We celebrate every solar home system installed, every smallholder farmer gaining access to irrigation, every household moving from kerosene to clean lighting. And rightfully so—these are genuine victories in the fight for energy access and climate resilience. But there’s a conversation we’re not having loudly enough: What happens when those solar panels reach end-of-life? When lithium batteries degrade? When circuit boards fail?

A groundbreaking technical assistance program involving 15 off-grid solar companies across Africa by spearheaded by Cygnum Capital and Triple Jump , has just concluded, and its findings should be required reading for anyone serious about sustainable energy access. The lessons are uncomfortable, urgent, and absolutely critical.

Off-grid solar e-waste is growing exponentially as products reach end-of-life, particularly in mature markets. We’re talking about PV panels, EV batteries, mobile phones, and appliances, all containing materials that, when improperly managed, contaminate soil, pollute water sources, and damage human health.

Yet in my 15+ years working across the renewable energy sector I’ve witnessed this issue consistently pushed to the margins. It’s treated as someone else’s problem, a future concern, or worse, an inconvenient cost that threatens the affordability narrative we’ve built around energy access. The recent technical assistance program, jointly implemented by three major investment funds (Africa Go Green Organization , FEI Off-Grid Energy Access Fund , and @Energy Entrepreneurs Growth Fund) through dss+ consulting, reveals why this attitude is not just short-sighted—it’s actively undermining the sustainability credentials of the entire sector.

Why E-Waste Remains a Blind Spot

The program engaged with 20 companies (15 participated actively) spanning manufacturers, distributors, investment platforms, and C&I solar installers operating across 10+ African countries. Through 26 surveys, 20 deep-dive interviews, and 10 joint co-design sessions, a troubling pattern emerged.

E-waste is seen as an investor relations issue, not an operational priority.

Let me be blunt: This is a fundamental misunderstanding of both the risk and the opportunity.

Companies reported that e-waste management is “not a core business priority,” especially for smaller operations with self-perceived durable products. It’s deprioritized during business downtimes. It’s costly to implement. And critically, there’s limited operational and knowledge support available.

But here’s what companies are missing: As consumer, government, and partner awareness of environmental issues grows, proactive e-waste management isn’t just risk mitigation—it’s competitive differentiation. It signals long-term commitment to sustainability, enhances brand loyalty, and opens doors to partnerships with like-minded organizations and forward-thinking governments.

The Structural Barriers Are Real

The program identified several persistent challenges that transcend individual company action:

Missing Infrastructure: Even where national e-waste policies exist, the absence of local treatment facilities renders them ineffective. As one company participant noted: “The lack of a national e-waste policy is a gap, but there is an even bigger gap—what you can and cannot do without treatment facilities, regardless of whether a policy exists.”

Companies struggle to find trustworthy, licensed e-waste management providers. Weak traceability and limited monitoring increase compliance risks. Long-term storage often becomes the only practical solution—hardly sustainable.

End-User Behavior: Low awareness, trust issues, and logistical barriers result in customers’ reluctance to return old products. Some companies are experimenting with incentives, local ambassadors, and integrated messaging, but these remain isolated efforts rather than industry standards.

Cost Pressures Without Cost Clarity: While affordability concerns are well-known, companies lack full understanding of e-waste’s true cost implications—logistics, compliance, infrastructure—which hampers effective budgeting and long-term planning.

Leadership Disconnect: There’s often misalignment between operational teams who deal with e-waste realities and top management who may lack full capabilities in this area. As one company representative stated: “Top management doesn’t always understand the topic and cannot give a strategic steer. The EHS department knows what it is doing but needs the steer.”

Where Companies Are Getting It Right

Despite these challenges, the program identified valuable good practices already being implemented:

• Basic e-waste policies and standard operating procedures (SOPs) are being developed
• Safe storage practices are being established
• E-waste volumes are being monitored
• Internal leads are being designated

One standout example was a relatively small solar home system company that joined the program late but quickly became a model of effective engagement. With a dedicated internal “e-waste champion,” they developed robust policies from scratch through feedback rounds and internal sprints, created a well-structured action plan accounting for budget and timelines, and demonstrated how tailored support combined with internal commitment can drive meaningful progress.

The contrast with larger, geographically dispersed companies—which struggled with limited points of contact, capacity constraints, and competing priorities—was stark. Size doesn’t guarantee effectiveness; commitment and focused attention do.

What Technical Assistance Can and Cannot Do

The eight-month program revealed important truths about the limits and potential of technical assistance:

TA Is Not a Silver Bullet: Technical assistance alone cannot solve systemic infrastructure gaps. It must be coupled with targeted financing, especially for physical infrastructure like collection points, regional treatment facilities, and coordinated disposal systems.

