10
The Repairability of Household Appliances: A Selling Point for Utilitarian Products
Mickaël DUPRÉ1, Patrick GABRIEL2 and Gaëlle BOULBRY3
1 Governance and Insular Development, University of French Polynesia, France
2 LEGO, IAE Brest, University of Western Brittany, Brest, France
3 LP3C, University of South Brittany, Vannes, France
10.1. Introduction
A French person throws away an average of 22 kilos of electrical and electronic waste every year (compared to a global average of 6 kilos) (Deloitte Développement Durable1 2016). It is therefore conceivable that the quantity of electrical devices discarded could be reduced. For companies, a product repairability policy requires them to meet at least two conditions: when developing the product, they must consider the (relative) ease of disassembling the product and replacing its parts; and ensure that parts are available for longer (seven to fifteen years for household appliances, for example) in a quick and inexpensive manner. Users, meanwhile, wish to reduce the amount of electrical waste: 77% of European citizens would rather repair their appliances than throw them away (Eurobarometer 2014).
Barriers to developing the repairability of products thus appear to be relatively small. However, it has not been easy to develop more active behaviors towards product repair: 44 % of appliances that end up discarded could have been repaired (BIO Intelligence Service S.A.S. 2012).
This chapter is focused on the effect of a lever that can be used by both manufacturers and users of household appliances to support product repairability: a “repairability” label. This aims to provide a better understanding of the effect of a “repairability” label on purchasing behavior in relation to household electrical products. This type of labeling is currently proposed by a number of industries in the form of a manufacturer’s label (such as the “Repairable for 10 years” label used by Seb) or Ecolabels (such as the global Blue Angel label, which requires replacement parts to be provided for five years after the end of production).
The proposed study is focused on two essential dimensions of a manufacturer’s commitment to the repairability of their products: the valence of the repairability guarantee and the effects on consumer purchasing decisions. More specifically, we will attempt to answer the following questions:
- – How do consumers understand the concept of a commitment to repairability?
- – What valence do they afford this commitment and the repairable product?
- – Is repairability a selling point for household appliances?
- – Is repairability a selling point for utilitarian products?
- – Is repairability a selling point for people particularly conscious of environmental issues?
The answers to these questions are presented in two parts. The first allows us to clarify the concept of repairability and to summarize the favorable factors and the constraints related to this concept for manufacturers and consumers. The second presents the results of a study measuring the effects of a “repairability” label on the perceptions and behaviors of individuals purchasing household electrical products. In the conclusion, we will offer some recommendations that could enable such a label to enjoy broader acceptance among consumers.
10.2. Repairability: a complex concept
10.2.1. Beneficial political incentives
The repairability of products refers to the manufacturer giving users the possibility to repair their products or have them repaired after they have been used for a given period. This possibility of repair temporarily commits a company to its customers; this is also a sign of the company’s societal responsibility. For Deloitte Développement Durable (2016), the repairability of products is part of a broader concept of “sustainable product”, indicating a product’s capacity to last. The term “sustainable” refers to being strong, repairable, flexible and adaptable, compatible with other systems, easy to maintain, etc. According to ADEME, such a policy would promote responsible consumption, one of the major obstacles to which is a general lack of durability (sturdiness, repairability, adaptability, etc.) that leads to a lower lifespan for some products.
A number of French and international bodies are campaigning for further information and communication on the lifespan of products. However, they are also questioning the conditions for effective communication and labeling. For Deloitte Développement Durable (2016) in particular, providing the consumer with more information could simultaneously increase trust, move towards more sustainable products and stimulate competition between manufacturers on the quality and longevity of their products. One such piece of information could also allow the consumer to better understand the usage costs of equipment; consumers do not always take the operating costs of products into account at the moment of purchase. Deloitte Développement Durable (2016) emphasizes in summary that any extension of the lifespan of objects requires greater trust, as well as an increased exchange of information between consumers and manufacturers. The working group of the French National Council on the Sustainability of Consumption and Products (Conseil national de la consommation sur la durabilité des produits – (Conseil national de la consommation 2015)) recommends, by including the particularities and challenges of activity sectors, enhancing consumer awareness, in particular by carrying out framed experiments on labeling information related to the lifespan of products on a voluntary basis. It also encourages communication on the repairability of products by indicating the availability of spare parts that are essential to the use of the good. Even Europe itself is questioning the conditions for labels indicating the lifespan of products and their repairability (see text Box 10.1). As a result, in 2017, the members of the European Parliament asked the European Commission to establish a “voluntary European label” that considers, among other things, the item’s sustainability and the ability to replace its components in the interests of repairability.
