EU right to repair: Repair costs must be reduced

EU legislation has introduced a right to repair, aiming to make repairs more accessible and affordable for consumers. However, experts argue that while progress has been made, significant challenges remain. Katrin Meyer, director of the Runden Tisch Reparatur, a non-profit organization advocating for repair-friendly products, acknowledges improvements but emphasizes that the goal of making repairs universally feasible and economically viable has yet to be fully realized. The new EU regulations require manufacturers to design products in a way that makes them easier to repair, with costs deemed “reasonable.” This follows years of advocacy by environmental and consumer protection groups, along with independent repairers. Despite these changes, many consumers still face barriers to accessing quality repairs. According to Meyer, this is particularly true in areas lacking robust repair infrastructure, where there is insufficient combination of professional services and volunteer-led initiatives. As demand for repairs grows, these gaps could widen, especially since many small repair shops operate with minimal staff, often relying on one or two individuals who may retire, leaving businesses shuttered. In some regions, even where repair services exist, willingness among professionals to engage in repairs remains low. A recent anecdote shared during an interview highlights this issue: a local appliance service recommended purchasing a new product rather than repairing an existing one. Such attitudes reflect broader concerns within the industry, where repair work is sometimes viewed as less profitable compared to selling new items. Meyer points out that this mindset can be exacerbated by product designs that complicate access to replacement parts, making repairs unnecessarily difficult or expensive. While the law applies to large appliances sold since 2021, enforcement remains inconsistent. Without clear penalties for non-compliance, companies that prioritize sales over sustainability have little incentive to adhere strictly to the rules. Meyer suggests that stronger market forces, such as a thriving, independent repair sector, could help counterbalance such tendencies. Independent workshops must demonstrate their value, and their operations should not be obstructed by technological barriers imposed by manufacturers. There is also recognition that different types of repair services play complementary roles. While specialized shops handle larger household appliances, community-based initiatives like Repaircafés focus on smaller, less lucrative repairs. These spaces serve as hubs where volunteers assist with tasks that might not be economically viable for commercial providers. The coexistence of bound and free repair services, alongside grassroots efforts, is seen as essential for creating a balanced ecosystem. Bound services, such as manufacturer-affiliated workshops, are crucial in cases involving warranties or complex technical issues, while independent and voluntary networks address everyday maintenance needs. Despite these structural considerations, the ultimate success of the new legislation hinges on how effectively it encourages widespread adoption of repair practices. While the legal framework provides a foundation, further policy adjustments will likely be necessary to ensure that repair becomes both practical and appealing to consumers. Until then, the challenge remains: turning regulation into real-world change.