Table 4. Overview of elements in... | Emerald Publishing

Table 4.

Overview of elements in literature that hinder repair

Structure-related elements
Linear market logic favouring early replacements over repair	High costs of repair partly due to high labour costs and prolonged repair time (McCollough et al., 2018; Sabbaghi et al., 2017); serviced or self-repair are often expensive outside warranty (Mitra, 2021); combined with low prices of new devices prompting consumers to replace (Laitala et al., 2021) Prevalence of linear business models that have low interest in durable and repairable products (Bocken and Short, 2021). Fast innovation cycles and advertisements encourage new purchases and induce novelty seeking (Cox et al., 2013; Jaeger-Erben et al., 2021) Unfair competition for the independent repair sector (van der Velden et al., 2023) makes starting a repair business unattractive (Piringer and Schwarzlmüller, 2023)
Linear product design	Premature functional or material obsolescence (Godfrey et al., 2022; Prakash et al., 2020) discouraging product care (Terzioğlu, 2021). Low-repairable design; unavailable or expensive spare parts (Rudolf et al., 2022; Sabbaghi et al., 2017; Türkeli et al., 2019); unavailable fault diagnostics and software updates (van den Berge et al., 2023b; Wieser and Tröger, 2018). Trade-offs between repairability and durability (Cordella et al., 2021; Jaeger-Erben et al., 2023)
Waste disposal systems prioritising recycling	Evolving discarding practices marginalised repair in post-industrial societies (Krebs and Weber, 2021); recycling prioritised over repairing in legal frameworks, business and waste management strategies (Mathieux et al., 2020; Moalem et al., 2023); limiting harvesting for spare parts (Moalem et al., 2023)
Legal frameworks restricting repair and limit consumer rights	Legal barriers such as intellectual property and copyright restrictions, digital locks on third-party repair and restrictive warranties limit consumers’ freedom to repair (Lepawsky, 2020; Svensson-Hoglund et al., 2021; Perzanowski, 2021)
Insufficient repair infrastructure	Not enough repair services and places for community repair (Moalem and Mosgaard, 2021; van der Velden et al., 2023); shortage of a new generation of trained repair technicians (Piringer and Schwarzlmüller, 2023)
Agency-related elements
Non-monetary transaction costs are high for repair	Non-monetary transaction costs are high for repair. Consumers have no time to get devices repaired and to wait for devices; it is more convenient to buy new devices (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2021; Sabbaghi and Behdad, 2018; Scott and Weaver, 2014)
Perceived risks	Low trust in repaired products and repair services; uncertainty about the length, final price and success of repair services (Sabbaghi and Behdad, 2018; Svensson-Hoglund et al., 2023); induced further by the lack of knowledge about consumer rights (Perzanowski, 2021; Svensson-Hoglund et al., 2021)
Lacking repair competences	Lacking the knowledge of how devices are built and function, difficulty to assess whether they can be repaired (Korsunova et al., 2023; Van Der Velden, 2021); also leading to low consumer expectations of the durability and reparability of products (Makov and Fitzpatrick, 2021); not having information where devices can be repaired (Rogers et al., 2021). Lack of new repair technicians (Piringer and Schwarzlmüller, 2023)
Lower valuation for repaired devices	Consumers may perceive repairable products as being of lower quality, and there might be a general social stigmatisation repair, seen as an act of necessity (Gregson et al., 2009; Rogers et al., 2021); increased acceptance of a throw-away culture (Cooper, 2020; McCollough and Qiu, 2021); wish for new features in products (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2021)

Structure-related elements
Linear market logic favouring early replacements over repair	High costs of repair partly due to high labour costs and prolonged repair time (McCollough et al., 2018; Sabbaghi et al., 2017); serviced or self-repair are often expensive outside warranty (Mitra, 2021); combined with low prices of new devices prompting consumers to replace (Laitala et al., 2021)Prevalence of linear business models that have low interest in durable and repairable products (Bocken and Short, 2021). Fast innovation cycles and advertisements encourage new purchases and induce novelty seeking (Cox et al., 2013; Jaeger-Erben et al., 2021)Unfair competition for the independent repair sector (van der Velden et al., 2023) makes starting a repair business unattractive (Piringer and Schwarzlmüller, 2023)
Linear product design	Premature functional or material obsolescence (Godfrey et al., 2022; Prakash et al., 2020) discouraging product care (Terzioğlu, 2021). Low-repairable design; unavailable or expensive spare parts (Rudolf et al., 2022; Sabbaghi et al., 2017; Türkeli et al., 2019); unavailable fault diagnostics and software updates (van den Berge et al., 2023b; Wieser and Tröger, 2018). Trade-offs between repairability and durability (Cordella et al., 2021; Jaeger-Erben et al., 2023)
Waste disposal systems prioritising recycling	Evolving discarding practices marginalised repair in post-industrial societies (Krebs and Weber, 2021); recycling prioritised over repairing in legal frameworks, business and waste management strategies (Mathieux et al., 2020; Moalem et al., 2023); limiting harvesting for spare parts (Moalem et al., 2023)
Legal frameworks restricting repair and limit consumer rights	Legal barriers such as intellectual property and copyright restrictions, digital locks on third-party repair and restrictive warranties limit consumers’ freedom to repair (Lepawsky, 2020; Svensson-Hoglund et al., 2021; Perzanowski, 2021)
Insufficient repair infrastructure	Not enough repair services and places for community repair (Moalem and Mosgaard, 2021; van der Velden et al., 2023); shortage of a new generation of trained repair technicians (Piringer and Schwarzlmüller, 2023)
Agency-related elements
Non-monetary transaction costs are high for repair	Non-monetary transaction costs are high for repair. Consumers have no time to get devices repaired and to wait for devices; it is more convenient to buy new devices (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2021; Sabbaghi and Behdad, 2018; Scott and Weaver, 2014)
Perceived risks	Low trust in repaired products and repair services; uncertainty about the length, final price and success of repair services (Sabbaghi and Behdad, 2018; Svensson-Hoglund et al., 2023); induced further by the lack of knowledge about consumer rights (Perzanowski, 2021; Svensson-Hoglund et al., 2021)
Lacking repair competences	Lacking the knowledge of how devices are built and function, difficulty to assess whether they can be repaired (Korsunova et al., 2023; Van Der Velden, 2021); also leading to low consumer expectations of the durability and reparability of products (Makov and Fitzpatrick, 2021); not having information where devices can be repaired (Rogers et al., 2021). Lack of new repair technicians (Piringer and Schwarzlmüller, 2023)
Lower valuation for repaired devices	Consumers may perceive repairable products as being of lower quality, and there might be a general social stigmatisation repair, seen as an act of necessity (Gregson et al., 2009; Rogers et al., 2021); increased acceptance of a throw-away culture (Cooper, 2020; McCollough and Qiu, 2021); wish for new features in products (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2021)

Source(s):

Authors’ own work