In order to respond to the constraints highlighted by consumers2 and denounced by a number of consumer associations (UFC-Que Choisir, 60 millions de consommateurs) and pro-environmental organizations (Les amis de la Terre, for instance), the French government adopted legislative measures to promote responsible consumption: the Consumption Act requires the manufacturer to inform the seller of the date until which the spare parts needed to repair products introduced on the market since March 1, 2015 will be available. This information must be displayed at the point of sale. The manufacturer is also required to provide sellers and repairers, within a two-month timeframe, with the spare parts needed to repair products. The “Roadmap for the Circular Economy”, published by the French government in April 20183, which was enacted by Law No. 2020–105 of February 10, 2020 on combating waste and on the circular economy4, includes several measures on repairs. One of these is for it to be compulsory to display, from January 1, 2020, basic information on repairability for electrical and electronic items (Feuille de route 2018, p. 19). The aim is to strengthen the offering (availability of spare parts, training, etc.) and to encourage demand (mention of a repairability index, warranty, awareness-raising, etc.) to promote repairs. As a result, for the French government5 and for ADEME, the recourse to the reuse and repair of products must become normal and attractive to the consumer (Feuille de route 2018, p. 19).
10.2.2. Environmental labeling: effects that are difficult to grasp
Labeling on the lifespan and the length of availability of spare parts provides great hopes of changing consumption habits to make them more responsible ((Desbordes et al. 2014); recommendations of the French National Council on the Sustainability of Consumption and Products (Conseil national de la consommation 2015); ADEME study (2015); report by RDC Environnement (2017)).
Information directed at consumers is indeed a key factor in making the repairability of products a selling point and a purchasing criterion. This information must be both simple and credible to impart knowledge and build trust among buyers of repairable products. This is why the law on combating waste and on the circular economy (2020) will make it compulsory from 2021 to provide information on repairability in the form of an index on the model of the energy label.
However, a label is not a guarantee of either proper understanding or acceptance on the part of the consumer. A study carried out in October 2017 for the magazine Que Choisir among 2,206 of its readers on the influence of trade awards (such as “product of the year”) on their consumption behaviors indicate that only a few labels are known or recognized (two out of eight were recognized either by name or by appearance by over half of the individuals interviewed); the proportion of people who trust the label6 is even lower.
Labeling on product repairability increases the promise of a high value in use7, and this promise affects the perception of the quality of the product. This halo effect, when the assessment of one attribute of an item influences the perceptions of its other attributes, has been observed in environmental advertising, for example (Lee et al. 2013). In this field, various experiments have shown that indicating that a product is “environmentally friendly” is enough to make consumers think that it tastes better (Fillion and Arazi 2002), is of a higher quality or performs better (Sörqvist et al. 2013) than an equivalent alternative. Environmental labels can influence the perception of a product, even features that have no direct connection to the label. For example, people think that fairtrade chocolate is of a higher quality (Schuldt et al. 2012) and tastes better (Lotz et al. 2013) than unlabeled alternatives, even though the fairtrade aspect has no bearing on the taste of the product.
10.2.3. A limited selling point
The main limitation of the repairability argument relates to the fact that the operating duration is not always the main element of the value in use that is sought by consumers. A study by Crédoc8 (Tavoularis et al. 2015) highlights that the influence of this argument varies depending on the type of product. Quality is considered more desirable for household electrical products and food items. In the case of these categories, the willingness to pay more is higher for reliable, effective and safe products. Moreover, the same study points out that the search for quality in household appliances increases with consumer experience and age (and not according to generations).
Some categories of products are subject to a greater number of renewals, such as fashion products, rapidly-evolving technology products and, more recently, furniture products (Deloitte Développement Durable 2016). Consumers can also take into account that some items are now better-performing, more effective and more energy-efficient than previously; it is therefore more efficient and effective for them to buy these items regularly than to keep “used equipment” and repair it.
