directly affecting the product quality, services and process improvement is established anddocumented.

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

24

Internal ISO Audit Plan
Information Technology Support
Audit Number: IA-2007- Information Technology Support

Section I: The Internal Audit Process
Audit Purpose: The purpose of an ISO audit is to identify opportunities for improvement.
Audit Focus: An audit focuses on a process not on the individual performing the process.
Process: A process is any activity that receives inputs and converts them to outputs.
Auditee Selection: Specific processes are selected for audit. Functional groups involved in a
selected process are identified and individuals representing functional groups are contacted for aninterview.
Interview: During the audit, a series of questions will be asked by the auditor(s) to determine
conformance to selected ISO standards and internal documentation and established practices.
Audit Findings: If during the course of the audit, a nonconformance (discrepancy) is identified,
an audit finding is documented. An audit finding is documented to indicate one or more of thefollowing: a) documented procedure is not being followed; b) established practice is not being
followed; c) we do not conform to requirements of the selected ISO standard.
An audit finding also may be documented to identify a “best practice” or a condition that if notcorrected, may cause a future audit finding.
If any audit findings are documented, you will be notified during the audit. At the close of theaudit, a copy of the audit finding form will be signed by an auditor and a representative of thefunction being audited (you or your manager/supervisor). A signature indicates that the auditor
has discussed the findings with you.
Audit Finding Classifications:
Major Nonconformance: A finding where a relevant requirement of the standard has not beenmet.
The finding is:- systemic;- result in shipment of nonconforming product;- situation that would result in pollution, harm our natural resources, or excessive waste;- a nonconformity to laws or regulations;- a condition that may result in the failure of products or services, or may materially reduce theirusability.
Minor Nonconformance: A finding where a requirement of the standard or the
Quality/Environmental Management System has not been fully met. The finding is:Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

25- non-systemic;- an isolated occurrence;- not likely to result in the failure of the Quality Management System or theEnvironmental Management System.
Opportunity for Improvement (OFI): Documentation of “best practices” or a finding that
documents an opportunity for improvement in areas where requirements of the standard havebeen met.

Internal ISO Audit Plan
Information Technology Support
Audit Number: IA-2007- Information Technology Support
Corrective Action Plans: If an audit finding is documented as a nonconformance, a corrective
action plan will be required. The corrective action plan will indicate the corrective action activity
that was implemented or will detail the activities to be implemented to prevent occurrence orrecurrence of a nonconformance and the estimated implementation date. The corrective action
plan may be in the form of an email. Responses to Opportunity for Improvement are notrequired; however, a response to an observation is encouraged.
A corrective action plan or corrective action closure is due within ten working days from receiptof the audit findings report unless an extension has been approved by the audit coordinator.
Audit Finding Report: An audit finding report will be distributed to you or yourmanager/supervisor within a week after the audit.
Verification Audit: When corrective action has been implemented, a verification audit will be
conducted to determine if corrective action implementation is suitable and effective.
Audit Closure: Once audit findings have been resolved, the audit is officially closed. You or
your manager/supervisor will be notified of audit closure by e-mail.
Escalation: Corrective action plan implementation is expected within 90 days. Most corrective
actions can be completed in 90 days. If corrective action cannot be implemented, an extension
may be allowed. If an extension is not granted, and audit closure has not occurred - escalation isdetermined at the discretion of the auditor

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.
Appendix D: Lawsuit against KWC filed by DTSC on September 13, 200726