The “right-to-repair” movement has been booming in recent times, helped by the likes of New York State passing a law to force companies to make digital electronic products repairable. The idea behind such initiatives is to reduce the amount of waste going to landfills, while also reducing the number of materials used to produce things in the first place.

What’s more, it also aims to break the monopolies manufacturers often have on the repair market. Despite this inherent logic, however, research from BerkeleyHaas suggests that the benefits may not be quite so substantial. Indeed, the legislation may result in more e-waste, higher prices, and a legacy of older and less efficient products clogging the market.

“Strikingly, (right-to-repair) legislation can potentially lead to a ‘lose-lose-lose’ outcome that compromises manufacturer profit, reduces consumer surplus, and increases the environmental impact, despite repair being made easier and more affordable,” the researchers explain.

Growing momentum

While manufacturers have largely opposed right-to-repair laws, the support for it has been growing in recent years. The opposition has understandable factors behind it, not least of which is the profit that manufacturers make from the repair process and the encouragement laborious repairs makes to demand for new devices.

Massachusetts was at the forefront of the movement when it introduced a right-to-repair law for motor vehicles in 2012, which was subsequently expanded nationally in 2018. The Biden Administration ordered the Federal Trade Commission to draw up new regulations to facilitate independent repair last year, while the movement is also gaining support across Europe.

The study explores some of the implications for manufacturers, and the researchers developed a model to explore how they might respond to these new regulations, as well as what any repercussions might materialize.

No easy answer

It seems that the benefits of such policies largely depends on the type of product and its price. For instance, if the market is for low-cost products, the obvious response from suppliers would be to lower the price of new products and flood the mark, thus lowering the incentive to repair items.

“Motivating more consumers to purchase new products translates into higher new production volume and more e-waste,” the researchers explain. “As a result, the environmental impact increases.”

If the market is for pricier, higher-end products, however, then cutting prices would simply erode margins. A burgeoning independent repair sector would expand the lifespan of products, thus making them potentially more valuable. As a result, manufacturers could increase the prices of new products. This could result in the market being flooded with older, more energy inefficient products. This is especially risky for items with a high environmental cost, such as with gas-guzzling cars and trucks.

As a result, it might be risky for policymakers to make undoubtedly well-intentioned policies as they could have unintended consequences that can make matters worse.

“Ignoring the strategic response from the product market will paint an incomplete picture and even lead to flawed conclusions,” the researchers conclude. Instead, legislators should examine specific product categories, including their production cost and environmental impact, and avoid sweeping, one-size-fits-all policies.

“Different policy goals of protecting consumers versus the environment may conflict with each other” they continue. “Often, a trade-off has to be made.”