Interview: the skeptic's view on Repair, reuse & refurbishment — what would change their mind

Despite the global right-to-repair movement gaining momentum—with 47 US states introducing repair legislation since 2021 and the European Union mandating repairability scores on consumer electronics starting in 2025—skeptics remain unconvinced that repair, reuse, and refurbishment can scale beyond niche markets. The certified refurbished electronics market reached $67 billion globally in 2024, yet product lifespans continue to shrink, with the average smartphone replaced every 2.5 years despite functional utility extending well beyond that threshold. This synthesized expert perspective presents the core skeptical arguments against the repair-reuse paradigm while examining what evidence and structural changes might shift skeptical viewpoints toward genuine support.

Why It Matters

The repair, reuse, and refurbishment sector sits at a critical inflection point between marginal sustainability theater and transformative circular economy infrastructure. In 2024, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation estimated that extending product lifespans by just 50% across consumer electronics, appliances, and textiles could reduce associated carbon emissions by 150 million tonnes annually in the EU alone. The global refurbishment market grew 12% year-over-year in 2025, with Back Market and similar platforms processing over 30 million devices annually.

Yet skeptics point to troubling counter-indicators. Average product lifespan for major appliances dropped from 11 years in 2000 to 7 years in 2024, according to the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. Repair completion rates at community repair events hover around 50-60%, and even successful repairs often fail within 18 months due to cascading component failures. The fundamental question remains: can repair economics ever compete with the manufacturing efficiencies that make replacement cheaper than restoration?

Right-to-repair legislation accelerated dramatically in 2024-2025, with California's SB 244 requiring manufacturers to provide parts and documentation for products selling over 50,000 units. The EU's Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation established mandatory repairability indices, while France pioneered the "indice de réparabilité" scoring system now adopted across 12 member states. These regulatory frameworks represent unprecedented policy support, yet implementation gaps and enforcement challenges persist.

Key Concepts

Right-to-Repair Laws: Legislative frameworks requiring manufacturers to provide consumers and independent repair providers access to parts, tools, diagnostic software, and service documentation. Modern right-to-repair laws increasingly include "parts pairing" prohibitions that prevent manufacturers from using software locks to disable replacement components not sourced from authorized channels.

Planned Obsolescence: The deliberate design strategy of limiting product utility through physical degradation, software obsolescence, or aesthetic styling cycles. Skeptics note that while planned obsolescence is widely condemned, distinguishing between intentional obsolescence and legitimate engineering trade-offs remains contentious. A thinner smartphone may have a smaller battery, but consumers consistently choose the thinner option.

Repair Cafes: Community-organized events where volunteer repair coaches help participants fix broken items. The Repair Cafe Foundation, headquartered in Amsterdam, has supported over 3,000 locations across 40 countries since 2009. These events serve dual purposes: practical repair outcomes and skill-building that promotes repair culture.

Refurbishment Economics: The financial model governing device restoration, including acquisition costs, diagnostic labor, component replacement, cosmetic restoration, and certification processes. Viable refurbishment typically requires acquiring devices at 15-30% of original retail value to achieve sustainable margins after restoration.

Parts Availability: Perhaps the most contentious battleground in repair advocacy. Original equipment manufacturers historically restricted parts access, though recent legislation increasingly mandates availability. Skeptics argue that even with mandated access, the economics of stocking parts for products with thousands of variants remains prohibitive for independent repairers.

What's Working and What Isn't

What's Working

EU Right-to-Repair Directive Implementation: The European Union's comprehensive approach combining mandatory repairability scores, parts availability requirements, and consumer information provisions represents the most ambitious regulatory framework globally. Early data from France's repair index program shows consumer purchasing decisions shifting toward higher-scoring products, with a 15% price premium tolerance for devices scoring above 7/10 on repairability.

Apple Self Service Repair Program: Apple's 2022 launch of self-service repair parts and tools for iPhone and Mac devices marked a significant industry shift. While critics note the program's limitations—including diagnostic software that still restricts certain repairs—the availability of genuine parts at published prices established a precedent that other manufacturers increasingly follow. By 2025, Apple expanded the program to 33 countries with over 200 repair types available.

Certified Refurbished Markets: Platforms like Back Market, Decluttr, and Amazon Renewed have legitimized refurbished electronics purchasing for mainstream consumers. Back Market's quality certification process, including 52-point device inspections and 12-month warranties, achieved customer satisfaction ratings within 3% of new device purchases. The certified refurbishment sector processed approximately $14 billion in US transactions during 2024.

Extended Producer Responsibility Integration: Forward-thinking EPR schemes now incorporate repair and refurbishment incentives alongside traditional recycling targets. France's AGEC law (Anti-Waste for a Circular Economy) includes repair fund provisions that subsidize consumer repair costs for certain product categories, demonstrating viable models for repair ecosystem financing.

