CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 61Sustainable Supply Chain ManagementSustainable Design and DevelopmentEnvironmental Sustainability in Business

From ‘right to repair’ to ‘willingness to repair’: Exploring consumer’s perspective to product lifecycle extension

Open access
Roskladka, Nataliia, Jaegler, Anicia, Miragliotta, Giovanni·2023·Journal of Cleaner Production
DOI 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139705
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper explores consumer barriers to repair to understand the factors preventing users from extending products' lifecycles. Environment policies to promote Right to Repair stimulate manufacturers to perform proper product lifecycle management. However, the success of such initiatives depends to a significant degree on the consumers' willingness to collaborate. In the case of a product failure, consumers decide what to do with the product. Through a systematic literature review and empirical analysis, we identified 26 barriers to consumers effecting repairs and classified them into three categories. Academic experts and practitioners then evaluated the importance of each barrier through a Delphi study and ranked the importance of the barrier categories. A washing machine was used as an exemplary reference. The study's findings reveal that convenience of repair (in particular, the costs of repair services and limitations in repair infrastructure) and the technical possibility of repair (lack of spare parts and repair manuals) are the most significant barriers affecting consumers' choice to repair or replace a washing machine. Given the limited literature on consumer barriers to repair, the results of this study may be used as a benchmark for testing consumer attitudes in different regions and as a reference to establish policies and repair promotion campaigns to encourage consumers to prolong the lifecycle of their products.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139705

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Positive attitudes increase the willingness to make environmentally friendly decisions and repair habits.

    “This showed that positive attitudes increase the willingness to make environmentally friendly decisions and repair habits [5].”

    From Designing for Repair and Extended Lifespan: Consumer Expectations and Economic Constraints (2026) · cites this paper as [5]

    Section 3.6 identifies attitudes, norms, and lack of repair habit among barriers to repair, while Table 6 describes repair as an eco-friendly practice and discusses cultivating willingness to repair. These passages support a connection between consumer outlook and repair, but they do not establish that positive attitudes increase environmentally friendly decisions or repair habits. (LLM, conf=0.80)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • DfR features to prevent mechanical obsolescence include modularity, easy and quick disassembly and reassembly, ability to open a product, safety, material durability, and a repairable appearance.

    “The identified DfR features to prevent mechanical obsolescence are modularity, easy and quick disassembly and reassembly, the ability to open a product, safety, material durability, and a repairable appearance [5].”

    From Designing for Repair and Extended Lifespan: Consumer Expectations and Economic Constraints (2026) · cites this paper as [5]

    Sections 1.5–1.10 identify safety risks, nonmodular design, lengthy disassembly, fragile materials, and products that cannot be opened as barriers to repair. Section 3.1 links such design barriers to functional obsolescence. The copy does not identify a repairable appearance as a feature or use the claim’s more specific framing of preventing mechanical obsolescence; page numbers were not available. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Existing research on repairability largely focuses on product design, policy, and technical enablers, while providing limited empirical insight into consumer decision-making.

    “Existing research on repairability largely focuses on product design, policy, and technical enablers, while providing limited empirical insight into consumer decision-making [3-5,12].”

    From Designing for Repair and Extended Lifespan: Consumer Expectations and Economic Constraints (2026) · cites this paper as [5]

  • These findings affirm RQ1: end users hold a clearly positive attitude toward repairability, consistent with Salvia and Roskladka [5,32].

    “These findings affirm the answer to RQ1: end users hold a clearly positive attitude toward repairability, consistent with Salvia and Roskladka [5,32].”

    From Designing for Repair and Extended Lifespan: Consumer Expectations and Economic Constraints (2026) · cites this paper as [5]

