Supporting consumer engagement in electronics repair: effects of financial incentives and voucher schemes Open Access

Current global industrial production follows a linear model of continuous material extraction, processing and disposal, which contributes largely to resource depletion and environmental degradation (Marín-Beltrán et al., 2022). Consumer electronics are among the most resource-intensive products, with their production and distribution often causing more resource depletion than their usage phase (Prakash et al., 2020). While the global electronics market is expanding rapidly, with a 89% rise of the number of devices put on the market in the European Union (EU) between 2012 and 2022 (Eurostat, 2023), fast innovation cycles, design flaws and premature device replacements continue to shorten product lifetimes (Cooper, 2020; Cordella et al., 2021). For instance, the environmentally optimal lifetime of a mobile phone is nearly seven years (Bakker et al., 2014), yet most of them are replaced under three years (Jensen et al., 2021; Zuloaga et al., 2019). Global e-waste management has thus become a pressing issue, projected to reach 82 million tons in 2030 (Baldé et al., 2024). Beyond environmental concerns, there are also resource security and social justice implications with electronics, containing materials often sourced from countries with lenient labour regulations and military conflicts (Kowalski and Legendre, 2023; Mancini et al., 2021).

Repairing consumer electronics can slow resource consumption and reduce emissions by breaking the rapid use-and-disposal cycle that relies on new raw materials (Godfrey et al., 2022; Bocken et al., 2015). Hence, extending product lifetimes through repair is a key strategy in the circular economy (CE) (Cooper, 2020; European Commission, 2020; Pamminger et al., 2021). Encouraging consumer engagement is essential to repair activities as consumers decide whether to repair a device (Russell et al., 2023). However, the demand for repair services is limited in most European countries, such as Germany (Duke et al., 2018; Jaeger-Erben et al., 2021; Moeslinger et al., 2022).

Circular practices, such as repair, are everyday actions that support circular value creation by reducing resource use and keeping materials and products longer in use (Rabiu and Jaeger-Erben, 2022). Moving to circularity necessitates a repositioning of the conventional role and self-perceptions of consumers solely as purchasers and users of devices to a more active role in preserving their functionality and materials as stewards of objects and value co-operators, which is currently discouraged by dominant linear consumption, production and retail practices (Conduit et al., 2023; Haase et al., 2024; Hobson, 2020). Scholars thus called for further research to explore effective policy strategies to move these barriers and to stimulate consumer engagement (e.g. Korsunova et al., 2023; Massimiliano and Luigi, 2022). This paper aims to address this research gap by examining the impact of repair-incentivising policy measures, such as vouchers, on consumers’ participation in repair.

Previous studies have identified high repair costs relative to the price of new products as a major obstacle to post-warranty consumer repairs (McCollough et al., 2018; Sabbaghi et al., 2017; van den Berge et al., 2023a). In Europe, repair is costly due to its labour-intensive nature, compounded by extended repair times caused by complex and unrepairable product designs and longer waiting times for spare parts, while cheap and often low-quality new products remain readily available. Thus, financial incentives for consumers have been proposed as a possible measure to help the price competitiveness of repair services and to encourage consumer participation in repair (Dalhammar et al., 2022; Köppl et al., 2019; Rudolf et al., 2022). In a representative survey, 57% of respondents in Germany claimed they would repair more frequently if financial support was available from the state (Poppe et al., 2024).

Some national and regional governments in Europe have already experimented with repair vouchers, repair funds and partially tax-deductible repair costs to incentivise consumer repairs (Meyer and Molnár, 2024). A recent European directive has called on all member states to introduce similar repair supporting programmes (European Union, 2024b). Despite these developments, there remains a lack of comprehensive research on the effectiveness of financial incentives in (re-)normalising consumer repair practices, highlighting the need for further research before broader implementation. It remains underexplored in the literature how consumers integrate circular consumption patterns, such as repair, into their daily lives, how policy interventions like repair vouchers could facilitate this and what factors remain to prevent users from extending product lifetimes.

This study aims to advance research on sustainable consumption and circular practices (e.g. Hampton, 2018; Warde, 2017) and specifically to explore policy interventions that can drive systematic changes in consumption habits – an area of research identified as critically needed (Dalhammar, 2019). In our study, we will explore whether repair vouchers, an instrument to subsidise repair prices, may impact individuals’ actual and perceived capacity to fix their devices, as well as may influence the social significance of repair. Previous studies have shown that both actual and perceived barriers, along with misconceptions about repair services and repair prices, may discourage consumers from repairing (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2021; Perzanowski, 2021). However, it remains underexplored to what extent economic interventions may influence this. Our research objectives are achieved by answering the following research questions:

Our study examines the repair voucher programme in the state of Thuringia, which offers consumers an annual reimbursement of up to €100 for repair costs. This is one of the longest-running initiatives of its kind in Europe and the first scheme in Germany in a country with significant consumer e-waste generation (Eurostat, 2023), high labour costs (Eurostat, 2024) and a declining number of repair service providers (Destatis, 2022; TLS, 2020). This provides an ideal context to study state financial incentives’ effects on encouraging participation in repair. Our findings provide valuable insights for other regions and countries with similar device disposal rates and high repair costs, offering potential policy interventions to address these challenges.