What Isn't Working

OEM Resistance and Parts Pairing: Despite legislative progress, manufacturers continue developing technological countermeasures to independent repair. Parts pairing—the practice of using software verification to disable replacement components—remains widespread. Apple's Face ID and True Tone displays, Samsung's camera modules, and John Deere's hydraulic sensors all require manufacturer authentication, effectively negating parts availability mandates.

Repairability Score Gaming: Early implementation of France's repair index revealed manufacturers optimizing for scores without improving actual repairability. Products earned high scores through documentation availability while maintaining component integration that prevented practical repair. The EU's revised scoring methodology addresses some concerns, but gaming potential persists.

Independent Repair Shop Economics: Despite improved parts access, independent repair shops face unsustainable economics. Average repair shop margins declined from 35% in 2019 to 22% in 2024, squeezed by declining average repair values as easy repairs shift to DIY and difficult repairs require specialized equipment. The US repair technician workforce declined 8% between 2020 and 2024.

Consumer Behavior Inertia: Perhaps the most fundamental challenge lies in consumer preferences. Surveys consistently show 70%+ support for right-to-repair principles, yet repair intent-to-action conversion rates remain below 15%. Convenience economics—the time cost of repair research, logistics, and wait time—often exceed replacement costs for products below $200 retail value.

Key Players

Established Leaders

iFixit: The California-based repair advocacy organization and parts supplier operates the world's largest repair manual database with over 90,000 free guides. iFixit's annual smartphone repairability teardowns influence both consumer perception and manufacturer behavior, with its scoring methodology increasingly referenced in regulatory frameworks.

Back Market: The French refurbishment marketplace processes over 5 million devices annually across 17 countries. Back Market's seller certification program and quality standards have professionalized the refurbishment sector while providing data infrastructure for understanding refurbishment economics at scale.

Repair Cafe Foundation: The Amsterdam-headquartered nonprofit supports volunteer repair communities globally, having facilitated over 2.5 million repair attempts since 2009. Their data collection on repair success rates by product category provides unique insights into repair feasibility.

Fairphone: The Dutch smartphone manufacturer designs devices explicitly for longevity and repairability, achieving 10/10 on France's repair index. Fairphone's modular architecture enables user-serviceable battery, screen, and camera replacement while proving that repairability can coexist with competitive product specifications.

Emerging Startups

Circular Computing: UK-based laptop refurbisher achieving carbon-negative certification through comprehensive lifecycle management, demonstrating enterprise-scale refurbishment viability.

Swappie: Finnish smartphone refurbishment platform combining AI-powered diagnostics with standardized restoration processes, reducing average refurbishment time by 40%.

AnywhereWorks: Modular electronics platform developing standardized component interfaces to enable cross-manufacturer parts compatibility.

Key Investors & Funders

European Investment Bank: The EIB's Circular Economy Initiative committed €2.5 billion to circular business models through 2027, with significant allocations to repair infrastructure.

US Environmental Protection Agency: EPA grant programs increasingly fund repair-focused municipal initiatives under the Inflation Reduction Act's circular economy provisions.

Closed Loop Partners: The circular economy-focused investment firm's Ventures Group has backed multiple repair and refurbishment technology startups.

Repair and Reuse KPI Benchmarks

Metric	Current Industry Average	Best-in-Class	Target for Skeptic Conversion
Repair Completion Rate	55%	78% (iFixit-guided)	>85% with proper tooling
Average Repair Cost vs. Replacement	45%	25%	<20% for mainstream adoption
Post-Repair Survival Rate (18 months)	62%	89%	>95% to match new products
Parts Availability Timeline	3-7 days	Same-day (Apple stores)	<24 hours for common repairs
Refurbished Device Return Rate	8%	3% (certified platforms)	<2% matching new products
Consumer Repair Intent Conversion	15%	35% (repair cafe attendees)	>50% for mass market impact
Independent Repair Shop Gross Margin	22%	40%	>35% for sustainable businesses

Examples

France's Repair Fund ("Fonds Réparation"): Launched in December 2022 under the AGEC law, this program provides direct consumer subsidies for textile, footwear, and leather goods repairs. By 2024, the fund had subsidized over 1.2 million repairs, with average subsidies of €7-25 per item. Early data shows repair volumes increased 34% in covered categories compared to baseline, demonstrating that modest financial incentives can shift consumer behavior. The program's expansion to electronics in 2025 will provide crucial evidence on whether repair subsidies can overcome electronics replacement economics.
Apple's Independent Repair Provider Program: Beyond self-service repair, Apple's IRP program certified over 5,000 independent repair shops globally by 2025, providing access to genuine parts, tools, and training. Program participants report 40% increases in repair volume following certification, primarily from customers seeking warranty-preserving repairs. However, critics note that certification requirements effectively filter for shops willing to accept Apple's terms, potentially reducing rather than expanding repair access diversity.
Amsterdam's Repair Economy Initiative: The city of Amsterdam integrated repair services into urban planning through dedicated repair districts, co-located repair cafes with municipal services, and procurement preferences for repairable products. Between 2021 and 2025, the initiative increased per-capita repair activity by 60% while reducing electronic waste volumes 18% below projections. The model demonstrates how municipal-level coordination can create repair ecosystem density that individual interventions cannot achieve.

