Why Circular IT Management Beats Risky Hardware Ownership

In an era of rapid AI advancement and economic volatility, the traditional buy-and-dispose IT model has shifted from a stable strategy to a significant business risk.

As a leading Technology Lifecycle Management provider, 3stepIT helps businesses transition from static ownership to a sustainable, circular approach. Through its refurbishment centres, which breathe second life into more than a million devices annually, 3stepIT enables organisations to drastically reduce e-waste.

In this Q&A, Jakob Lagander, CEO, 3stepIT explores the Total Cost of Impact (TCI) framework and 3stepIT’s specialised asset management platform. By providing real-time visibility into device health, security and lifecycle costs, this end-to-end approach ensures that technology investments remain flexible, secure and – most importantly – better for both the bottom line and the planet.

3stepIT advocates for a service-based model over outright ownership. In a landscape of rapid AI-driven hardware updates, why is traditional IT ownership now considered a strategic business risk rather than an asset? 

Today, organisations are investing in technology amid economic uncertainty, rising prices and heightened security threats. To stay competitive, they need to make technology investment decisions that are flexible, responsive, responsible and future-ready.

At the same time, technology has evolved from a set of discrete tools into a highly interconnected set of systems. Decisions about how tech is procured, managed, retired and replaced now have far-reaching financial, operational, compliance and environmental impact – both within and beyond the walls of an organisation. 

However, many businesses still use yesterday’s metrics to evaluate tech investment decisions and acquire technology through capital-intensive models that are inherently inflexible. Ownership locks businesses into fixed assets and long refresh cycles, limiting their ability to adapt as both technology and risk evolve. 

It’s not simply a question of ownership versus usage, of course. 

We are about to publish a global report built around what we call Total Cost of Impact (TCI): a model designed to help organisations make more informed and resilient technology investment decisions in this increasingly complex environment. 

Rather than suggesting businesses are looking at the wrong things, the model recognises that many are already weighing multiple factors, but often without a complete view of lifecycle cost, risk and value from procurement through to end-of-life. 

TCI is intended to help leaders bring that fuller picture into focus, so they can plan for change, respond to innovation more effectively and make sure technology continues to deliver value as operating conditions evolve.

You manage the entire lifecycle from acquisition to refurbishment. What is the current second-life rate for devices returned to your centres and how does this directly reduce a client’s Scope 3 emissions?

Last year, we securely and sustainably processed more than a million devices in our refurbishment centres, with nine out of 10 workplace IT devices being made available for reuse on the secondary market. 

The September 2025 peer reviewed study by French environmental consultancy firm Circul’r quantified the environmental impact of our circular technology management approach, comparing it to using a linear cash purchase model to buy the same devices. 

The research found that a laptop procured through our circular technology model will have an average combined first- and second-life lifespan of seven years for business use. This is two years or 40% longer than the average lifespan of a laptop purchased under a linear model. 

The study showed that extending the life of technology improves its environmental impact by:

• Reducing the material footprint of a laptop by an average of 24%
• Reducing the laptop-related CO2e emissions by an average of 17% over the course of two lifecycles.

Beyond the purchase price, what are the primary hidden environmental and social costs that your new TCI model now makes visible to CIOs?

TCI will bring lifecycle costs into view from the moment investment decisions are made, long before most environmental and social impacts actually become visible.

Hidden costs may include poor energy efficiency, waste created by underutilised assets, low repairability or the loss of material and financial value when technology isn’t refurbished and made available for reuse after its first lifecycle. 

The challenge is that while tech leaders recognise the benefits of managing tech more sustainably – three-quarters say it reduces environmental footprint (75%) and two-thirds recognise it lowers costs (66%) – many make tech investment decisions without considering the downstream environmental and social impacts they will create. 

Just over half rate environmental factors as important considerations in the procurement process, including waste reduction (56%), energy efficiency (60%), ESG reporting (54%) and refurbishment and resale (53%). 

TCI will help to bring these long-term considerations into view from the outset. It encourages CIOs to consider upfront how they will track assets end-to-end, account for residual value, specify certified data erasure and responsible disposal, evaluate repairability and upgrade potential and monitor utilisation so that idle assets do not become waste.

This improves environmental sustainability while also increasing efficiency, returns, compliance and resilience.

How will the TCI framework integrate with existing carbon footprint software? Can a CIO use these metrics to provide audit-ready ESG reports for stakeholders and regulators?

TCI will be intentionally introduced as a strategic decision-making model, designed to provide visibility into lifecycle costs, risks and value at the point when technology investments are made, rather than as a reporting tool.

It will complement existing reporting platforms by helping organisations make better upstream decisions that ultimately shape what will be reported as environmental impact. Over time, we hope TCI will be operationalised through assessments, benchmarks and decision-support tools that can integrate more directly with reporting systems.

A useful parallel is the waste hierarchy. It began as a guiding model for behaviour and decision-making and, over time, evolved into a foundation for regulation, procurement standards and reporting frameworks. 

TCI will allow organisations to demonstrate that their technology investments are both resilient and responsible by embedding lifecycle considerations into decision‑making, and actively managing environmental and social impacts before commitments are made, rather than reactively reporting outcomes after retirement.

Many organisations keep their assets for more than five years to save money. How does the TCI model demonstrate the hidden security and compliance risks – and the actual cost increase – of holding onto legacy hardware?

While some organisations extend device life beyond five years to defer capital spend, the costs, risks and loss of value can rise when replacement is delayed. TCI makes those hidden trade-offs visible from the outset by assessing the cost, value and risk that emerge across the tech lifecycle in four core impact areas: financial, operational, security and compliance and environmental and social. 

For example, by taking an operational lens when making tech investment decisions, organisations may consider the impact of increased downtime and reduced employee productivity as assets age. Having early visibility into the security and compliance impact accounts for the vulnerability of legacy hardware, while financial considerations might include the erosion of residual value as resale potential diminishes over time. 

Today, these costs and risks are not always visible when investment decisions are made, but can accumulate quickly over time. TCI takes a lifecycle view, helping organisations balance refresh timing against upfront cost and the full financial, operational, compliance and environmental impact over time.

For a skeptical CFO, what is the most compelling piece of data that shows a circular technology lifecycle actually delivers better long-term business value than a linear buy-and-dispose strategy?

CFOs are responsible for the financial costs and value creation that occur across all parts of the business over time. When it comes to technology investments, they are often asked to absorb losses linked to technology risks that were never visible in the original investment case they approved.

Without a lifecycle view, CFOs may be able to control purchase price, or even maintenance price, but they cannot account for value erosion, risk exposure and write-offs across the lifecycle, for instance. In other words, what technology will cost to own, operate, secure, retire and replace.

One of the most compelling arguments is how much value can be wasted at end-of-life. Just over a quarter of organisations do not recover value from their decommissioned tech – and in some European markets this rises to more than 40% – meaning the material and financial value held in an asset after its first use is lost.

In a linear model, that loss is built in – devices are purchased, depreciated and often decommissioned with little or no return. At best, end-of-life is treated as an afterthought, resulting in unplanned, low-value outcomes.

TCI will provide an antidote by encouraging organisations to plan for the end at the beginning, including tracking technology end-to-end, optimising utilisation and recovering residual market value when assets are ready to be refreshed. 

For a CFO, that creates a shift from cost control to value creation. It means fewer write-offs, better capital efficiency and a clearer line of sight between technology investment decisions and long-term financial outcomes.