Exploring Sustainability in Electronics: A Comparative Study of Industry Practices in India and South Korea

Abstract. In today’s rapidly evolving industrial landscape, sustainability is no longer optional, it’s a core driver of innovation and competitiveness. This study examines how India and South Korea, two prominent players in the global electronics industry, are addressing environmental challenges through differing yet complementary strategies. India leans on policy-driven mechanisms such as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) to promote inclusive and localized sustainability efforts (MeitY, 2021). In contrast, South Korea advances its agenda through cutting-edge technologies, ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) compliance, and smart manufacturing systems (KITA, 2020; KICTI, 2021).

Using Bangalore and Busan as regional case hubs, the research explores three key dimensions: energy efficiency, e-waste management, and sustainable sourcing. A structured comparative model is applied to assess policy effectiveness, industry engagement, and measurable environmental outcomes. The findings highlight strengths and challenges unique to each country and propose a hybrid approach that blends India’s socially focused strategies with South Korea’s innovation-driven model. Ultimately, the study offers practical insights for policymakers, business leaders, and researchers working toward a more sustainable and resilient electronics sector (Elkington, 1997; UNEP, 2021; Plepys et al., 2019).this nature, given in the addresses, will be deleted by our typesetters.

Sustainability, Electronics Industry, India, South Korea, CSR, ESG, Circular Economy, E-Waste Management, Energy Efficiency

1. Balde, C. P., Forti, V., Gray, V., Kuehr, R., & Stegmann, P. (2017). The global e-waste monitor 2017: Quantities, flows, and resources. United Nations University (UNU), International Telecommunication Union (ITU) & Interna-tional Solid Waste Association (ISWA). https://ewastemonitor.info/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Hilty, L. M., & Aebischer, B. (2015). ICT for sustainability: An emerging research field. In L. M. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Hilty & B. Aebischer (Eds.), ICT Innovations for Sustainability (pp. 3–36). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09228-7_1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Plepys, A., Heiskanen, E., & Mont, O. (2019). European policies on sustainable consumption and production. Jour-nal of Cleaner Production, 218, 294–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.025 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Eccles, R. G., & Klimenko, S. (2019). The investor revolution. Harvard Business Review, 97(3), 106–116. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. European Commission. (2019). The European Green Deal. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52019DC0640 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. European Union. (2015). Directive 2011/65/EU on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in elec-trical and electronic equipment (RoHS). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2011/65/oj [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The circular economy–A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. IEA (International Energy Agency). (2021). Net Zero by 2050: A roadmap for the global energy sector. https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. KICTI (Korea Information Society Development Institute). (2021). Sustainable ICT in South Korea. https://eng.kisdi.re.kr [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Kiron, D., Unruh, G., Kruschwitz, N., Reeves, M., Rubel, H., & Meyer Zum Felde, A. (2015). Corporate sustainability at a crossroads. MIT Sloan Management Review, 56(4), 1–25. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. KITA (Korea International Trade Association). (2020). Electronics export report. https://www.kita.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. MeitY (Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, India). (2021). PLI Scheme for IT hardware and elec-tronics manufacturing. https://www.meity.gov.in [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. OECD. (2016). Extended Producer Responsibility: Updated Guidance for Efficient Waste Management. https://www.oecd.org/environment/waste/extended-producer-responsibility.htm [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Pagell, M., & Wu, Z. (2009). Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45(2), 37–56. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Seuring, S., & Müller, M. (2008). From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1699–1710. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). (2021). Global E-waste Monitor. https://ewastemonitor.info [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). (2015). The Paris Agreement. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. WEF (World Economic Forum). (2019). A New Circular Vision for Electronics: Time for a Global Reboot. https://www.weforum.org/reports/a-new-circular-vision-for-electronics [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Bureau of Energy Efficiency. (2023). Perform, Achieve and Trade (PAT) scheme. Ministry of Power, Government of India. https://beeindia.gov.in/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Korea Energy Agency. (2022). Annual report on energy efficiency and AI integration in industrial sectors. https://www.energy.or.kr [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. (2021). E-waste (Management) Rules, 2016 (as amended). Government of India. https://moef.gov.in/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Yoon, J., & Kim, H. (2021). Circular economy and e-waste management in South Korea: A case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 294, 126334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126334 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Ministry of Corporate Affairs. (2020). Corporate Social Responsibility: Policy framework and implementation. Government of India. https://www.mca.gov.in/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Kim, J., & Lee, S. (2022). ESG strategy in South Korea: Impact on corporate transparency and investment deci-sions. Sustainability, 14(2), 829. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020829 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. PwC India. (2023). Supply chain sustainability in India: Pathways to a resilient future. https://www.pwc.in [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. OECD. (2022). Sustainable supply chains in Asia: Policies and industry trends. https://www.oecd.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Ministry of Environment Korea. (2022). Resource Circulation Policy and Circular Economy Roadmap. https://eng.me.go.kr/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Park, S., & Kim, D. (2023). Innovation challenges in green technology diffusion among SMEs in Korea. Technologi-cal Forecasting and Social Change, 186, 122182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122182 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. United Nations Environment Programme. (2022). Global environmental outlook 6: Healthy planet, healthy people. https://www.unep.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. International Energy Agency. (2021). Energy efficiency 2021. https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-efficiency-2021 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st-century business. Capstone Publishing [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. KICTI. (2021). Korea ICT Industry Outlook. Korea Information Society Development Institute. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Lee, K. (2019), The Innovative System in Korea. In the Oxford handbook of Innovation (pp. 453-470). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Saxenian, A. (2006). The New Argonauts : Regional advantage in Global economy. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Government of India, (2014) Make in India. Retrieved from https://www.mea.gov.in/Images/attach/Make_in_India_Initiative.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Advanced Techniques for Fake News Detection on Twitter Using NLP and AI: A Comprehensive Review
• Review of Self Compacting Geopolymer Concrete Using Slag Sand as Fine Aggregate
• Performance of Local Construction Contractors – Case Study of Registered Contractors in Monrovia, Liberia
• Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Innovation Management in Multinational Organizations
• Modeling of Reaction Between Dissolved Oxygen (DO) And Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) in Degradation River