The argument for repairability is thus subject to the established expectations of the user; repairability constitutes a product’s positive attribute if the buyer wants a longer product lifespan or wishes to contribute to responsible consumption. In these two cases, it is necessary to look ahead (in terms of product usage or collective well-being) at the moment of purchase. Furthermore, a product’s repairability is really only considered to the extent that the user is committed to repairing it; this requires the user to stop using the product for a time (to temporarily dismantle it) or even to participate in repairs. However, this commitment and cessation of use can be determined by psychological ownership that the user may have developed towards the object. For example, a study by Kreziak et al. (2016) identifies the conditions under which cell phone users will repair their products. The troubleshooting (and thus retention of the used phone) is more likely to be considered in cases where this will maintain all uses of the item. In economic terms, troubleshooting is considered when the residual value is utilitarian of nature. If the link with the brand (more so than with the phone itself) is more emotional, or when the possibility of reselling the used phone emerges (for example, in cases of financial takeovers by the operator), consumers tend to decide to separate from their former phone rather than have it repaired.
More generally, age seems to influence attitudes and behaviors in relation to the environment (Barber et al. 2014), but the results in the literature are contradictory. The effects of age are, in fact, indirect. While people trust more in labels with age (Teisl et al. 2008), the demand for green products is generally negatively correlated with age, with younger people having a greater awareness of environmental issues (Wessells et al. 1999). Some groups of consumers are thus not necessarily looking for products with a longer lifespan. Deloitte Développement Durable (2016) emphasizes that some categories of users deliberately choose products with short lifespans: for example, parents buying for their children whose tastes and uses will change rapidly, “nomadic” people who move often for personal or professional reasons, or even people who are conscious of fashion trends.
Beyond these limitations, the repairability of products can be hindered by contradictory beliefs. A study by Deloitte Développement Durable (2016) revealed that most consumers think that their new equipment is less resilient and that its lifespan is shorter. In addition, more than 90% of them distrust manufacturers, considering the lifespan of products (particularly technological ones) to be planned. Among some people, such a belief is so entrenched that communications on longer lifespans can be seen as lacking credibility.
In summary, while the repairability of products presents a number of favorable arguments at both the individual level (whether it is the company implementing it or the user) and the collective level (in terms of sustainable development), there are several constraints that can limit its application (see Table 10.1), to the extent that its implementation and acceptance by stakeholders cannot be taken for granted.
Table 10.1. Elements supporting and limiting the repairability of products
| Arguments in favor of repairability | Arguments limiting repairability |
| It is a part of a “sustainable product” policy and thus encourages responsible consumption (ADEME 2016) |
|
| Promises a long value in use and, through the halo effect, a high quality product |
|
| Increases trust in the product, and in the company or brand |
|
| Extends the length of the customer relationship and loyalty to the brand |
|
The repairability of products therefore appears to be a complex concept; it offers a priori a number of advantages for companies (trust, loyalty, perceived quality) and for society more broadly. However, it also has limitations and even risks of commercial failure. The dissemination of information between manufacturers and consumers on the possibilities for product repair seems to be a key element. A “repairability” label is a means of summarizing this information, and we must study its effects on consumers of household appliances more closely.
10.3. The effects of a “repairability” label on purchasing behaviors: mixed results
The study presented below was carried out in collaboration with the Seb group, a world leader in small electrical household appliances.
10.3.1. The study: an experiment using fictitious e-commerce sites
Our aim is to understand the effects of a “repairability” label on consumer purchasing behaviors. Specifically, we have tested the effect of mentioning a (fictitious) label guaranteeing the repairability of a product over a ten-year period (labelR) on online purchasing decisions. In order to do this, we conducted an experiment designed around two fictitious e-commerce sites, identical except for the presence of the labelR on some products. The simulation concerned three types of household appliances (coffee makers, irons, vacuum cleaners). The individuals interviewed therefore had to choose a coffee maker, an iron and a vacuum cleaner from among the range of products offered on the e-commerce site designed for the experiment. The products tested were representative of leading products on the French market. The methodological details of the experiment are presented in Box 10.2.
The results of the study allow us to understand how the labelR is viewed by consumers and its concrete impacts on purchasing decisions.
10.3.2. Understanding labelR: a positive valence
The labelR is very widely perceived as a commitment on the part of the manufacturer (80% of participants) to stock and provide spare parts for a period of ten years after the purchase of the product (66.4%). The participants also expect customer service (35.4%) and assistance in the repairs (52.2%). However, they are wary of the service guaranteed by the manufacturer. In fact, only a minority expect to be able to contact a repairer near them (23.3%) and to access inexpensive spare parts (28.4%).
The labeling also shows a positive valence in terms of the reliability of the product. It is perceived as reassuring and indicative of the significant reliability of the product (43.9%) and a reduced risk of breakage (38.1%). A minority of respondents see this as a sign that the product cannot be relied on and will break down (8.2%) or as a risk that the product will have to be repaired (15.4%).
