Disculpa, pero esta entrada está disponible sólo en English.
1. Introduction
The Socio-Ecological Reuse Systems (SERS) framework is an analytical and methodological tool originally developed within the eReuse project to support the study and replication of ICT reuse ecosystems. It builds on the foundational Socio-Ecological Systems (SES) framework proposed by McGinnis and Ostrom, adapting it to the specific characteristics of ICT devices, especially computers, and circular practices centred on refurbishment and reuse. These practices aim not only to extend the lifespan of devices but also to promote equitable access to digital infrastructure as a fundamental right. Refined through ongoing stakeholder engagement, SERS serves as a coding schema and a diagnostic tool to identify governance patterns, institutional agreements, and operational dynamics. It provides a shared vocabulary to compare practices, address systemic challenges, and guide the strategic replication of reuse initiatives.
2. Theoretical background: from SES to SERS
The SES framework is rooted in the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) approach. Originally designed to study the governance of common-pool resources such as forests, fisheries, or water systems, the IAD framework enables the analysis of institutional arrangements through nested levels of rules, operational, collective-choice, and constitutional, and the arenas where these rules shape decisions and outcomes.
The SES framework extends the IAD by offering a systems-based lens for understanding how actors, resources, infrastructures, and governance mechanisms interact within dynamic environments. It is particularly suited to contexts where the sustainability of a resource depends on collective action and adaptive institutions. Although initially developed for natural resource management, the SES framework has proven highly relevant for analysing digital and material commons.
In the case of ICT reuse ecosystems, ICT devices can be understood as socio-technical resources whose value and availability depend not only on technical attributes, but also on organisational collaboration and institutional design. ICT devices are typically rivalrous and potentially excludable resources. However, when reused within collaborative ecosystems, their access can be expanded and their lifespan extended, shifting their economic classification toward that of common-pool resources. To apply this logic to digital circularity, we developed the SERS framework as a contextualised extension of the SES model (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Socio-Ecological Systems (SES) framework with first-tier components (Source: McGinnis & Ostrom, 2014)
3. The SERS framework
Building on the SES model, the SERS framework was specifically designed to analyse the institutional dynamics of ICT reuse ecosystems. It retains the core structure and systemic logic of SES while adapting its aspects to the socio-technical nature and circular challenges of digital infrastructures.
The framework consists of five interrelated dimensions: Actors, Resource Units, Resource Systems, Governance, and Interactions. These dimensions allow for a comprehensive characterisation of ICT reuse ecosystems, offering a common structure to document how value is generated and redistributed through collective action.
Each component is analytically distinct, yet functionally connected. For example, actors operate within defined governance rules to manage refurbishment and allocation of ICT devices, which circulate through digital and physical infrastructures (resource systems). Interactions among these elements generate observable outcomes in terms of traceability and ICT access.
Figure 2. Socio-Ecological Reuse Systems (SERS) framework
The five dimensions of SERS have been tailored to the specificities of ICT reuse as follows:
Actors: Individuals or organisations involved in the reuse ecosystem, including donors organisations of ICT devices (public or private), refurbishments centres, distributors in second hand markets, maintainers, intermediate organisations (such as community centres or NGOs that distribute and support ICT access for end users), ICT-agents (e.g., community digital mentors or local ICT facilitators), end-beneficiaries, recyclers and policymakers. Each actor plays a role in enabling the circulation and sustainability of ICT resources.
Resource units: Defined as the usable hours of ICT devices, rather than the devices themselves. This unit of measurement links device condition with its remaining functional lifespan, allowing reuse to be framed as a service.
Resource systems: Includes the physical, logistical, and digital infrastructure required to extend the useful life of ICT devices. This includes logistics, storage facilities, distribution channels and digital tools that trace devices and document activity.
Governance: Encompasses the set of formal and informal rules that regulate rights over ICT devices, including their management and allocation. These rules are co-designed by ecosystem actors and are often formalised through use agreements, chains of custody, or service contracts.
Governance is structured around five fundamental rights that determine how each device is managed:
- Exclusion: Grants the authority to decide who may access or use the reuse ICT device, and under what conditions, and how those permissions are transferred.
- Access: Grants the right to physically use the device for non-subtractive activities, i.e., actions that do not degrade or alter the hardware, such as browsing the internet, reading documents, or using pre-installed software.
- Withdrawal: Authorises the functional use of a device as a tool for activities with added value, such as education, work, or digital inclusion and supports the end-beneficiaries, without implying property or control over the device.
- Management: Enables certain actors to modify, update, or maintain devices (e.g., installing software or repairing components), and manage distribution.
- Alienation: Permits the transfer or sale of the above rights, including decisions to recycle the device or offer it to the general public.
Interactions: Refer to the observable actions and decisions that result from coordination among actors, including reuse decisions, the allocation of devices, and the negotiation of roles and responsibilities. In digitally enabled ecosystems, many of these interactions can be documented and analysed through traceability data.
Social, economic, and political context: Refers to the macro-level conditions that influence how reuse ecosystems emerge and function. It includes demographic and income-based inequalities, digital divides, education levels….
Related ecosystems: Captures the influence of broader infrastructures and supranational systems that interact with reuse ecosystems, such as national level e-waste directives and extended producer responsibility schemes.
While the current version of the SERS framework focuses on these five dimensions, a sixth, Outcomes, is being developed in parallel research. It aims to provide a systematic method for evaluating reuse activities’ environmental, social, and economic impacts.
