A National Survey on Electronic Consumption: Insights from Canada

Despite the increasing focus on electronic waste, a significant knowledge gap persists regarding the magnitude of active and inactive stocks and their implications for advancing a circular economy. In this context, an active device refers to equipment that is operational and currently in use, whereas an inactive device denotes equipment that is non-operational or no longer in use but retained within households. Inactive device retention creates a latent e-waste stream, locks up valuable materials, and poses environmental and safety risks. This study investigates patterns of ownership, storage practices, and behavioural motivations associated with active and inactive electrical and electronic equipment in Canada. The analysis is based on a nationally representative survey of 800 Canadian households and encompasses seven product categories, including information and communication technology devices and major household appliances. The findings reveal that Canadian households collectively possess more than 181 million electrical and electronic products, corresponding to approximately 3.7 million tonnes of material stock. Of this total, 91% of devices are actively used, while 9% constitute inactive stock. Notably, hibernation rates are disproportionately high among smaller devices, indicating a pronounced phenomenon of digital dormancy. The prevalence of inactive device retention in Canada aligns with patterns observed in other high-income countries, yet substantially exceeds levels reported in middle- and low-income contexts. Unlocking the circular potential of inactive stock requires rebalancing policy efforts, placing greater emphasis on behavioural drivers. By transforming individual behaviours can the hidden reservoir of retained electronics be mobilized into productive material cycles. • Canadian households possess more than 181 million active and inactive EEE • 91% are in active use; 9% constitute inactive stock • Smaller devices exhibit disproportionately high hibernation rates • Stock levels exceed those reported in low and middle income contexts • Policy should prioritize behavioural determinants of retention