In summary, the labelR seems to be understood by the majority of the individuals interviewed. Its effect goes beyond the repairability of the product itself to also encompass the reliability of the product. The labelR thus tends to reassure consumers.
However, the interpretation of the labelR remains imprecise, which is not surprising given its relative novelty. In particular, consumers implicitly associate a number of services with the concept of repairability. These services can be considered positively (assistance with repairs) or as more restrictive (the distance to get the object repaired, the cost of spare parts).
We also wish to know whether people who are more environmentally conscious are more influenced by the labelR than people with lower awareness.
The conclusions have been formulated on the basis of the responses of 252 participants that we have grouped into three similarly sized categories: low environmental awareness, moderate awareness and high awareness. The participants in each of these three categories selected the same average number of R products for their baskets (Chi2 [2, N = 252] = 0.476, p = 0.79). This result allows us to conclude that the labelR is not perceived as an ecolabel.
10.3.3. The effects of the labelR on purchasing decisions: utilitarianism as a moderator
For the range of products purchased, the statistical analyses indicate that mentioning the labelR has no effect on consumer choices. More specifically, the overall number of R products does not increase with the indication of a labelR (p = 0.212). The labeling will therefore not increase the purchase decisions in favor of labeled products. The number of participants that selected at least one R product among their three choices (vacuum cleaner, iron, coffee maker) also did not increase with the mention of the labelR.
We have been able to see that the three types of products tested are perceived differently in terms of their utilitarianism among the potential buyers (Chi2 [2.154] = 51.95, p < 0.001). The utilitarian dimension refers to the basic function of the household appliance. The participants consider the vacuum cleaner to have a significantly higher utilitarian function than the other two products; the vacuum cleaner is thus mainly considered a “cleaning device”. The iron is, for its part, perceived as having a higher utilitarian dimension than the coffee maker. The perception of the latter thus tends to vary more than for the other two products; its purpose is to make coffee but it can have secondary functions such as, for example, to be a decorative object for the kitchen, or representing a certain lifestyle through its design.
This perception of the utilitarian dimension of a product has an impact on the effect of its repairability: the impact of the labelR is more important for the vacuum cleaner than for the other products. In concrete terms, the labelR increased the number of decisions to purchase an R vacuum significantly (p = 0.053). A trend was observed among the purchasing decisions for irons (p = 0.098) but no effect was seen in the case of coffee makers (p = 0.263).
We thus observed that the labelR has a significant effect for the most utilitarian product, a trending effect for the product with an intermediate utilitarian function and no effect for the least utilitarian item.
We have also compared, product by product, the average price of the product chosen on each e-commerce site (the control site versus the experiment site). The results conclude that there is a trending effect on the average price of the chosen vacuum and no effect for the other products. Indicating repairability on the label will therefore not encourage people to purchase more expensive products.
10.4. Conclusion
In order to promote a circular economy and contribute to improving the lifespan of products, the French government is relying heavily on making information available to buyers, especially simple and understandable information attached to products (including domestic appliances) in order to change purchasing and product usage behaviors.
The study carried out in this chapter testing the effect of mentioning a label (labelR) confirms a number of results provided earlier on the factors supporting and limiting the repairability of products; it also provides some clarification on the behavioral change hypothesis. We will focus on several points: the change in purchasing behavior; the perception of repairability; and the strategic challenge of repairability.
In terms of behavioral changes triggered by a “repairability” logo, the study shows that this is not automatic. This change seems of little importance and mainly occurs in the case of products that are seen as utilitarian (the vacuum cleaner in the study). This confirms the various observations of ADEME: the desired operating lifespan of products depends on their use, but, in the case of a coffee maker for instance, this use can be utilitarian (making coffee) as well as symbolic, if the coffee maker occupies a decorative position in the kitchen. The lifespan is thus doubtless less important.
While repairability, in the form of a logo affixed to products, does not convince everyone, it is recommended in marketing to address the part of the market a priori more open to this concept, before gradually extending it to other potential market segments. It may be surprising that the “repairability” label does not have a considerable influence on environmentally-conscious individuals. It would be interesting to explore whether a complementary effect exists between the labelR and an environmental label, such as the European Ecolabel or the NF Environnement label. Such a complementary effect could thus translate one form of synergy with a label into another: the environmental label would benefit the labelR by indicating respect for the environment, while the labelR could enhance the perceived quality of the household appliance, leading to increasing consumer trust in products. This type of effect has been seen, for example, with organic labels and the Label rouge for food products. In their study, Dufeu et al. (2014) show that association of a known label (the French AB label for organic products) with a little known label is greatly beneficial to the latter, leads to a reduction in consumer skepticism towards the information conveyed by the label and translates into a higher willingness to pay.
