Stakeholder Engagement and Sustainable E-Waste Competitive Strategies: Evidence from Utility Firms in Kenya

The electronics industry is among the largest and fastest-growing sectors globally, a trend that has resulted in a significant increase in the generation of electronic waste (e-waste). E-waste may be viewed not only as an environmental challenge but also as a strategic resource. Despite the growing importance of e-waste management, empirical research examining the relationship between e-waste disposal strategies and competitive advantage remains limited in the Kenyan context, particularly within the utility sector. This gap persists despite Kenya’s unique regulatory, institutional, and socio-economic environment, where weaknesses in the adequacy, coverage, and enforcement of e-waste regulations have contributed to documented environmental and public health incidents, including lead poisoning cases associated with improper disposal of electronic waste. At the same time, Kenya presents opportunities for economic gains through e-waste recycling and reuse. The study examined the influence of e-waste disposal strategies on the competitive advantage of utility firms in Kenya. The study focused on utility companies dealing with electricity, telecommunications, water and sanitation operating across all forty-seven counties, which are among the largest generators of e-waste in the country. The specific objectives were to assess the effect of value addition and transfer of e-waste on the competitive advantage of utility firms in Kenya, with stakeholder engagement applied as a moderating variable. The study was anchored on the resource-based view theory, competition theory, game theory, and waste management theory. Survey research design was adopted, targeting officers drawn from utility firms using a random sample of 235 respondents. Primary data was collected using structured questionnaires administered through hand delivery and electronic mail. Data analysis involved descriptive and inferential statistics, with multiple regression analysis conducted using SPSS version 25. The results revealed that the variables had a positive and statistically significant relationship with competitive advantage of utility firms in Kenya. The regression model yielded R² value of 0.302 (30.2%) in Model 1 without the moderating variable. After the introduction of the moderating variable in Model 2, R2 rose to 0.514 (51.4%). In Model 3, R2 increased to 0.545 (54.5%) with moderator variable as intercept and slope shifter, indicating that the independent variables jointly explained 54.5% of the variation in competitive advantage, while 45.5% was attributable to factors not captured in the study. After introduction of stakeholder engagement emerged as moderator variable, it had the highest beta of +0.499 which was significant. The study concluded that environmentally compliant and strategically managed e-waste disposal practices enhanced competitive advantage by minimizing social and environmental costs, improving organizational efficiency, and maximizing welfare outcomes. The findings contribute to theory, policy, and practice by demonstrating that sustainable e-waste management is not only an environmental imperative but also a strategic driver of competitive advantage for utility firms in Kenya.

e-waste, utility firms, stakeholder awareness, value addition, transfer of e-waste, competitive advantage.

1. Aragon-Correa, J. A., & Sharma, S. (2003). A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 71–88. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bansal, P., & Clelland, I. (2004). Talking trash: Legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1), 93–103. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Brunner, P. H., & Rechberger, H. (2004). Practical handbook of material flow analysis. CRC Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Delmas, M. A., & Toffel, M. W. (2008). Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box. Strategic Management Journal, 29(10), 1027–1055. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. E-waste is increasing globally while recycling remains low (AP News, 2024). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. https://apnews.com/article/e37667e5a6b08fe8ef161d386eb3404d [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. E-Waste Regulations in Kenya. (2025). Nalabix.com. https://nalabix.com/e-waste-regulations-in-kenya/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Fiksel, J. (2006). Sustainability and resilience: Toward a systems approach. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 2(2), 14–21 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Gharfalkar, M., Court, R., Campbell, C., Ali, Z., & Hillier, G. (2015). Analysis of waste hierarchy in the European waste directive 2008/98/EC. Waste Management, 39, 305–313. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Goforth, C. (2015). Validity and reliability [PDF]. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate .net/publication/281241077_Validity_and_Reliability [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 986–1014. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9512280033 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Hoffman, A. J. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 351–371. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Hoffman, A. J. (2007). Carbon strategies: How leading companies are reducing their climate change footprint. University of Michigan Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Kenya’s New Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Law Mandates Producer Responsibility for E-Waste Management. (2025, December 24). Sustainability Directory. https://news.sustainability-directory.com/circularity/kenyas-new-law-mandates-producer-responsibility-for-e-waste-management/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Kenya Targets Manufacturers in Push to Curb Rising E-Waste. (2025, November 12). Kenyan Wallstreet. https://kenyanwallstreet.com/kenya-targets-electronic-manufacturers-in-push-to-curb-rising-e-waste [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Sample size. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607–610. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Mageto, C. M., Mutui, F., & Sitawa, M. (2021). E-Waste management on environmental sustainability: A case of universities in Lang’ata Constituency, Nairobi City County, Kenya. International Journal of Applied Science and Research. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352681829_E-Waste_Management_on_Environmental_Sustainability_A_Case_of_Universities_in_Lang%27ata_Constituency_Nairobi_City_County_Kenya [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. National Environment Management Authority. (2025). Guidelines for E-Waste Management in Kenya. NEMA. https://nema.go.ke/laws-and-guidelines/e-waste-guidelines/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. National Environment Management Authority. (2025). Electrical and Electronic Waste Management Regulations, 2025 (Draft). NEMA. https://nema.go.ke/laws-and-guidelines/draft-e-waste-regulations/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. National E-Waste Management Strategy 2019–2024. (2024). International Energy Agency (IEA). https://www.iea.org/policies/25114-national-e-waste-management-strategy-2019-2024 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Okutoyi, E. (2014, October 7). Safaricom ventures into e-waste programme. ITWeb Africa. http://www.itwebafrica.com/telecommunications/153-kenya/232460-kenyas-safaricom-ventures-into-e-waste-management [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 697–713. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199710)18:9<697: AID-SMJ909>3.0.CO;2-C [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Omari, R. M. (2022). The role of regulatory framework on e-waste in Kenya: Case of Nairobi County (2010–2022) (Unpublished thesis). University of Nairobi. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. https://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/handle/11295/162597 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Porter, M. E. (1991). Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 12(S2), 95–117. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250121008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1–2), 62–77. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Porter, M. E., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment–competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97–118. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.9.4.97 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Parliament of Kenya. (2025). The Electronic Equipment Disposal, Recycling and Reuse Bill, No. 5 of 2025. Government Printer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. https://www.parliament.go.ke/sites/default/files/2025-09/The%20Electronic%20Equipment%20Disposal%20Recycling%20and%20Reuse%20Bill%2C%20No.5%20of%202025_0.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Rajendra, K.K., & Arvind K. N. (2013). Multi stakeholder decision analysis and comparative risk assessment for reuse recycle oriented e waste management strategies: a game theoretic approach. Waste Management & Research, 31(9), 881 895. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0734242X13490983. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 534–559. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students (5th ed.). Prentice Hall [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Sarkis, J. (2003). A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 11(4), 397–409. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3–4), 591–611. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Indirect Effect of Liquidity and Activity on Company Value with Profitability as an Intervening Variable
• Effect of Financial Skills, Knowledge, and Attitude on The Financial Behaviour of Clergy
• A Decade of Review: Trends in Budget Execution and Financial Performance of Development Projects in Tanzania (2014/15-2023/24)
• The Influence of Pre-Project Planning on the Budget Absorption Rate of Public Funded Infrastructure Projects in Kenya a Comparative Case Study of Narok, Migori, and Kisii County Government Projects
• Assessment of Factors Influencing Digital Transformation in Hotels’ Facility Management in Abuja Metropolis, Nigeria