This study applies the lens of social practice theories that are based on the idea that practices, not individuals, are inherently linked to resource consumption (Warde, 2005). Individual actors are understood as “carriers” or “performers” of practices that are everyday actions, and the focus is not on individual behaviours but on practices that co-exist within society, shaped by infrastructural and material contexts (Närvänen et al., 2023; Shove et al., 2012). Practices limit individuals’ freedom to choose what they do and what they think they can do (Røpke and Christensen, 2012). For example, (not) repairing an object depends on the skills and values of individuals, the material properties of objects, the available repair infrastructure and the relation of repair to other practices such as buying new devices. This interconnectedness makes it difficult to break free from established consumption patterns, and this makes policy intervention more complex (Suski et al., 2023). Social practice theories thus provide a relevant framework for studying how consumer behaviours evolve (or fail to evolve) towards sustainability and how the transition may (not) be supported by certain policy instruments (Spurling et al., 2013; Jaeger-Erben et al., 2021). Moving from linear to circular consumption requires supporting (re-)emerging practices by shaping key elements of practices such as social meanings, competences and material arrangements (Shove et al., 2012). This study contributes to the literature on transforming consumption practices by examining to what extent repair incentives, like vouchers, may reshape consumer behaviour within societal, material and infrastructural contexts beyond merely reducing repair costs.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews the literature and presents our conceptual framework and hypothesis development. Section 3 details the materials and methods of our study. Section 4 presents the results. Section 5 discusses key insights, theoretical and practical implications. Finally, Section 6 concludes the findings, as well as explores limitations of the study and identifies future research opportunities. Additional details on the research instruments (survey and interviews) are provided in the supplementary information.

This section reviews current European policies on advancing consumer device repairs, identifies major barriers to these repairs and highlights research gaps in the literature on using financial incentives to promote sustainable consumption.

Policy approaches for sustainable consumption blend consumer and environmental policies in Europe (Mont and Dalhammar, 2005). The growing interest in the circular economy, coupled with the necessity of engaging consumers for its operationalisation, has shifted policy focus stronger towards consumption-oriented measures (Mont et al., 2022). However, European CE policies have been criticised for their emphasis on downstream approaches, prioritising energy-intensive recycling strategies (Baldassarre and Saveyn, 2023; Mathieux et al., 2020), and for not questioning the underlying economic growth-oriented agenda (Calisto Friant et al., 2024). Nevertheless, policies have started to support slowing consumption by considering the entire product lifecycle and promoting longer product lifespans through a stronger focus on repair (see Table 1). By expanding mandatory ecodesign product requirements with durability and repairability standards and providing product information with a repairability label at the point of purchase (European Union, 2024a), European policymakers aim to phase out low-quality products and limit suboptimal consumer choices (Dalhammar et al., 2022; Pastor-Ruiz and Meso, 2023). Additionally, the Directive for promoting the repair of goods (European Union, 2024b) extends product warranties after repairs to lengthen the use phase of devices.

At the national level (see Table 2), countries have expanded European policies with additional economic incentives to encourage repair decisions, such as vouchers financed by tax revenues and repair funds subsidised by fees collected from manufacturers. Some countries have also introduced bans on planned obsolescence, discouraging non-durable products from entering the market. However, very few policies go beyond viewing repair as a simple choice of consumers, and only a few countries support the (re-)acquisition of repair skills through educational programmes or strengthen the repair infrastructure by enabling spare part harvesting and supporting community repair initiatives.

This paper focuses specifically on repair voucher schemes, which differ in aspects such as maximum funding amounts, eligible products, criteria for repair workshops, reimbursement processes and sources of financing. In Germany, there is currently no national repair voucher scheme despite public interest (Meyer and Molnár, 2024). As a result, many local governments have launched their own voucher programmes, with around eight local schemes currently in place in Germany (see Table 3 for some examples). In Thuringia, for instance, residents can claim a 50% reimbursement of gross repair costs once a year, for repairs performed in professional repair shops or repair cafés by submitting an invoice to the Thuringian Consumers Agency. Repair vouchers directly influence consumers and require their active participation, as consumers must initially cover the full repair cost and later apply for reimbursement from the state. Since vouchers are intended as a temporary measure, they often come with limited annual funding. In both Thuringia and Austria, the allocated funds for repair vouchers have been exhausted before the end of the planned funding period and had to be topped up with extra resources, indicating strong citizen engagement and demand for the programme (Schmöger, 2024; BMK, 2024a).

Other economic measures, such as Sweden’s tax deductibility of labour costs and France’s repair fund discounts, remain largely unnoticed for consumers because they are automatically applied to the price and, in the case of France, the discounts are also relatively small (e.g. max. €50 discount for repairs of laptops and washing machines) (MTÉL, 2024). Hence, both measures were found to bring minimal impact on the demand for repair services (Micheaux et al., 2024; Almén et al., 2021). Table 3 gives an overview of implemented repair incentivising economic policy measures for consumer electronics.

Public policies essentially shape economies and societies by setting the rules of the game. Thus, scholars have been trying to understand how policies may facilitate adopting and stabilising environmentally preferable consumption practices (e.g. Kennedy et al., 2015; Mock, 2023; Spaargaren et al., 2016; Spurling et al., 2013). Policymaking strategies for sustainable consumption have been predominantly influenced by behaviour theories (e.g. Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), assuming that modifying individuals’ knowledge, attitudes and values can have an impact on their consumption and repair decisions (Roskladka et al., 2023). However, despite European consumers expressing generally positive attitudes towards repair (European Commission, 2014; Fachbach et al., 2022), their actual participation in repair activities remains low (Duke et al., 2018; Makov and Fitzpatrick, 2021), highlighting a value-action gap.

While policy approaches are increasingly moving beyond rational consumer models and consider social norms and material contexts as factors affecting consumption, they still emphasise the autonomy of individuals for changing consumption patterns (Skwara, 2023; Watson et al., 2020). These approaches often overlook the linear economic and infrastructural settings in which alternative sustainable consumption activities, such as repair, must operate, leading to limited policy success. Thus, scholars called for policy interventions focused not on individual behaviour but on practices embedded in specific contextual settings (Greene et al., 2024; Shove, 2014; Watson et al., 2020). The palette of measures policymakers can take is, in principle, the same in both behaviour and practice-based conceptualisations of consumption. However, the difference lies in prioritising strategies. Policies aiming to facilitate practices would first intervene in the infrastructural and material settings instead of primarily targeting individual choice-making to make sustainable living a default option (Evans et al., 2012; Spaargaren, 2003).