Engagement Varies Wildly: Companies without contractual e-waste obligations often deprioritized participation. Digital sessions, while convenient in theory, proved less effective than face-to-face interactions due to connectivity issues, distraction, and the misconception that virtual sessions are for passive listening rather than joint work.

Investor Presence Matters: Contrary to initial assumptions that a “safe space” without investors would encourage candor, investor participation actually increased company engagement—signaling the extent to which e-waste is viewed through an investor relations lens rather than an operational imperative.

New Staff Are Champions: Interestingly, newer OGS staff were often more engaged than veterans, seeing the TA program as an opportunity for their own onboarding and professional development.

A Call for Coordinated Action

Based on the program’s findings, here’s what needs to happen—and I speak from experience working with companies, donors, and development finance institutions across Sub-Saharan Africa:

For Investors and Donors:

• Include minimum requirements for repairability and recyclability in investment due diligence
• Incentivize e-waste management through financing terms, milestones, or concessional rates
• Fund missing infrastructure: regional treatment facilities, joint testing and repair centers, coordinated collection drives
• Facilitate company coordination around joint advocacy and operational efforts, especially regionally
• Provide commercial training on costing and budgeting for e-waste management

For OGS Companies:

• Institutionalize e-waste management early in the company lifetime—adopt a policy and strategy to signal commitment to investors
• Assign clear internal responsibilities with official job descriptions; designate an e-waste champion
• Leverage networks like GOGLA for knowledge products, templates, and connections
• Strategically prioritize circularity—make e-waste a design consideration, not an afterthought
• Ignite discussions across supply chains with OEMs, distributors, and recyclers

For the Sector:

We need to stop treating e-waste as an unfortunate externality and start treating it as a design parameter. Product procurement must balance affordability with durability and end-of-life management. Repair feasibility must be built into business models from the start, with accessible spare parts, technical capacity, and intellectual property frameworks that enable rather than restrict maintenance.

Why This Matters Beyond Compliance

I’ve seen firsthand how solar technology transforms lives—from my work with SUNami Solar in Kenya’s arid and semi-arid areas to supporting startups through TechBridge Invest Africa and advising county governments on climate change policy. The impact is undeniable: increased household incomes, improved food security, enhanced resilience to climate shocks.

But sustainable impact requires sustainable practices. If we’re serious about climate solutions, we cannot ignore the full lifecycle implications of the technologies we deploy. E-waste management isn’t a distraction from our energy access mission—it’s integral to it.

The off-grid solar sector has proven remarkably innovative in overcoming financing barriers, distribution challenges, and last-mile delivery constraints. We need to bring that same innovative spirit to circularity.

This means:

• Embedding eco-design principles from product conception
• Building repair and refurbishment into business models
• Creating regional collection and treatment infrastructure
• Aligning incentive structures across the value chain
• Making e-waste management a sector-wide priority, not an individual company burden

The Path Forward

The three-fund collaboration that enabled this TA program demonstrates what’s possible when funders coordinate rather than duplicate efforts. Similar coordination is needed across the sector—among companies, between investors, and with governments developing e-waste regulations.

The program produced valuable outputs: templates for company-level systems, an open-source map of e-waste management service providers, guidelines on safe handling and transport, and targeted content on eco-design and cost-sharing models. These resources are available and should be widely disseminated.

But resources alone won’t drive change. What’s needed is a fundamental shift in how we perceive e-waste—from compliance burden to competitive advantage, from operational afterthought to strategic priority.

As someone who has worked at the intersection of renewable energy, business development, and social impact across multiple countries and contexts, I can say with confidence: The companies that figure this out early will be better positioned for long-term success. Those that continue treating it as someone else’s problem will face mounting reputational, regulatory, and operational risks.

The clean energy transition is too important to get this wrong. Let’s ensure the solutions we scale today don’t create the problems of tomorrow.

Key Takeaways

1. E-waste volumes are growing as off-grid solar products reach end-of-life, with significant environmental and health implications if mismanaged
2. Infrastructure gaps persist across Africa, with limited local collection, treatment, and recycling facilities forcing reliance on expensive export routes or long-term storage
3. Companies view e-waste as investor relations issue rather than operational priority, missing opportunities for competitive differentiation
4. Technical assistance has limits—it must be coupled with financing for infrastructure, clear contractual obligations, and high-level management buy-in
5. Coordination is essential among companies, investors, and governments to build cost-effective regional solutions and avoid duplicative efforts
6. Early action creates advantage—companies that institutionalize e-waste management and circularity principles now will be better positioned as regulations tighten