Standards and regulations exist to ensure supply chains are not exploitative of the people, environments, and materials with which they interact. This technical note concentrates on two aspects of the process for electronics supply chains: the responsible sourcing of raw materials and end-of-use recycling. It is recommended for use with a companion technical note, "Electronics Supply Chain Overview" (UVA-OM-1716); as well as with the following cases: "Fairphone (A): Can a Start-Up Change an Industry?" (UVA-OM-1712); "Fairphone (B): Is It Really Worth It?" (UVA-OM-1713); and "iFixit: If You Bought It, You Don't Really Own It" (UVA-OM-1772).

Electronics are sophisticated products with an equally complicated supply chain. Within the consumer electronics industry, revenue is forecast at 1.82% annual growth, with user penetration climbing from an estimated 29.7% in 2022 to 36.8% by 2025. Because electronics are so popular (and potentially expensive), there is also a growing market for used electronics and their recycled parts. The growth of this sector is critical for sustained development, as the raw materials necessary for future production are in short supply and electronic waste (e-waste) has a major impact on the environment. In 2019, the world generated a striking 53.6 metric tons of e-waste, and this figure is projected to grow to 74.7 metric tons by 2030. This technical note explores the electronics value chain, forward supply chain, the final assembly stage, reverse supply chain, and the financial benefits of e-waste parts reuse and recycling. It is recommended for use with a companion technical note, ""Regulations and Standards: Electronics Supply Chain"" (UVA-OM-1714); as well as with the following cases: ""Fairphone (A): Can a Start-Up Change an Industry?"" (UVA-OM-1712); ""Fairphone (B): Is It Really Worth It?"" (UVA-OM-1713); and ""iFixit: If You Bought It, You Don't Really Own It"" (UVA-OM-1772).

Fairphone, a "social enterprise" that created the world's first ethically sourced smartphone, had revolutionized consumers' and investors' expectations around environmental, social, and governance (ESG) responsibility in the electronics industry. The company was justifiably proud of all its accomplishments, but in 2017, Fairphone had been plagued with supply issues ranging from mining to component production. Due to the global nature of the supply chain and mega-companies like Apple dominating the market, it was hard for smaller companies like Fairphone with low production volumes to keep a steady and cost-effective flow of materials-especially when Fairphone was committed to making a product that was not only "good" by consumer standards but also good for the people and environments involved in its production. How could a company trying to do its best to behave ethically overcome its challenges and allay its investors' concerns? This case and its follow-up, "Fairphone (B): Is It Really Worth It?" (UVA-OM-1713), are recommended for use with two companion technical notes: "Regulations and Standards: Electronics Supply Chain" (UVA-OM-1714) and "Electronics Supply Chain Overview" (UVA-OM-1716).

This case is a follow-up to "Fairphone (A): Can a Start-Up Change an Industry?" (UVA-OM-1712). Fairphone's goals to keep producing an ethically sourced smartphone were noble, but "doing well by doing good" could only be an idealistic slogan unless Fairphone could figure out a way to be profitable. The company needed money to invest in its supply chain, to buy component inventory, and to pay for its own operations. When Fairphone began brainstorming about making the Fairphone 2, the next generation of its smartphone, one of the company's largest investors had encouraged creative thinking about how to make a device that was both good for the environment and good for Fairphone's bottom line. One solution seemed to be modularity-making the phone easy to repair could not only reduce its environmental footprint by allowing reuse and recycling, but create new revenue streams for Fairphone. In theory, reselling a used phone or extracting precious metals from e-waste would be profitable-but would those profits be enough to significantly impact Fairphone's bottom line? Could Fairphone actually "do well" because of its commitment to doing good?

This field-based case introduces iFixit, a small business with a mission to change consumer behavior around prosperity so that they would no longer toss away broken products. iFixit offered repair guides and the sale of parts and tools to make repairs on over 30,000 different devices-mostly electronic. iFixit's business model was based on creating more value than it captured-repair was sustainable. iFixit intended to keep electronics out of landfills by providing accessible and easy information for free, so anyone could fix their devices. That plan put the founders Kyle Wiens and Luke Soules head-to-head against industry leaders in the electronics space-large manufacturers that worked against iFixit's efforts to offer repair guides. For nearly 20 years, Wiens and Soules had worked toward giving consumers the right to repair what they owned. What would it take to move the needle so manufacturers would work with, instead of against, iFixit? This cases also explores the concept of forward and reverse loops within the electronics value chain. It's recommended for use with two technical notes: "Regulations and Standards: Electronics Supply Chain" (UVA-OM-1714) and "Electronics Supply Chain Overview" (UVA-OM-1716).

This case, a follow-up to "Food Supply and COVID-19: Breaking the Chain (B)" (UVA-OM-1691), looks at how the global food supply chain was faring almost 18 months after John Tyson wrote that America's "food supply chain is breaking." It explores the rising prices, global shipping issues, food-industry hiring problems, and political turmoil that the coronavirus pandemic continued to leave in its wake in late 2021 and beyond.

This case uses the impact of the global pandemic on the concentrated meatpacking industry to explore management of supply chain disruptions. COVID-19 had created massive problems at Tyson Foods, with high infection rates among workers, plants closing, and farmers unable to deliver livestock to processing plants. This translated into shortages at grocery stores. Then the president of the United States issued an executive order that meat-processing plants were to stay open to ensure the food supply. At the time, Tyson Foods had decided to close the majority of its facilities, but with the order, the meat-processing giant could remain open and workers could not hold the company liable if they got sick on the job. Tyson Foods struggled with workers getting sick, with creating protocols for clean line work, and with getting products to supermarkets. The material in this case brings the opportunity to explore a vitally important supply chain, the resiliency of that supply chain, and important decisions around fragility, security, fairness, and employees' welfare. In addition, the case allows exploration around how Lean operations leads to efficiencies, but supply chains may not be resilient to disruption. Furthermore, examining John Tyson's public letter in select newspapers provides the opportunity to explore crisis communication and crisis leadership.