By Viktor Yoshimura – 27th October 2026
Sustainability reports count tonnes. Circularity is about value. When the two point different ways, the report usually wins.
Most corporate sustainability reporting measures waste by weight. Circularity is about keeping value in use. Most of the time those goals line up, but in IT asset disposition they can point in opposite directions, and when they do, the metrics tend to reinforce the easier route.
I’ve seen working hardware shredded where the recycling certificate fitted the report better than the resale paperwork did. Reporting wasn’t the only reason. Security policy, labour cost and the lack of an approved buyer all played a part. But the report made shredding the easy decision to sign off.
Where the distinction gets lost
The framework itself isn’t the problem. GRI 306, the disclosure most companies follow, already separates waste diverted from disposal into preparation for reuse, recycling and other recovery. What it measures is weight. A company can report every tonne accurately and still say very little about how much working equipment stayed in use or how much value was kept.
The distinction gets lost further down the line: in the headline recycling or diversion rate, in the procurement scorecard, in the tender. In Japan, several large manufacturers publish “zero emission” targets on their own definitions. At least one large electronics maker sets it at a factory waste recycling rate of 99 percent or more by weight; others use a final-disposal threshold. The definitions vary, but they’re all measured in kilograms. Shredding helps hit that kind of number. Reuse doesn’t always show up in it.
Put the two routes side by side and the gap is clear.
| Reuse and remarketing | Recycling | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary outcome | Equipment stays working and in use | Materials are recovered |
| Financial outcome | Resale value, often most of what’s left | Material recovery value |
| What has to be proven | Sanitisation, destination and continued use | Treatment, recovery and final outputs |
| How it reads in a typical report | Harder to evidence; a sold product may sit outside the waste numbers altogether | A certificate with a weight on it |
| The KPI that’s usually missing | Units reused, and how much longer they stay in service | Recovery yield and quality of the output |
Table 1. Basis: GRI 306 (2020) disclosure structure; author’s operating experience.
Why the clean option wins
Nobody in this chain is acting in bad faith. The sustainability team reports what the framework asks for. Procurement wants a certificate that closes the file. Security would rather nothing left the building intact. Each choice is reasonable on its own, and together they lean toward the shredder.
Reuse is harder to defend in an audit. It means a buyer you don’t control, a market you can’t see, and a sanitisation report someone has to trust. It starts in the tender. Most disposal tenders I’ve seen ask for zero landfill and a recycling certificate per job. Very few ask how many units went back into use. An ITAD answers the question it’s asked.
A recycling certificate answers every question the report asks, and none of the ones circularity asks.
Data security adds to it. If a client already distrusts wiping, shredding gives them security and a tidy report in the same decision. This isn’t about drives a client has decided to destroy; that’s their call. It’s about whole servers and network kit that could have gone back into use.
What would fix it
I’m not arguing against reporting. Weight is a reasonable thing to measure for waste, and the EU waste hierarchy puts reuse above recycling for good reason. The problem is that the headline number often doesn’t.
The fix is to report reuse with a clear denominator, next to what was diverted. Of the units received: how many were assessed as fit for reuse, how many were actually redeployed or sold for reuse, and how many were recycled or destroyed. That gives a verified reuse rate by unit count. Add value recovered per tonne received, and the share of units tested before anyone decided their fate. An ITAD already has these numbers in its own system. They just don’t make it into the client’s report.
Until they do, the best-looking circularity numbers can belong to the companies shredding the most working hardware.
This is my view. Let me know if you have another view.
Sources
- GRI 306: Waste 2020, disclosure 306-4, waste diverted from disposal by recovery operation (preparation for reuse, recycling, other recovery), in metric tonnes.
- EU Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC, Article 4: the waste hierarchy.
- Panasonic, resource circulation: “zero emission” defined by the company as a factory waste recycling rate of 99% or more (company definition).
- Examples of Japanese corporate zero emission programmes: NSK (2003 press release, all plants), Hitachi (2001 press release).