Action Checklist

Assess product portfolio repairability using the French repair index methodology to identify improvement opportunities and regulatory compliance gaps
Develop parts availability strategy including inventory management, logistics partnerships, and pricing structures that enable profitable independent repair
Implement design-for-repair principles in new product development, including modular architecture, standardized fasteners, and accessible component placement
Establish refurbishment channel partnerships with certified platforms to capture product lifecycle value and reduce warranty liability through proper reconditioning
Create repair data infrastructure to track repair outcomes, common failure modes, and component-level reliability for continuous improvement
Engage repair advocacy organizations proactively to understand emerging legislative requirements and build credibility with repair-conscious consumers

FAQ

Q: Can repair economics ever compete with manufacturing scale advantages that make replacement cheaper? A: The economic comparison is more nuanced than simple cost arithmetic. Manufacturing advantages in unit costs must be weighed against logistics costs, inventory carrying costs, and increasingly, extended producer responsibility fees that internalize end-of-life costs. Additionally, repair economics improve dramatically with volume—iFixit's data shows repair costs drop 40% when common repairs occur frequently enough to justify parts stocking and technician specialization. The question is not whether repair can match manufacturing economics but whether regulatory and consumer preference shifts can create sufficient repair volume to achieve those economics.

Q: How do parts pairing and software locks undermine right-to-repair legislation? A: Parts pairing represents an asymmetric response where manufacturers comply with the letter of parts availability requirements while using software verification to prevent non-authorized repairs from functioning fully. Current legislation increasingly addresses this through explicit parts pairing prohibitions—Colorado's 2023 agricultural repair law specifically prohibits manufacturers from requiring authorization for replacement parts to function. However, enforcement remains challenging as manufacturers frame verification requirements as security or safety measures rather than repair restrictions.

Q: What evidence would convince skeptics that repair can scale beyond niche markets? A: Skeptics consistently cite three evidence thresholds: first, repair completion rates exceeding 85% with standardized outcome data; second, post-repair survival rates matching new product reliability; third, independent repair business models achieving sustainable profitability without subsidy. France's repair fund provides an emerging evidence base, while platforms like Back Market generate data on refurbishment economics at scale. Skeptics also seek evidence that repair preference survives price parity tests—when repair and replacement cost the same, do consumers still choose repair?

Q: Why do repair cafes have higher success rates than professional repair shops for some categories? A: Repair cafe success rates benefit from selection bias—participants self-select for repairable items and bring intrinsic motivation to complete repairs. Professional shops must accept all incoming work regardless of repairability. However, repair cafes excel at simple repairs where labor cost is the primary barrier: clothing alterations, furniture refinishing, and small appliance repairs. Their 50-60% aggregate success rate masks higher rates for appropriate categories and lower rates for electronics where professional equipment and expertise are essential.

Q: How should organizations balance repair investments against recycling infrastructure? A: The waste hierarchy prioritizes repair and reuse above recycling, but practical implementation requires portfolio thinking. Products with high embedded value, strong resale markets, and modular architectures warrant repair investment—smartphones, laptops, and major appliances fit this profile. Products with low unit value, complex material compositions, or rapid obsolescence cycles may be better served by efficient recycling. Organizations should map their product portfolio against repairability indices and residual value curves to optimize resource allocation across circular economy interventions.

Sources

Ellen MacArthur Foundation. "Circular Economy in Detail: Electronics and the Circular Economy." 2024 Annual Report. Available at ellenmacarthurfoundation.org.
European Commission. "Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR): Implementation Guidelines." Official Journal of the European Union, 2024.
iFixit. "2025 Smartphone Repairability Scorecard: Annual Assessment Methodology and Results." iFixit Research Publications, January 2025.
ADEME (French Agency for Ecological Transition). "Evaluation of the French Repairability Index: Two-Year Implementation Review." Technical Report, 2024.
Repair Cafe Foundation. "Global Impact Report 2024: Repair Activity Data and Environmental Impact Assessment." Amsterdam, 2024.
US PIRG Education Fund. "Repair Wins: Right to Repair Legislative Tracker and Implementation Status." Annual State of Repair Report, 2025.
Back Market. "State of Refurbishment Report 2024: Market Size, Quality Metrics, and Consumer Behavior Analysis." Industry White Paper, 2024.