    The passage under Table 6 describes cultivating consumers’ willingness to repair as a major challenge, and §1.12 says perceptions of repairability can help people keep products longer. Neither passage establishes that end users hold a clearly positive attitude toward repairability; searches for positive attitudes and consumer perceptions found no such finding in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. Ackermann, L., Tuimaka, M., Pohlmeyer, A.E., Mugge, R., 2021. Design for product care-development of design strategies and a toolkit for sustainable consumer behaviour. Journal of Sustainability Research 3 (2).
  2. Arora, H., 2021. "Right to Repair" vis-à-vis Indian trade mark law: a comparative analysis. J. World Intellect. Property 24 (1-2), 41-54.
  3. Bradley, K., Persson, O., 2022. Community repair in the circular economy-fixing more than stuff. Local Environ. 27 (10-11), 1321-1337.
  4. Carlsson, S., Mallalieu, A., Almefelt, L., Malmqvist, J., 2021. Design for longevity -a framework to support the designing of a product's optimal lifetime. Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design 1 (ICED21), 1003-1012.
  5. Dávila, M.L., Milios, L., Richter, J.L., Dalhammar, C., 2021. Behavioural insights into personal electronics repair in Sweden. In: 20th European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption and Production. Verlag der Technischen Universität Graz, pp. 321-343.
  6. Godfrey, D.M., Price, L.L., Lusch, R.F., 2022. Repair, consumption, and sustainability: fixing fragile objects and maintaining consumer practices. J. Consum. Res. 49 (2), 229-251.
  7. Hallowell, M.R., Gambatese, J.A., 2010. Qualitative research: application of the Delphi method to CEM research. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 136 (1), 99-107.
  8. Hassler, E., Carver, J.C., Kraft, N.A., Hale, D., 2014. Outcomes of a community workshop to identify and rank barriers to the systematic literature review process. Proceedings of the 18th international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering, 1-10.
  9. Hilger, N.G., 2016. Why don't people trust experts? J. Law Econ. 59 (2), 293-311.
  10. Huang, J., Esmaeilian, B., Behdad, S., 2016. Design for ease-of-repair: insights from consumers' repair experiences. Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference 1-7.
  11. Isenhour, C., Reno, J., 2019. On materiality and meaning: ethnographic engagements with reuse, repair and care. In: Worldwide Waste, vol. 2. Ubiquity Press. Issue 1.
  12. Kahane, L., 2022. The impact of the Massachusetts 2012 right to repair law on small, independent auto repair shops. Appl. Econ. Lett. 29 (10), 873-879.
  13. Koverman, C., 2016. Next-Generation Connected Support in the Age of IoT: it's time to get proactive about customer support. IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine 5 (1), 69-73.
  14. Lam, L., Suen, C.Y., 1997. Application of majority voting to pattern recognition: an analysis of its behavior and performance. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. Hum. 27 (5), 553.
  15. Lang, C., Armstrong, C.M.J., 2018. Fashion leadership and intention toward clothing product-service retail models. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 22 (4), 571-587.
  16. Lepawsky, J., 2020. Towards a World of Fixers Examining barriers and enablers of widely deployed third-party repair for computing within limits. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series 314-320.
  17. Liu, M.W., Zhang, L., Keh, H.T., 2019. Consumer responses to high service attentiveness: a cross-cultural examination. J. Int. Market. 27 (1), 56-73.
  18. Maclachlan, M., Harrison, D., Wood, B., 2009. Exploring the reflective and utilitarian benefits of product attachment. International Conference on Engineering Design 1013-1022.
  19. Manwaring, K., Kearnes, M., Morgan, B., Munro, P., Pala, R., Samarakoon, S., 2022. What does a right to repair tell us about our relationship with technology? Altern. Law J. 47 (3), 179-186.
  20. McCollough, J., 2009. Factors impacting the demand for repair services of household products: the disappearing repair trades and the throwaway society. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 33 (6), 619-626.
  21. McCollough, J., 2020. The impact of consumers' time constraint and conspicuous consumption behaviour on the throwaway society. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 44 (1), 33-43.
  22. McNeill, L.S., Hamlin, R.P., McQueen, R.H., Degenstein, L., Garrett, T.C., Dunn, L., Wakes, S., 2020. Fashion sensitive young consumers and fashion garment repair: emotional connections to garments as a sustainability strategy. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 44 (4), 361-368.
  23. McQueen, R.H., Jain, A., McNeill, L.S., Kozlowski, A., 2023. The role of resources in repair practice: engagement with self, paid and unpaid clothing repair by young consumers. Textil. Res. J. 93 (3-4), 576-591.
  24. Mirr, N.A., 2020. Defending the right to repair: an argument for federal legislation guaranteeing the right to repair. Iowa Law Rev. 105 (5), 2393-2424.