The knowledge and perception of a commitment to repairability on the part of the manufacturer remained relatively vague among the individuals interviewed. If they attribute this commitment to the manufacturer and perceive the product to be more robust, they are in the minority in considering the commitment to be easy to value for consumers (access to a repairer, low repair price). Companies should therefore carry out communication efforts to make the repairability concept and the labeling around it a reality, as well as more thorough work to build trust between companies and the public in relation to the responsible engagement of commercial organizations.
The results of the study also show that repairability is perceived as a matter for all stakeholders; it clearly requires action on the part of the manufacturer, which ensures the repair and the availability of parts, but it is also perceived as a commitment (constraint) on the part of the user, who is concerned by access to repairs (cost, time, distance). Repairability must therefore be developed in a spirit of “co-repairing”. The recommendation for manufacturers is therefore to focus less on the product and concentrate more on the users and the relationship with them. This is why support services matter; whether they, for example, provide existing information (on the availability of parts, the repair process), or a recovery service (means of collecting appliances to be repaired – collection points, home service, etc.), a delivery service (once the product is repaired) or even a collaborative repair service (availability of a platform for “DIY-ers”), all of these services work together to make repair a reality for users and allow them to access it.
More generally, the challenge of a label on product repairability is perhaps not so much related to the growth of a market share as to the strategic potential of repairability.
One strategic challenge at the national level was identified by ADEME and the French government: guaranteeing the repairability of products could increase consumer trust in brands, as well as consumer loyalty (Kréziak et al. 2016), thereby strengthening the competitiveness of French and European companies in the faces of low-cost models based abroad. This differentiation opportunity has led Seb, a manufacturer of appliances, to develop a 10-year repairability guarantee under which it will ensure that all parts of the product can be disassembled and replaced, that the cost of repairing a part is reasonable and that replacement parts are available.
Repairability is also an argument for increasing consumer loyalty to the brand and it can enhance the image of a responsible company that is committed to combating product obsolescence and the creation of waste. This kind of responsible positioning has been taken by the outdoor clothing manufacturer Patagonia, emphasized by the slogan used in one of their advertising campaigns: “Don’t buy this jacket”. Through this slogan, the brand committed itself and the consumer to reimagining “a world where we take only what nature can replace”9. The company thus promotes the repair of its clothing, in particular by using a program called Worn Wear and highlighting the long and emotional relationships that consumers have with their favorite clothes, which they become attached to and can be in need of repair. More generally, Patagonia is developing the Common Thread initiative, which encourages stakeholders to find solutions, including repair, in view of reducing their environmental footprint.
The strategic challenge can be lastly understood at the level of each company, such as the possibility of strengthening links with stakeholders. The specialized retailers Darty and Leroy Merlin, for example, are developing collaborative spaces for creation/repair that are open to everyone.
Repairability seems therefore to be a fundamental concept that favors both responsible consumption and corporate social responsibility. However, this is a concept that, for the manufacturer, requires an examination of the use of its products by the consumer (fashionable, symbolic or utilitarian products) and of customer relationships. Repairability does not only concern the product; in its implementation, it requires a marketing program that is focused on developing links with users and on the co-creation of value.
10.5. References
ADEME (2015). Réemploi, réparation et réutilisation. Synthesis [Online]. Available at: https://www.ademe.fr/sites/default/files/assets/documents/reemploi-reparation-reutilisation-2015.pdf.
Barber, N.A., Bishop, M., Gruen, P. (2014). Who pays more (or less) for pro-environmental consumer goods? Using the auction method to assess actual willingness-to-pay. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 218–227.
BIO Intelligence Service S.A.S. (Mudgal, S.T., Tinetti, B., Faninger, T., Lockwood, S., Anderson, G.) (2012). Étude sur la durée de vie des équipements électriques et électroniques. Final report ADEME.
Conseil national de la consommation (2015). Avis du Conseil national de la consommation sur la durabilité des produits. No. NOR: EINC1511471V, May [Online]. Available at: https://www.economie.gouv.fr/files/files/directions_services/cnc/avis/2015/Avis_sur_la_durabilite_des_produits.pdf.