Adopting circular practices, like repair, requires a shift of the conventional roles and self-perceptions of consumers as purchasers and users of devices to become stewards and value-cooperators of them (Conduit et al., 2023; Haase et al., 2024). This then challenges prevailing growth-oriented socio-economic structures and calls for measures supporting alternative systems of provision with lower resource needs (Calisto Friant et al., 2024; McLaren et al., 2020). For example, the inconvenience and unfeasibility of repair compared to purchasing new devices are rarely addressed in policy frameworks. Scholars have noted, however, that the decision is seldom simply about repairing or not but more often a choice between repairing and buying new (Svensson-Hoglund et al., 2023). Consumers weigh the advantages of keeping their current product against the anticipated benefits and costs of purchasing a new one when deciding whether to replace it (van den Berge et al., 2021). Repair engagement is influenced by intrinsic factors like attitudes, knowledge, experience, as well as extrinsic factors such as non-material conditions (social norms and contextual setting) and material conditions (transaction costs including price and waiting time) (Güsser-Fachbach et al., 2023; Svensson-Hoglund et al., 2023).

Vouchers, a type of financial incentive and a common tool in behavioural economics are typically used to boost consumption by encouraging purchase intentions for specific goods or services (Wang and Li, 2022). However, they can also be applied to slow down consumption, as demonstrated in the repair context. Repair vouchers are based on the idea that consumers do not decide for repairs because they cost too much in comparison to purchasing new products (Manoochehri et al., 2022). Scholars have calculated that consumers are willing to pay between 18% and 35% of the original purchase price for repairs (Fachbach et al., 2022), and this willingness decreases at an annual rate of 6.7% (Sabbaghi and Behdad, 2018). This approach assumes that the market-driven interaction between supply and demand is a key driver of sustainable consumption, and therefore, the primary focus of interventions should be on fostering demand, for instance with price competition (Jaeger-Erben and Offenberger, 2014). However, it has been emphacised that the complex process in device (de)valuation includes perceptions of both old and new objects that are not just influenced by actual prices but also by assumed utility and social values (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2021; Svensson-Hoglund et al., 2023).

Declining consumer engagement in repair across Europe has spurred extensive research into the factors influencing repair decisions and the barriers to repair (see Table 4). To fully understand the impact of repair vouchers, it is crucial to consider the complex context in which repair practices operate. In our work, we draw on Gidden’s (1979) structuration theory that proposes to see structure and agency as mutually constitutive and being in a dynamic relationship with each other. Societal structures – such as infrastructures, systems of provision and governing rules – shape the conditions for actors’ performances. Simultaneously, actors’ performances bring these social structures to life and continuously reproduce them through everyday socially shared routines (Jaeger-Erben and Offenberger, 2014).

Most research has focused on vouchers’ impact on demand in a narrow sense and examined the effects of vouchers in other contexts, such as the promotion of public transport (Zeiske et al., 2021) and deposit-refund systems (Du Rietz, 2023). In the repair context, Reimann (2024) examined various designs of Austria’s repair voucher programmes from both demand and supply perspectives and found that the voucher may lead to an overall repair service price increase. Lechner et al. (2021) found that the local repair funding programme and establishment of a network of repair businesses in Graz may improve service quality and increase awareness about repair. Furthermore, Poppe et al. (2024) analysed the Thuringian repair voucher programme in Germany from an ecological perspective and found to have helped avoid approximately 2,971 tons of CO₂, equivalent to the annual per capita emissions of 275 Germans, by subsiding about 30,300 repairs in three years. Moreover, Adam et al. (2024) analysed the social inclusion effects of a bike repair voucher scheme in France, however, found that the programme mainly benefited individuals who could already afford repairs and were regular cyclists.

Our literature review highlighted that currently, there is very limited data on repair voucher users, on their practices before and after receiving the voucher and their satisfaction with the measure. Thus, this paper addresses this gap by collecting and analysing data from repair voucher users in Thuringia.

The relationship between policy instruments and the appropriation of repair practices (the process of learning and enacting repair in everyday settings) and routinisation (embedded knowledge that guides everyday actions such as repair without conscious reflection) remains underexplored in literature (Greene et al., 2024; Rabiu and Jaeger-Erben, 2022). Schelly (2015) argued that policies are part of the systems of provision that influence, shape and give meaning to social practices. Hence, this study understands the introduction of repair incentives, as a new element to the system of repair provision. We consider consumer repair in accordance with research emphasising the importance of structure-related elements (Giddens, 1979; Schatzki, 2018; Shove, 2014) situated within complex social, political and economic contexts that contest everyday repair activities (McLaren et al., 2020; Rogers et al., 2021). It has been emphasised that consumer practices are used when the situational context and practice elements, such as materials, skills and meanings, align without contradicting existing social norms and their connection to other practices is favourable (Mylan, 2015; Spaargaren et al., 2016; Rabiu and Jaeger-Erben, 2022). Thus, our study seeks to understand how vouchers may influence what Giddens (1979) refers to as “resources” – including the ability of individuals to make changes in their consumption practices – and “rules”, such as regulations, norms and conventions, that are framing practices. To examine the changes within the interdependent agency and structural elements of repairs, we will draw on the findings of our literature review on common obstacles to repair (see Table 4) and on Spaargaren’s (2003) contextual approach to the consumption model (see Figure 1).

Spurling et al. (2013) identified three key strategies for policymakers to modify existing practices: 1. Recrafting practices, meaning the reduction of resource intensity of practices by changing their constituting elements; 2. Substituting practices, that entails discouraging unsustainable practices and promoting alternatives that can fulfil the same needs; and 3. Changing how practices interlock by intervening in the broader linkages of practices. This provides a useful guidance for this study in understanding consumption patterns and their transition processes that may be helped by policy instruments, such as vouchers.

We will specifically investigate the effects and limitations of the voucher scheme on:

• the perception of one’s possibilities and their actual possibilities to repair;

• the relationship between consumers and their (defective) devices; and

• people’s perceptions of repair and their perception of its social significance.

