The global surge in e-waste is staggering—over 50 million tonnes annually, expected to reach 75 million tonnes by 2030. Yet despite increasingly ambitious policy rhetoric, repair and reuse remain marginal activities. A recent policy brief titled “Repair, Reuse, Recycle?” delves into why the circular economy remains elusive and what structural reforms are necessary to shift the tide.
The European Union’s regulatory arsenal has grown considerably. From Right-to-Repair mandates to product passport requirements under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, the legislative landscape is moving toward life-cycle accountability. But these measures, while symbolically powerful, have not yet generated a wholesale transformation in the design and business models of electronics manufacturers.
At the core of the problem is product design. Many products are deliberately engineered to be difficult to disassemble, let alone repair. Components are glued instead of screwed, proprietary fasteners restrict access, and spare parts are either unavailable or overpriced. According to the brief, this design bias towards disposability not only obstructs repair but actively undermines the reuse economy. Manufacturers, incentivized by volume sales, have little reason to reverse this trend unless regulations directly penalize or tax premature obsolescence.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) frameworks—widely regarded as a central pillar of circular economy policy—have shown mixed results. While EPR schemes have improved collection rates for e-waste, they have failed to encourage design for durability or repair. The report argues that this is partly due to the misalignment between the entities paying into EPR schemes and those designing the products. In essence, collection organizations—not OEMs—are often tasked with fulfilling producer obligations, diluting the feedback loop necessary for design change.
Digitalization also introduces new hurdles. Products that rely on embedded software are increasingly disabled when manufacturers stop providing firmware updates. This trend, known as “software obsolescence,” renders otherwise functional hardware unusable. It is particularly prevalent in smart devices, where support lifecycles are often far shorter than hardware lifespans. Without enforceable obligations for software support, extending physical hardware life becomes an uphill battle.
Economic signals further distort the repair ecosystem. The labor cost of repair often exceeds the cost of purchasing new products, especially in high-income countries. The brief points to the VAT regime as a critical lever. In most EU countries, repair services are taxed at the same rate as new goods—typically around 20%—whereas material extraction and new production benefit from scale economies and subsidies. Without fiscal incentives to reverse this imbalance, the repair economy remains commercially uncompetitive.
To break through these barriers, the brief recommends tying repairability requirements to public procurement and labeling schemes, aligning them with broader sustainability goals. It also suggests separating embedded software updates from hardware sales via regulation, ensuring that consumers retain access to critical functionality over a product’s intended lifespan. These recommendations aim not just to adjust incentives but to restructure the economic logic underpinning linear consumption models.
A promising but underutilized pathway is the emergence of third-party repair ecosystems and remanufacturing. However, legal and technical restrictions, such as limited access to diagnostic tools and software locks, continue to constrain their scalability. The report emphasizes the need for interoperability standards and open access to repair documentation, akin to the Right to Repair measures adopted in the U.S. state of New York and under debate across the EU.
Ultimately, achieving circularity requires more than just end-of-life solutions. It demands systemic intervention at the design phase, targeted fiscal reform, and a shift in regulatory focus from waste management to resource preservation. The transition will not be delivered by consumer choice alone; it will require a fundamental recalibration of industrial norms, supply chain logic, and legal accountability. Only then can repair and reuse evolve from niche activities into core components of a sustainable product economy.