These components interact through defined logical relationships, often visualised using directional arrows in the SERS diagram:
- «Are inputs of» / «Are part of»: Resource units (e.g., usable hours of ICT devices) are integrated into broader resource systems that include digital tools, storage, and logistics. These units feed into the system and are shaped by it, illustrating their embedded within the infrastructural and operational environment.
- «Define and set rules for»: Governance refers to the collective creation of formal and informal norms that regulate resource access, use, and transfer. These rules, often captured in contracts, chains of custody, or service agreements, shape actor roles and responsibilities within the ecosystem.
- «Assigned to positions«: Actors are not merely participants but occupy defined roles with corresponding rights and duties. These roles are determined by governance mechanisms and affect how actors interact with both resources and each other.
- «Set conditions for»: Governance and resource systems both shape the environment in which interactions take place. While governance sets normative and conditions (e.g., who can do what), the resource system imposes practical conditions (e.g., available infrastructure, diagnostic tools).
- Feedback loops: Interactions generate traceable outcomes (e.g., reuse rates, access metrics), which inform new decisions, rules, and operational practices. This feedback mechanism allows continuous learning and adaptation, reinforcing system sustainability.
In summary, the SERS framework provides a language to describe not only the components of a governance system and the dynamic and conditional relationships among them. These interactions are essential to understanding how sustainability is (or is not) achieved over time.
4. Application, origins and use cases
The SERS framework is currently used in three primary ways:
- As a coding schema for qualitative research: It structures interviews, documents, and field observations around key SERS dimensions and attributes, enabling comparative insight and tracing institutional change over time.
- As an institutional design tool: It guides the development of agreements and operational roles among stakeholders.
- As a replication and diagnostic guide: It helps emerging initiatives identify essential components, assess their maturity, and configure governance systems based on their specific context.
An attribute catalogue follows, summarising key indicators for each dimension.
5. Aspects catalogue
The SERS framework identifies a total of 25 aspects distributed across four interrelated dimensions:
| Dimension | ID | Aspect name | Description |
| External setting | 1 | Social, economic, and political context | Examines structural conditions such as poverty, digital exclusion, and political context that shape the governance and accessibility of ICT reuse initiatives |
| Actors | 2 | Operational start year | Specifies the date when the ecosystem became active |
| 3 | Leadership | Describes the strategic direction and guidance provided by key actors in the ecosystems. | |
| 4 | Location | Identifies the geographical areas where the ecosystem is active | |
| 5 | Resource dependency | Describes the reliance of the ecosystem on external actors for the provision of ICT devices. | |
| 6 | Economic attributes | Describes the financial mechanism sustaining the ecosystem. | |
| 7 | Policy Making | Formulation and implementation of local policies that drive ecosystem development. | |
| 8 | Cultural attributes | Describe the values and beliefs that influence the ecosystem’s practices (e.g., a commitment to open-source software). | |
| 9 | Group size | Describes the operational team composition and staffing structure | |
| Resource Unit | 10 | Resources unit boundaries | Defines the technical threshold that distinguishes a reusable device from one destined for recycling based on its performance. |
| 11 | Resources unit mobility | Describes the efficiency and reliability of processes for transporting devices between donors and refurbishment centres. | |
| 12 | Resources replacement rate | Measures the rate at which devices are triaged for reuse or recycling in studied ecosystems. | |
| 13 | Interactions with the resource | Identifies the range of actions aimed at maximizing device functionality and lifespan. This includes the deployment of open-source operating systems and productivity software, often under free licenses to reduce costs, as well as the implementation of maintenance strategies. | |
| 14 | Economic value (device) Reuse compensation and material extraction valuation | Defines the financial compensation assigned for reallocating a device for reuse. Indicates whether a centre is able to obtain value from the materials extracted from a device. | |
| Resource System | 15 | Volume | Represents the total weight of devices directed to recyclers, measured in tonnes, that have been deemed unsuitable for reuse. |
| 16 | Infrastructure | Identifies the specialized tools used for device refurbishment | |
| 17 | Productivity | Measures the volume of ICT reused devices that have been successfully distributed within the ecosystem. | |
| 18 | Storage capacity | Quantifies the physical area available for device storage within the ecosystem (flat surface) | |
| 19 | Technology used | Refers to the digital tools and software solutions implemented to manage ICT devices | |
| Governance (property rights) | 20 | Exclusion right | Refers to the formal and informal rules, often codified through agreements, custody chains or service contracts, that structure how property rights are distributed and exercised over ICT devices. |
| 21 | Access right | ||
| 22 | Withdrawal right | ||
| 23 | Management right | ||
| 24 | Alienation right | ||
| External setting | 25 | Related ecosystems | Captures the external regulatory and market contexts influencing ICT reuse, while also identifying the network of interconnected systems. |
6. References
McGinnis, M. D., & Ostrom, E. (2014). Social-ecological system framework: Initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecology and Society, 19(2).
7. Citation and License
If you wish to reference or build upon this framework, please cite as follows:
Cite as: The Socio-Ecological Reuse Systems (SERS) Framework: Analysing Governance in ICT Reuse Ecosystems. eReuse.org.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. You are free to share and adapt the material for any purpose, provided that proper credit is given and any changes are indicated.
For questions or further information, please contact us here.