Based on this, we propose the following research hypotheses:

Given the limited understanding of how state financial incentives may affect consumer repair practices, we applied an explanatory sequential mixed methods design (Figure 2). This approach combines quantitative analysis in the form of an online survey with a qualitative component constituting semi-structured interviews to provide deeper insights and context for the overall findings (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2018). Results of both quantitative and qualitative analyses were synthesised and are detailed in Section 4.

Despite the absence of clear methodological frameworks for studying social practices (Sahakian and Wilhite, 2014; Shove, 2017), scholars have recognised mixed methods as a suitable approach (Kennedy et al., 2013). This study uses a dual perspective, zooming in on individual agency and the performance of practices through interviews while simultaneously zooming out to a broader sample of individual agents and elements of practices through an online survey, inspired by Morley (2016). Unlike behavioural models that link past experiences to repair intentions (e.g. Fachbach et al., 2022; Sheeran et al., 2017), we interpret self-reported experiences as reflections of social practices set within varying social and material contexts, drawing on research with practice-approach (e.g. Godfrey et al., 2022; Jaeger-Erben et al., 2021; Korsunova et al., 2023).

Firstly, an online questionnaire was developed to investigate the research questions and hypotheses outlined in the theoretical framework in Section 2. A detailed questionnaire was developed to collect data not only on repair practices but also on related behaviours such as device disposal and new device acquisition, both before and after the implementation of the repair voucher, based on Mock (2023), who suggested to also consider competing practices to fully understand why certain practices remain a niche. Factors potentially influencing these practices were identified through a literature review on key obstacles to repair (Table 4 ). The survey also gathered demographic information and assessed satisfaction with the voucher programme. Detailed items of the questionnaire are listed in  Appendix 1. To mitigate possible common method and social desirability bias, question sequencing, formulation and scales were intentionally varied, and a two-part control question was used to filter out inconsistent responses as recommended by Vomberg and Klarmann (2021). Pre-tests were also conducted to refine and validate survey questions.

Participants were randomly recruited between June and August 2023, with the inclusion criterion being that they had applied for the voucher at least once. The Thuringian Consumers Agency, which has managed all voucher applications since the programme’s inception, distributed the online survey. This ensured wider outreach to programme participants but may have inadvertently excluded individuals from lower socio-economic groups who often have limited access to online resources (Becker, 2022; Humphry, 2014), which may explain the underrepresentation of lower educational groups in our survey.

In total, 891 fully completed and consistent questionnaires were received. Despite the non-representative sampling and a general lack of comparative data on all voucher applicants, the large sample size of our survey enabled a quantitative analysis, and the demographic distribution of our sample closely mirrored the general Thuringian population and the age distribution of the Thuringian voucher applicants. Hence, our work provides significant insights as the first systematic data collection on voucher applicants in Germany. Frequency distributions and descriptive statistics, such as mean values, were calculated with SPSS 29 and presented in Section 4. Cronbach’s alpha was applied to assess the internal consistency of the questionnaire. We also calculated Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient with additional p-values to indicate statistical significance. Relevant results are presented in Section 4 (see  Appendix 2 for the whole table and  Appendix 3 for the interpretation of correlation magnitude).

During Phase 2, we conducted 15 semi-structured in-depth interviews between October and December 2023, each lasting approximately an hour. While qualitative data allowed for capturing nuanced insights into the factors facilitating or hindering device repair and the role of voucher programme in reshaping repair opportunities, both surveys and interviews reflect self-reported perceptions and experiences. This reliance on participants’ accounts, without verifying actual behaviours, may create a positive-leaning bias (Cerri et al., 2019). We tried to minimalise this by triangulation through combining different methods, and by giving anonymity to study participants, as well as, by forming neutral questions with follow-up parts during interviews.

Participant selection for the interviews involved purposive sampling (Teddlie and Yu, 2007). Survey responses guided the selection of interview participants, prioritising those who had applied for the voucher multiple times, indicating deeper experience with the programme. Efforts were also made to mix participants who indicated high reliance on the voucher for commissioning repairs in the survey with those who stated the opposite. Initially informed by survey findings, the interview guide was adjusted iteratively to capture emerging themes, enhancing data saturation. The core interview questions were based on Shove et al.’s (2012) three elements of practices and are listed in  Appendix 4. The study applied hybrid coding. Interview data were coded inductively using MAXQDA software, while deductive coding was based on hypotheses and survey results.

The study focused on individuals who applied for the repair vouchers in the third funding period in Thuringia between June and September 2023. In total, 86% of our study participants applied for the voucher for the first time. The online survey’s age distribution, with a median age of 51–60 years, closely mirrored that of all voucher applicants and Thuringia’s general population, reflecting Thuringia’s second-oldest average population in Germany (see Table 5). Additionally, their net household income aligned with the typical values for Thuringia (TLS, 2022b). However, some differences were observed in educational attainment levels, with 56% of our survey respondents having tertiary education, surpassing both the Thuringian (28%) and German averages (32%) (Destatis, 2020; TLS, 2022c; TLS, 2023). While individuals with higher educational backgrounds are generally more likely to participate in online surveys (Becker, 2022), our data suggests that people with higher education may have applied for repair reimbursement more frequently than others, as they are significantly overrepresented in our sample.

As shown in Table 6, the most frequently repaired devices using the vouchers were smartphones, and most repairs were carried out in local repair shops. The top repaired devices generally have an above-average repair frequency in Germany.

In the first part of the survey, we delved into the participants’ past experiences with electronic repairs and replacements to explore the drivers of unsustainable consumption patterns and the current prevailing environment in which repair-oriented practices must operate. Our research participants had a considerable level of familiarity with electronic repairs even before participating in the voucher programme. In total, 85% of them used professional repair services at least once in the past five years, while 61% attempted DIY repairs either alone at home or with assistance from acquaintances, and 13% visited a repair café at least once. As a comparison, only 63% of all European citizens have ever had at least one item repaired, and 12% had experience with self-repair (Duke et al., 2018). In the whole Thuringian population, 45% of respondents have commissioned repairs at repair shops, 59% through consumer services, 51% repaired at home and 8% at a repair café (Poppe et al., 2024), suggesting slightly higher experience with repair among our respondents.

