The Right to Repair: Get your fix

The planet is the real loser in our replacement over repair culture. So how did we get to this point? With us now is Tim Cooper, Emeritus Professor of Sustainable Design and Consumption at Nottingham Trent University.

Tim - I think there's a systemic problem. I think we're in a consumer based society where there's a benefit, commercial benefit, to companies, making products that are worn out, whether it's how they look or how they work or how long they work. For most businesses, gradually reducing the lifespan of products over a sustained period of decades, they make more money that way. There are, of course, a few products that last much longer, a few companies that are focused in that area, but it's a relatively small share of the market, but they demonstrate that it is possible to make longer lasting products.

James - So are the manufacturers doing this on purpose? Is that what you're suggesting? Is it right to lay the blame on them?

Tim - No, I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm saying it's a systemic problem and I think governments, companies, consumers are all to blame. We all have a role to play. As John said just now, governments have got a role in setting the framework, the legislative framework, that determines whether products are allowed to be put on the market - short-lived products, irreparable products. Consumers have got a role because if there isn't a demand for products that are repairable, then it's pointless to introduce legislation or for companies to do research making them repairable. You can make a repairable product, but they're still thrown away when they break because the consumer can't be bothered to get it repaired. It's too expensive to get it repaired. So we all have a role to play in this.

James - Let's take those points in turn and start with, as John was alluding to, the fact that the technology companies are starting to take this a bit more seriously. Is that because of legislative pressure they've come under?

Tim - Yes. Over the past 10 to 15 years, there's been the growth of what's being called the circular economy debate. And in particular, this has been strong in Europe. Legislation is gradually being introduced to force manufacturers to address the problems of short-lived irreparable products. Companies need time to adapt to that. The concern is how much time we've got and, certainly as John was alluding to earlier, too many companies are trying to slow down the process, but the process is inevitable because we all know that the whole world can't live in the way that rich industrialised countries have been doing in recent years. We all have to move onto a more sustainable path where there's far less waste, where products last longer and at the end of life they're fully recyclable.

James:
In practical terms, what's being done to make repairing electronics simpler?

Tim - Well, a number of things are happening. In terms of the requirements, over time we are going to see products labelled with their repairability and with their durability. Already that's happened in France. They brought in legislation before the European Union. That came into force three or four years ago now, where a small number of products now, when you buy them, there's a label that says how repairable they are. The European Union is moving in that direction, and those labels will be ready probably by around 2025 on a limited number of products. And as they do this, consumers will be able to make informed judgement as to whether or not they want to buy a product. And I think we'll see the same kind of trend as we did with energy labels, that people will say, well, why would I buy a product that's designed not to be repaired when there's one that could be repaired? That's only part of the problem as I just said a moment ago. We still need to have the question of how expensive it is to repair products rather than replace them and we still need that desire to keep things going for longer, which means we have to have products that are designed for upgradeability, particularly in the high tech sector.

James - I'm pleased to hear your optimism when it comes to consumers and their approach to buying products that they know will be more sustainable, even if it might hit them in the pocket. How have you come to that confidence?

Tim - Well, maybe that was slightly misleading if I was optimistic. What I was trying to say was that consumers need to play their part, and there is evidence that if products are longer lasting but better value for money, then they will move in that direction. Consumers are often irrational, but they're often very rational indeed. And if they see products on the market and one is cheaper than another and there's no real assurance that the one of a particular brand or a particular functionality will last long, they won't pay the extra. So we do need to have communication with consumers to put them on the right track. We also need to raise people's expectations. I think people, in my generation, we were used to products being designed to last for as long as possible. It's only really in recent decades that we've moved to a society where people do treat electrical goods as throwaway items. And then the legislation actually isn't very strong on that at the moment. So these new laws, right to repair legislation, for example, the revisions to the Ecodesign Directive, they actually tend to focus on the large products. One of my concerns and one of my frustrations are small appliances, which are proliferating in the industrialised countries, and those products are often very short-lived.

Time to hear from another passionate repairer now: writer, designer, and ex Naked Scientist Diana O’Carroll. Over the past few years, she’s been dedicating lots of her time to repairing old Kenwood machines. For the uninitiated, Kenwood is a manufacturer of domestic appliances, best known for food mixers. I spoke to Diana to find out more about her hobby repairing machines over half a century old…

Diana - I do have some modern things. I have the iPhone and a little robot vacuum cleaner, but I also have Kenwood machines and mixers from the 50s and 70s and I enjoy fixing them and taking them apart and stripping them right back to their components and then putting them all back together again.

James - If you don't mind me asking, why?

Diana - Well, it started off just as a challenge really. It was like doing a jigsaw puzzle, but at the end, instead of getting a pretty picture, you got something that actually worked and that you could use. And while I was doing this, I just learned so much about how the quality of the components can affect, what you end up with, how long something lasts. I realised how easy it was to repair these older machines.

James - It started out as sort of a point of intrigue and then by the very nature of the fact that you could do it in contrast to modern tech, it became liberating almost.

Diana - We have technology that's just sitting around, very cheaply available and can still do a really, really good job. Kenwood were essentially early pioneers of sustainability, I think it is fair to say that, and you don't really need to be an expert. I mean, obviously, when you're dealing with the circuitry, you probably should have some training and take certain precautions.

James - Is it a case of, that's possible with that more primitive technology, but when it comes to the phones we use or the laptops we use, that's got a level of complexity that needs some expertise?

Diana - There is an element of that. And if I'm talking about stripping something right back to the individual screws and capacitors or whatever, then yes, obviously the more primitive a technology is, the easier, the more accessible that's going to be. However, I have fixed things like my robot vacuum cleaner, for example, which has really very advanced stuff. It's essentially got a bit of AI. It has lidar to navigate its way around my house, but that was built in a modular way, which meant I could take it apart very easily and then I could replace the individual bits which internally would've been quite complex. But you can just buy these parts, quite cheaply. So for example, the bit that I needed to replace was a little motor, which spun the lidar sensor around in the top because that had worn out. And it cost me about 10 pounds. I just replaced it. It took me 10 minutes and it was working again. And that was because the company had made it easier for me to do because of the way they'd built this machine.

James - Does it anger you, if I was to take it that far, to think that you could take a piece of technology that's a couple of years older and you might ask them to fix it for you and they essentially tell you where to go.

Diana - I have been frustrated in the past. There was one item that I knew was a really easy repair for the company to do. It wasn't something that I could do because I didn't have the right machines to do it, but I knew for a manufacturer they could do that really easily, really cheaply. It would mean that no more components would have to be used and the item could continue being used. It wouldn't have to go to landfill. But they didn't want to do that. They didn't want to fix it. It would cost them too much. It would erode into their their profit margins. So the item got thrown away and that was that: a total waste. What also frustrates me is that there is a cynical attitude towards the customer. I think there is an element with some companies where a customer is just a cash cow. They're there just to buy the product and spend lots of money, as much money as possible. And it's no longer about creating a product, which is not only nice to use, not only useful, but good quality and will last and can be kept working for many years.