  25. Mitra, A., 2021. Warranty parameters for extended two-dimensional warranties incorporating consumer preferences. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 291 (2), 525-535.
  26. Moalem, R.M., Mosgaard, M.A., 2021. A critical review of the role of repair cafés in a sustainable circular transition. Sustainability 13 (22).
  27. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann. Inte. Med. 151 (4), 264-269.
  28. Park, M., 2019. Closed for repair: identifying design affordances for product disassembly. PLATE Conference 1-6.
  29. Pope, S.M., Elliott, J.R., Turbini, L.J., 1998. Designing for Technological Obsolescence and Discontinuous Change: an Evaluation of Three Successional Electronic Products. IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, p. 280.
  30. Prendeville, S., Hartung, G., Purvis, E., Brass, C., Hall, A., 2016. Makespaces: From redistributed manufacturing to a circular economy. Sustainable Design and Manufacturing 2016. Springer International Publishing, pp. 577-588.
  31. Rosborough, J.D.A., 2020. Unscrewing the future: the right to repair and the circumvention of software TPMs in the EU. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law 11 (1), 26-48.
  32. Roskladka, N., Miragliotta, G., Bressanelli, G., Saccani, N., 2022. Exploiting the Right to Repair towards a sustainable future: a systematic literature review. In: Proceedings of the 29th EurOMA Conference.
  33. Russell, J.D., Svensson-Hoglund, S., Richter, J.L., Dalhammar, C., Milios, L., 2022. A matter of timing: system requirements for repair and their temporal dimensions. J. Ind. Ecol. 27 (3), 845-855.
  34. Sabbaghi, M., Behdad, S., 2017. Design for repair: a game between manufacturer and independent repair service provider. In: Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference.
  35. Sandez, S., Pérez-Belis, V., Juan, P., Bovea, M.D., 2023. Do users have the ability to self- repair non-complex electrical appliances? Design and development of a self-guided workshop with repair documentation in different formats. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 39, 244-256.
  36. Seyffert, F., Belke, L., Stamminger, R., 2018. Obsolescence of large household appliances in Germany. Tenside, Surfactants, Deterg. 55 (6), 424-431.
  37. Shafiei, N., Herrmann, J.W., Krive, A., Modarres, M., 2022. Estimating the reliability of consumer electronics from user survey data and test data. In: Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium.
  38. Svensson-Hoglund, S., Richter, J.L., Maitre-Ekern, E., Russell, J.D., Pihlajarinne, T., Dalhammar, C., 2021. Barriers, enablers and market governance: a review of the policy landscape for repair of consumer electronics in the EU and the U.S. J. Clean. Prod. 288.
  39. van den Berge, R., Magnier, L., Mugge, R., 2022. Enhancing consumers' willingness to repair electronic products: how design can nudge sustainable behaviour. DRS Conference Proceedings.
  40. van den Berge, R., Magnier, L., Mugge, R., 2023. Until death do us part? In-depth insights into Dutch consumers' considerations about product lifetimes and lifetime extension. J. Ind. Ecol. 27 (3), 908-922.
  41. van Loon, P., Delagarde, C., Van Wassenhove, L.N., Mihelič, A., 2020. Leasing or buying white goods: comparing manufacturer profitability versus cost to consumer. Int. J. Prod. Res. 58 (4), 1092-1106.
  42. van Nes, N., Cramer, J., 2005. Influencing product lifetime through product design. Bus. Strat. Environ. 14 (5), 286-299.
  43. van Nes, N., Cramer, J., 2006. Product lifetime optimization: a challenging strategy towards more sustainable consumption patterns. J. Clean. Prod. 14 (15-16), 1307-1318.
  44. White, P., Fellmeth, A., Robinson, D., 2021. US legal frameworks: a path to product longevity? Journal of Sustainability Research 3 (3).
  45. Wolf, M., McQuitty, S., 2013. Circumventing traditional markets: an empirical study of the marketplace motivations and outcomes of consumers' do-it-yourself behaviors. J. Market. Theor. Pract. 21 (2), 195-210.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roskladka, N., Jaegler, A., & Miragliotta, G.
Affiliations
  • Kedge Business School (FR)
  • Politecnico di Milano (IT)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Cleaner Production
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-12
Volume
432
Pages
139705
ISSN
0959-6526 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139705
OpenAlex
W4388635590
Cited by
61
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 9
FWCI
13.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Cleaner Production (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Virtual Community of Pathological Anatomy (University of Castilla La Mancha) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Sustainable Supply Chain Management
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Sustainable Design and Development
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Environmental Sustainability in Business
Keywords
right to repair, product life extension, consumer attitudes, repair costs, spare parts availability, workshop manual, washing machines, product failure, product lifecycle management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review