When it comes to experience with product replacements, a substantial 98% of respondents stated having replaced at least one defective device with a new one in the past five years, with 85% noting multiple replacements. While 98% claimed trying to use their devices as long as possible. When asked about factors leading to replacing defective devices instead of repairing them, 92% of survey participants cited high repair costs compared to the price of new devices, the most common reason regardless of their actual net household income. Additionally, 61% indicated that the low perceived product quality already at the time of the purchase and the low purchase price of their devices discouraged them from commissioning repairs in the past. When considering the vouchers, 42% noted that the repairs would not have paid off without the voucher, and 35% repaired their devices because of the voucher, suggesting that these repairs potentially would not have taken place without financial support and that the vouchers encouraged a considerable share of our respondents to engage in repair instead of replacing their faulty devices (Figure 3).

Moreover, 24% stated that they would not have been able to afford repairing their devices without the voucher and lower-income individuals found the voucher especially important for financially enabling repairs. Among those having a net household income under €1,000/month, 45% said they would not have proceeded with the repair without the voucher. Spearman’s rank (Sr) correlation was computed to assess the statistical relationship between (I would not have repaired without the voucher) and (I could not have afforded the repair without the voucher) ( Appendix 2). There was a positive, medium correlation between the two variables, Sr = 0.460, n = 842; this relationship was statistically significant (p = <0.001). Income and the perception of being able to repair also had a positive, weak correlation; Sr = 0.320, n = 797 with significant p = <0.001. This suggests some social inclusion impact of the vouchers in resource conservation efforts by helping financially disadvantaged groups to repair. Moreover, there was also a moderate, positive correlation between (I would not have repaired without the voucher) and (The repair would not have paid off without the voucher), Sr = 0.606, n = 815; significant p = <0.001.

Beyond cost barriers, our study identified other significant obstacles to repair, highlighting the potential limitations of repair vouchers in facilitating consumer repairs. Our study participants frequently cited unrepairable designs, lack of spare parts and inadequate repair tools as major obstacles. For instance, some noted that bundled parts often necessitate replacing entire modules for minor issues, raising repair costs. While technical ability to repair is important, consumer interest in repair engagement is also crucial. In total, 74% of respondents cited the limited performance of old devices compared to new ones as a reason for replacement, a view consistent across age and income groups. Moreover, our survey found that convenience factors, such as the time costs for repairs, no pick-up service, or no home repair option, were less significant obstacles for consumers in Thuringia. However, some of our interview partners highlighted, especially those reliant on their devices for work or daily routine activities, that they had to replace defective devices due to time constraints. Figure 4 summarises the key reasons people cited in the survey for choosing replacement over repair in the past.

The survey’s latter part compared key aspects of repairing and purchasing electronics (Figure 5). While the introduction of repair incentives, as a new element to the systems of repair provision, creates an option for repair, the practice of repair can only function in a system with sufficient repair infrastructure and attractive services. However, study participants find buying new devices easier (90%) than getting devices repaired (70%). While 82% noted enough electronics shops in their proximity, 45% lacked nearby repair services and 40% had to replace defective devices in the past due to limited pickup or home service options. Our interviews highlighted that it is especially an issue for people living in smaller settlements, as travelling to repair shops in the next cities adds to the efforts and costs of repair. However, we found that people from larger settlements were only slightly overrepresented among all voucher applicants. In total, 27% of voucher applicants were from the top three largest cities of Thuringia, from Erfurt, Jena and Gera (Schmöger, 2024), and the population of these cities is 20% of the whole population. Suggesting that the voucher was regularly used by people from more rural areas. Additionally, we found competence factors hindering repairs, as 99% know places to buy electronics, yet only 70% know where to repair them. A general challenge of finding websites to locate and compare repair shop services was revealed during the interviews, a resource readily available for electronics shops.

Moreover, while 63% of all repairs with the repair vouchers that were subsidised were commissioned in local repair workshops, 8.5% were at electronic shops (Table 6). However, interviews revealed that the consumer services of manufacturers or electronics shops with repair services often quote higher repair prices than independent repair businesses; they barely inform consumers about the option of reimbursements with repair vouchers and tend to steer them towards purchasing new devices. This is not surprising as in these shops, repair services are secondary to their primary profit from selling new appliances. We found that 22% first learned about vouchers from repair service providers, indicating their gatekeeper role in spreading information about the reimbursement (Figure 6). Consumers who learned about vouchers at repair workshops had already intended to repair their devices, suggesting that cost reimbursement may have only been a welcomed benefit, not a decisive factor in their case. However, many indicated that learning about the vouchers did reinforce their decision to opt for repairs, making it difficult to assess possible windfall effects.

Social networks also play an important role in repair practices. Our interviews showed that individuals often seek guidance from acquaintances and store staff when considering device repairs. Consequently, the expertise and opinions of those people influence repair activities. However, while 78% indicated that they can consult relatives and acquaintances about problems with malfunctioning electronics, slightly more, 82% can seek their advice on buying new devices (Figure 5). Regarding the societal meaning of repair (Figure 7), 68% consider replacing functional devices socially acceptable, and 73% state the same for not repairing but instead replacing defective devices. Only 45% of participants feel a societal expectation to repair devices before buying new ones, suggesting that repairing electronics is generally seen as less socially valued. At the same time, only 18% feel pressured to own the latest electronics.

Based on the interviews, we identified three key factors that highlight the complex valuation process consumers undergo when deciding on repairs:

1. Value of the current device: Influenced by factors such as product age, purchase price, sentimental attachment, fit within the home, integration into daily routines and stored data.

2. Repair possibilities: Shaped by repair costs, availability and accessibility of services, communication and trustworthiness of repair shops, overall repairability of the device and defect and the individual’s repair competence and experience.