Deloitte Développement Durable (Monier, V., Deprouw, A., Jover, M., Chouvenc, S.) (2016). Rapport annuel du registre des déchets d’équipements électriques et électroniques. Annual report, ADEME, 2015.
Desbordes, V., Font, E., Guillaume, E., Papineau, P., Perdereau, J., Ravet, A., Sinrat A., Ravet, C. (2014). Assistance dans l’élaboration d’une stratégie nationale relative à la durée de vie des produits, du réemploi et la réparabilité qui contribuent à des économies de matières premières, de CO2 et de déchet. Study report 011433, document DE/3, Laboratoire national de métrologie et d’essais, Paris [Online]. Available at: https://www.lne.fr/publications/guides-documents-techniques/rapport-etude-duree-vie-produits-lne-juin-2014.pdf.
Dufeu, I., Ferrandi, J.M., Gabriel, P., Le Gall-Ely, M. (2014). Multi-labellisation socio-environnementale et consentement à payer du consommateur. Recherche et applications marketing, 29(3), 34–55.
Eurobarometer (2014). Attitudes of Europeans towards waste management and resource efficiency. Flash Eurobarometer 388. Report, European Commission, Brussels.
Fillion, L. and Arazi, S. (2002). Does organic food taste better? A claim substantiation approach. Nutrition and Food Science, 32, 153–157.
Kreziak, D., Prim-Allaz, I., Robinot, E., Durif, F. (2016). Obsolescence perçue, décision de renouveler et destinée des produits : le cas du téléphone portable. Décisions Marketing, 81, 41–59.
La Fabrique Écologique (2016). Comment agir vraiment contre l’obsolescence programmée ? Aller vers une consommation plus soutenable. Summary, La Fabrique Écologique, December.
Lee, W.C.J., Shimizu, M., Kniffin, K.M., Wansink, B. (2013). You taste what you see: Do organic labels bias taste perceptions? Food Quality and Preference, 29(1), 33–39.
Lotz, S., Christand, F., Fetchenhauer, D. (2013). What is fair is good: Evidence of consumers’ taste for fairness. Food Quality and Preference, 30(2), 139–144.
RDC Environnement (2017). L’obsolescence programmée : politiques et mesures belges de protection du consommateur. Final report, RDC Environnement, May [Online]. Available at: www.marghem.be/wp-content/uploads/Obsolescence-programm%C3%A9erapport-final_RDC-Envrionment_V2_Rapport.pdf.
Schuldt, J.P., Muller, D., Schwarz, N. (2012). The “Fair Trade” effect: Health halos from social ethics claims. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(5), 581–589.
Sörqvist, P., Hedblom, D., Holmgren, M., Haga, A., Langeborg, L., Nöstl, A. (2013). Who needs cream and sugar when there is eco-labeling? Taste and willingness to pay for “eco-friendly” coffee. PLoS ONE, 8(12), 807–819.
Tavoularis, G., Hébel, P., Billmann, M., Lelarge, C. (2015). Comment a évolué sur les deux dernières décennies la relation à la qualité pour les consommateurs français ? Cahier de recherche, 327.
Teisl, M.F., Rubin, J., Noblet, C. (2008). Non-dirty dancing? Interactions between eco-labels and consumers. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 140–159.
Wessells, C.R., Johnston, R.J., Donath, H. (1999). Assessing consumer preferences for ecolabeled seafood: The influence of species, certifier, and household attributes. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 81, 1084–1089.
- 1 French Environment and Energy Management Agency
- 2 Generally through consumer associations, citizens have made public their reasons for not carrying out repairs: the difficulty of finding a repairer or the required parts; the impossibility of disassembling the device (pieces welded together, overly specific repair tools, etc.); the high cost of repairs, which is often too close to the price of a new item.
- 3 Available at: https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/Feuille-de-route-Economie-circulaire-50-mesures-pour-economie-100-circulaire.pdf.
- 4 Available at: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/eli/loi/2020/2/10/TREP1902395L/jo/texte.
- 5 Available at: https://www.economie.gouv.fr/loi-consommation/mesure/consommation-responsable.
- 6 Available at: https://www.quechoisir.org/actualite-logos-de-consommateurs-infographie-quel-impact-sur-les-comportements-n49108/.
- 7 The value in use indicates the subjective value given to the advantages expected from the product use.
- 8 Centre de recherche pour l’étude et l’observation des conditions de vie – Research Center for the Study and Observation of Living Conditions.
- 9 Available at: https://eu.patagonia.com.