Abstract
The European Commission has recently launched a proposal for a Directive to promote repair. In this paper we critically analyse the drafting process in order to understand the resulting policy options. We consider that although the ambition of the Directive was low from the beginning given the limited policy options, it became even worse during the consultation period. The selection of barriers to repair was limited, and manufacturers pushed for a narrow and closed form of Right-to-Repair (R2R) that transferred all control over the potentially emerging repair market to them. Some information measures were proposed so as to increase transparency, potentially increasing the administrative burden on independent repairers, along with measures to encourage repair when under legal guarantee. This Directive fails to promote repair or help independent repairers overcome access barriers, nor does it allow member states to go beyond the limits imposed in the Directive itself.
Funder
Xunta de Galicia
Agencia Estatal de Investigación
Publisher
Universidad de Santiago de Compostela
Reference45 articles.
1. Ackermann, L., Mugge, R., & Schoormans, J. (2018). Consumers' perspective on product care: An exploratory study of motivators, ability factors, and triggers. Journal of Cleaner Production 183, 380-391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.099
2. AIRC, CLEPA, ECAR, FIGIEFA, Insurance Europe & SMEunited. (2023). European citizens should not have to wait 10 more years for a real right to repair.
3. Andersson, A., Carlestam, J., Gunnarsson, J., Henriksson, T., Kristoffersson, P., Mattsson, F., Nyman, L., Ridell, R., Sandin, J., Wadsten, H., & Wessberg, N. (2018). Circular Economy: Research into the availability and willingness to repair consumer electronic products. Lund University.
4. Armstrong, C. (2021). Key Methods Used in Qualitative Document Analysis. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3996213
5. Cardno, C. (2018). Policy Document Analysis: A Practical Educational Leadership Tool and a Qualitative Research Method. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 24(4), 623-640. https://doi.org/10.14527/kuey.2018.016