3. Replacement options: Determined by product price, availability, accessibility, marketing and innovations in new products.

It is important to note that these factors are based on consumer perceptions, which may not reflect actual circumstances. For instance, while 74% of survey respondents cited “unrepairable design” as a reason for not repairing a device in the past, many admitted during the interviews not having consulted a professional or investigated the issue themselves, instead assuming the device was irreparable.

We found that repair vouchers could, to some extent, narrow the gap between repair and replacement, shifting consumer decisions towards repair when a replacement was perceived as more costly or less convenient, such as when transferring data to a new device required significant effort. However, the interviews also revealed that low-cost, poor-quality products were unlikely to be repaired, even with a voucher. Another key finding was that many participants reported “hibernating” defective electronics in their households because they still perceived some value in them. In some of these cases, the repair voucher enabled repair and reuse by reminding consumers of the repair option and making it financially more appealing.

Moreover, we found that repair vouchers may influence people’s relationship with their devices (Figure 8). Since receiving the voucher, 48% of participants reported repairing more frequently (Sr₁), and 42% purchased fewer new devices (Sr₂). In both cases, a very weak positive Spearman correlation was found (Sr₁ = 0.121, n = 802 and Sr₂ = 0.140, n = 753 with a significant p = <0.001) with more frequent electronics replacement in the past ( Appendix 2). Additionally, 41% mentioned they have become more attentive to device care since the voucher, indicating a positive impact on human–device relationships. A weak positive Spearman correlation was found between people who reported not taking care of their devices in the past and those who since the vouchers take better care of their devices (Sr = 0.314, n = 703 with a significant p = <0.001) ( Appendix 2). It must also be pointed out that 93% already felt they had taken good care of their devices before (Figure 8). However, device care means, for most, a general caution with devices, like avoiding accidental drops, rather than specific maintenance tasks for extending the lifetime of devices, such as descaling or cleaning them, as interviews revealed.

Consumers often perceive repair reimbursements as a reward for their sustainable action and a long-awaited signal of political and societal support against wasteful industries and unsustainable lifestyles. An interview partner even uses the voucher as an educational tool within their family, giving their children the reimbursement if they better care for their devices after the repair. Being the first state in Germany to implement repair vouchers, Thuringian residents express a general sense of pride for the measure. In total, 89% of survey participants are satisfied with the programme and would like it to continue. Many actively promote the vouchers, and 13% learned about the vouchers from acquaintances (Figure 6), indicating significant community involvement despite the programme’s top-down management. The voucher programme also has important awareness-raising effects. For example, as highlighted during interviews, consumers can contact the Consumer Agency for information on where to repair a device.

Regarding potential rebound effects, 15% of our respondents had used or intended to use the reimbursement for buying new electronics or other consumer products and services, and 51% planned to direct the saved funds to food, household expenses or the next repair (Figure 9). We found that 90% of survey participants got fully functional devices after the repairs with the vouchers, and 93% continued using these devices actively in their households, indicating a significant resource conservation impact of the vouchers. However, it must be noted that 42% of the whole sample could not answer this question, as they had applied for the voucher shortly before the study, had limited experience with the reimbursement process or had not yet received it.

Our results confirm and expand upon existing literature, providing insights into device repair and replacement practices and demonstrate how financial incentives may stimulate product longevity. In line with Schelly (2015), our work highlights the crucial role of policy instruments, such as voucher schemes, in encouraging the adoption of repair practices. We conceptualised repair vouchers as an element of the system of repair provision, lowering transaction costs for repair and positively influencing its societal value.

Following Spurling et al. (2013), we found that repair vouchers help recraft repair as a valued practice by addressing resource barriers, reducing the price disadvantage, enhancing the perceived value of some old devices and signalling that repair is both viable and socially valued. This supports our hypothesis that such vouchers contribute to facilitating the adoption of repair practices, however, with some limitations.

From a purely economic point of view, repair vouchers are expected to address the issue of early device replacement by improving the price competitiveness of repair (Fachbach et al., 2022). However, our findings confirmed previous literature that repair is not a one-time decision, but a series of actions, that are often found to be more influenced by perceived transaction costs and efforts than actual prices and the defective product’s utility and trade value compared to newer alternatives (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2021; Magnier and Mugge, 2022; Svensson-Hoglund et al., 2023). For instance, our interviewees did not always know the final repair cost, as it depends on factors repair shops cannot always estimate, such as the price of spare parts. Moreover, similarly to Makov and Fitzpatrick (2021), we also found that a general mental depreciation of older devices, regardless of actual repairability, led to many discarded items, as some of our interview partners replaced devices just by assuming unrepairable design without asking professional technical advice when they perceived the device old or outdated.

While repair vouchers did not always change these attitudes, they did influence cases where devices were still perceived as valuable. Some interviewees even repaired devices that had long been stored in their homes because of the vouchers. Additionally, 41% of survey respondents reported becoming more attentive to device care since receiving the voucher (Figure 8), with stronger impact on those previously less engaged in device care, improving human–device relationships. Moreover, many welcomed the vouchers as a sign of societal support for repair. Hence, we found that the significance of repair vouchers is not necessarily only the actual repair cost reduction but also the signalling effect that repair is a possible and socially desired option. Unlike the deduction of labour costs in Sweden or discounts from the French repair fund, vouchers require the active participation of consumers to get the repair cost reimbursement. This approach increases consumer awareness of the incentive, makes them feel rewarded for sustainable actions and fosters a sense of societal support for sustainable consumption.

Moreover, previous literature has identified further non-economic benefits of financial incentives, such as their role in raising awareness (Schwartz et al., 2019; Dalhammar et al., 2022). Voucher programmes also raise awareness about the importance and feasibility of repairs through public outreach campaigns, as well as providing further resources, such as lists or maps of repair shops and community repair spaces, to help consumers locate local services. 30% of voucher applicants reported in our survey having difficulties with knowing repair sites (Figure 5), which these online maps may address.

Previous research shows that perceived value often outweighs the actual repairability and functionality of a device, especially as the product ages (Makov and Fitzpatrick, 2021; Terzioğlu, 2021) and product age also affects willingness to pay for repairs (Sabbaghi and Behdad, 2018). In Thuringia 45% of devices repaired with vouchers were under four years old (Schmöger, 2024). In our sample, most repaired devices were smartphones (38%), which aligns with data from Austria (39%) and Thuringia (31%) (BMK, 2024a; Schmöger, 2024; BMK, 2024b; Table 6 ). However, smartphones are generally among the less frequently repaired consumer electronics in Germany, with 27% of all defective smartphones repaired, in comparison to 40% of defective laptops (Wertgarantie, 2024). Interviews revealed that phone repairs are widely accessible in Thuringia, with small repair shops in convenient locations, such as shopping malls, offering quick fixes like screen replacements or battery changes. Additionally, people rely heavily on phones for everyday tasks like work, online payments and using public transport apps. We suggest that when convenience barriers are minimal, infrastructural obstacles are less pronounced and the device’s attachment to everyday practices is high, the value of the device is also generally perceived higher in comparison to replacement options and repair vouchers are more effective at incentivising repairing these items.

Despite the positive effects of vouchers, we identified some limitations in driving long-term changes in consumer practices, and we highlight the need for further measures to (re-)integrate repair as a consumer norm. Following Spurling et al. (2013), we found that repair vouchers alone cannot fully replace device replacements or integrate repair into the network of other everyday practices, thus limiting their impact. With some exceptions (e.g. Maki et al., 2016), most studies find that financial incentives boost only short-term changes, as consumption behaviours often revert to previous patterns once incentives are removed (e.g. Winkler-Schor and Brauer, 2024; Zeiske et al., 2021). However, most financial incentives are discontinued after a period because maintaining them becomes too costly (Zeiske et al., 2021). Similarly, current voucher programmes are planned as temporary measures with limited funding sources.

An example from Austria shows that the abrupt removal of vouchers can shock the repair sector due to a sudden drop in demand for services (Kretzl, 2023). This suggests that vouchers alone may not induce long-term change without additional measures, and they should be seen as a measure to bridge the gap until repair becomes a more widespread societal norm. Before phasing them gradually out, the competing market of new devices should be targeted with interventions and the repair market must be stabilised. Moreover, as Spurling et al. (2013) emphasised, integrating sustainable practices with daily activities is crucial for long-term change in consumption practices. Our interviews also revealed that people prefer to combine the task of getting something repaired with another activity. Therefore, repair services should be more closely tied to other daily routines, such as placing more repair shops in highly frequented areas like shopping malls. The most effective way to extend product lifetimes is by combining repair incentives that address price barriers and the mental valuation of devices with measures that improve the material context, such as better device repairability standards and more accessible repair infrastructure.

Moreover, another common issue with economic interventions is the windfall effect, meaning unintended gains (Köppl et al., 2019; Ramezani et al., 2018). In our study, 20% of respondents first learned about repair vouchers from service providers when they most likely already had strong intentions to repair (Figure 6). Moreover, 65% reported that they would have repaired their devices even without the voucher (Figure 3). However, while vouchers were not always the primary motivator for repairs, they effectively reinforced repair decisions, as interviews highlighted, and the awareness-raising effects of vouchers may have also led to further indirect repair engagement. This makes it challenging to determine how many repair requests were solely attributable to the vouchers.

Another limitation of repair voucher schemes is their limited scale, primarily due to the programmes’ constrained funding. For instance, between 2021 and 2023, approximately 30,300 devices were repaired in Thuringia, representing about 1.5% of the population (Schmöger, 2024), and in Austria, 840,000 repairs were conducted between 2022 and 2024, equivalent to about 9% of the population (BMK, 2024b). In our sample 14% applied for the voucher multiple times, suggesting even lower numbers. However, the positive public campaign promoting repair may have indirectly boosted general engagement in device care beyond this figure.

A further concern with financial incentives is rebound effects, where saved funds are used for new purchases (Poppe et al., 2024). However, our findings showed minimal rebound effects, with around half of the participants used or planning to use savings from the reimbursements for essentials like groceries, utility bills or future repairs rather than new devices and 93% continued using the repaired devices in their households. Though, it must be noted, that long-term effects could not be assessed due to the high number of first-time voucher users in our sample, and many noted in interviews that the maximum reimbursement amount of €100 in Thuringia is relatively small, making it hard to track the spending accurately.

Drawing on our findings, we propose some recommendations for authorities already using or considering implementing repair vouchers for optimising their effects:

• Considering the many barriers to repair, simplifying voucher applications is essential to encourage engagement in repair activities, especially for those for whom repair is more of an effort. Hence, direct discounts at repair shops, rather than requiring full upfront payment, could be more attractive for consumers. However, the impact on consumers should be clearly visible to enhance their sense of reward. For example, consumers might apply for a voucher in advance and redeem it directly in shops while still completing some steps to receive reimbursement, ensuring active engagement with the programme. Moreover, while we acknowledge the advantages of digital platforms such as fraud checks and faster processing, the option for applying for the voucher via post should also be available, like in Thuringia, to increase social inclusion in the programme.

• Due to their strong awareness raising effect, vouchers must be part of a strong public outreach campaign with information provided on repair services. Since in our sample, 20% of people learned about the voucher programme only when they were already at the repair shops (Figure 6), we recommend more advertising for the programme. Moreover, in line with other studies (e.g. Güsser-Fachbach et al., 2023; Sabbaghi et al., 2017), we found that available information on repair services, such as maps of repair services, is useful for encouraging consumer engagement in repair.

• Financial incentives often lack long-term funding sources, relying on tax revenues, hence, planned as a temporary intervention. However, the abrupt removal of vouchers may result in a sudden drop in demand, as witnessed in Austria (Kretzl, 2023). Exploring sustainable financing through repair funds, like those in France funded by manufacturer fees, could provide a long-term funding source and could allow a gradual phase-out of the vouchers.

• A repair-oriented society requires policies targeting prevailing market dynamics favouring rapid product turnover. Our study, echoing previous research, highlights consumers weigh repair costs against the price of new devices (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2021). However, the widening cost disparity between repairs and product replacements (McCollough, 2010; McCollough and Qiu, 2021) indicates that solely subsidising repairs with vouchers will not suffice. Studies show that consumers are generally only willing to pay up to one-third of the replacement cost to repair household appliances (Fachbach et al., 2022), and voucher reimbursements may not compensate enough of the repair price. In line with existing literature (Dalhammar et al., 2022), we suggest taxing new products and integrating the “true price” of devices (Malinauskaite and Hussam, 2024), including (e.g. inadequate wages) and environmental issues (e.g. air pollution) within production processes as parallel measures to support repair. This would result in higher product prices, and as we know from literature (e.g. Güsser-Fachbach et al., 2023) and our data, higher initial product prices may increase interest in prolonging the lifetime of devices. In total, 62% of our survey participants replaced a device before due to the original cheap purchase price (Figure 4).

• Taking up an alternative practice entails acquiring new knowledge, modifying routines, challenging cultural norms and reshaping power dynamics for consumers (Warde, 2017). This necessitates more investments into repair education through school curricula and community repair. In our sample, 63% feel they know how their devices function and 61% even attempted repairs themselves. As a comparison, 92% feel confident to know what to check when buying new devices (Figure 5).

• Repair vouchers have the potential to especially benefit lower-income groups, and 24% of our respondents felt they could not have afforded the repair without the voucher (Figure 3), suggesting its social inclusion effect. In the long term, repairing devices can save consumers money (Hernandez et al., 2020). However, lower income groups need to be more targeted in the programme.

• Finally, our study highlighted that structural barriers, particularly the limited accessibility of repair infrastructure, are significant when compared to the ease of purchasing new devices. To address this imbalance, repair services should receive greater support. In total, 82% of our study participants noted enough electronics shops in their proximity, and 90% could easily buy electronics, while 55% lacked nearby repair services and 70% found it easy to repair (Figure 5).

All in all, our main recommendation is that a combination of policy measures is necessary to encourage repair as a common practice, with financial incentives for consumers being just one component.

Our study has theoretical as well as practical relevance. Understanding the role of policy measures aiming at incentivising consumers’ repair practices is a key step in assessing the effectiveness of policies aimed at advancing a circular economy. The results of the study can be particularly useful as guidance for authorities considering implementing repair vouchers to foster repair and to reduce resource consumption.

We found that repair vouchers, as a new element in the repair provision, facilitate a shift in conventional consumer roles from purchasers to stewards of devices by reducing repair costs, elevating the perceived value of some old devices and signalling societal support for repair, thus supporting everyday device care.

However, while repair vouchers are important policy tools, they are no silver bullet for creating a supportive environment for repair. Instead, they serve as a temporary facilitating measure and must be implemented alongside other complementary actions. While this work provides recommendations on maximising the benefits of vouchers, we also suggest additional interventions to expand their impact and encourage broader consumer engagement in repair. Transitioning to a functioning circular economy requires shifting policy focus from targeting individual decisions to fostering conditions that support repair, such as strengthening repair infrastructure, while also discouraging less sustainable practices, such as purchasing new devices.

Despite the important contributions made in this study, being the first systematic data collection on voucher users and their device care practices, some limitations could be addressed in future studies. Firstly, our study could not assess the vouchers’ long-term effects because most participants applied for them shortly before the study. Secondly, our study relied on data based on individuals’ self-assessment of their competences and material settings with potential social desirability biases and no objective measures of these were included. Future research could apply longitudinal and ethnographic methods to better understand the relationship between vouchers and repair practices within everyday settings. Thirdly, while we focused on consumer practices, future research could also explore vouchers’ impact on the repair economy, as the system of service provision constitutes an essential factor in repair practices. Next studies could also expand the scope of the research by involving other regions or countries in the data sampling with different repair incentivising schemes. Addressing these identified gaps can deepen our understanding of policy interventions to extend product lifetimes through repair.

Repair vouchers represent a less transformative, yet potentially more immediate and important step towards advancing sustainable consumption. Since repair voucher schemes do not fundamentally challenge the current linear market structures driving fast consumption practices; truly promoting sustainable consumption and production will require implementing more radical policies. Future research should focus on identifying policy interventions with strong leverage to drive systemic change and strategies to overcome blocking vested industrial interests that drive short product lifetimes.

The authors would like to thank all the respondents of the online survey and the interview participants who devoted their time to the study.

The authors also thank Peter Schmöger and the Consumer Agency in Thuringia (Verbraucherzentrale Thüringen) for their support in testing and distributing the online survey to voucher applicants.

Funding: Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt PhD scholarship programme.

Table A1 

Table A2 

Table A3 

1. Did you have problems with defective electronics in the past five years?

   • Can you estimate how often? Which devices? What was the problem?

2. Can you tell me what you did then?

   • Can you tell me about your experience repairing these electronics?

   • How much experience do you have with repairing electrical appliances yourself? e.g.: Your washing machine broke.

3. Why did you repair these devices?

   • What were the reasons for you in the past not to repair devices?

   • What aspects do you consider when deciding to repair or not repair something?

4. Which device(s) have you repaired with the repair voucher?

   • Can you tell me more about them? What exactly did you do?

5. Would you have had the device(s) repaired even without the voucher?

   • Can you tell me why?

6. Can you tell us what happened to the device after the repair?

   • How has the repair voucher changed the way you deal with your defective devices?

7. Are you satisfied with the repair voucher programme?

   • If you could change something about the voucher programme, what would you change?

8. In what other ways could the local/German/EU Government support the repair of electronic devices?

9. Did you have any difficulties in the past when you tried to buy new electronics?

Source(s): Authors’ own work. The original template was in the German language