Leaving Nothing to Waste: Elevating the Role of Repair in Australia

Lilia Ben Dekhil, Freya Phillips National Scholar, COP29 Fellow

Executive Summary

Behind the veil of unprecedented technological advancements lies a disquieting reality: a global electronic waste crisis (Lee et al., 2019). Australia faces growing challenges in managing electronic waste, generating over 580 million kg of e-waste in 2022 alone, with repair often inaccessible or discouraged. A disproportionate reliance on recycling over the higher order waste avoidance activities of repair, reuse and refurbishment prevents Australia from fully transitioning to a circular economy. To avoid overshooting the current predictions of Australians generating 657 million kg of e-waste by 2030, addressing this issue is essential to reducing electronic waste, promoting sustainable consumption and strengthening consumer rights.

This paper recommends the introduction of a National Repairability Index for electronic products. The Index would provide clear repairability scores for relevant products at the point of sale, supporting consumers to make informed purchasing decisions while also incentivising manufacturers to design more repairable and durable products. Implementation costs of $4.6 million over five years are projected based on comparable domestic ecolabelling schemes which operate primarily on a cost-recovery model. Initial funding would come from the National Productivity Fund, with ongoing costs offset by registration fees.

Problem Identification

The average Australian household has five large appliances and an array of smaller, and battery operated gadgets (Wiseman, 2024). When these products are discarded, whether still functional or broken, they become electronic waste (e-waste).

Currently, e-waste generation is far outpacing recycling efforts. In 2022, 62 billion kg of e-waste was generated globally, yet less than one quarter (22.3%) of this was documented as properly collected and recycled (Baldé et al., 2024). Between 2010 and 2022, global e-waste increased by 2.3 billion kg annually, while recycling efforts grew by less than 0.5 billion kg annually – an almost fivefold difference. Projections suggest that by 2030, e-waste generation will increase by 33% to reach 82 billion kg per annum, while recycling rates will drop to 20% (Baldé et al., 2024).

In 2022, Australia generated over 580 million kg of e-waste, with a per capita generation of 22.4 kg – nearly triple the global average of 7.8 kg (Baldé et al., 2024). While Australia’s formal collection and recycling rate of 50% exceeds the global average, only one-third of the total value of materials in e-waste is recovered (DCCEEW, 2023). In 2019 alone, this resulted in $430 million worth of valuable materials being sent to landfill (DCCEEW, 2023). Beyond economic loss, e-waste contains toxic substances such as lead, cadmium, and mercury, which account for 70% of the toxic chemicals found in landfills (Ankit et al., 2021). If mismanaged, these toxic chemicals pose severe risks to both the environment and human health.   

Presently, Australia lacks an effective policy or legislative framework to address its e-waste problem at the manufacturing stage. This issue is further aggravated by significant barriers to repairing electronic products (e-products) (Productivity Commission, 2021). Consumers are not supported to assess the repairability or durability of their purchases, nor are they incentivised to repair rather than replace products. As a result, repair rates remain low, contributing to the growing e-waste crisis. Without immediate action, Australia risks far exceeding the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water (DCCEEW)’s projection of generating 657 million kg of e-waste by 2030 (DCCEEW, 2023).

Context

Understanding the need for repair

Although Australia has established policies and infrastructure to enable formal collection and recycling rates which are well above the global average, it addresses waste only after it has already been produced (Baldé et al., 2024; World Economic Forum, 2020). As Wiseman (2024) notes, “relying on recycling alone is not enough for Australia to move to a circular economy by 2030”.

The R-Ladder framework illustrates the hierarchy of resource use in a circular economy, where strategies higher on the ladder result in lower resource consumption and greater circularity (Pickin & Macklin, 2025) (figure 1). Recycling is categorised as an R8 activity—one of the least circular options—whereas repair, classified as R4, directly reduces waste by extending product lifespans. Prioritising repair moves waste management beyond end-of-life solutions and towards waste prevention (Macklin et al., 2024). By increasing access to and awareness of repair, fewer products are discarded, reducing both landfill waste and the demand for new products (Perzanowksi, 2022).

Figure 1. R-ladder of Circularity Strategies (Pickin & Macklin, 2025).

Consumers have long grappled with the ‘repair or replace’ dilemma. Generally, if the cost of repair is more than 30% than the cost of a new product, people do not tend to repair (Vasseur, 2024).  Consequently, repairs have to make financial sense to be seen as a viable, sustainable option (Bundesverband, 2022). The high cost of repairs is one of the main barriers to a product being theoretically repairable and actually repaired.

Understanding International Policy Intervention

Although still to fully take shape in Australia, repair is an increasingly global social movement (now supported by regulation in the US, Canada and EU) that has demonstrated replicable successes. There have been several regulatory regimes that have been implemented in the EU which have incentivised repair. 

Case Study 1. European Union Right to Repair Directive

In April 2024, the European Parliament put forth a proposal on Common Rules Promoting the Repair of Goods, also known as the Right to Repair Directive (Directive P9_TA(2024)0308). The Directive complements existing legal and policy infrastructure, such as the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation and the European Green Deal Right to Repair Directive, 2024).

The Directive requires:

• Manufacturers to offer repair services outside the legal guarantee window

• Fairer access to spare parts for independent repairers

• The establishment of a European online platform for repair

• Member States to implement at least one measure to promote repair.

Member States must implement and enforce the Directive through national laws, including penalties for infringements. The Directive specifies that enforcement must include at least one of the following bodies: public bodies, consumer or environmental organisations, or professional associations, which must have the authority to take legal or administrative action to ensure compliance (article 11 of the Directive). On May 30, 2024, the proposal was officially adopted, and states have until 10 July 2026 to incorporate the Directive into their respective national laws.

Case Study 2. France’s Repairability Index

As part of its national strategy to increase products’ lifespan, France introduced a repairability index in January 2021. The repairability index was designed as a new measure to encourage a national culture of repair. At the time of its introduction, the index covered five product categories (televisions, smartphones, front-loading washing machines, electric lawn mowers and laptops) (Halte A L’Obsolescence Programmée (HOP), 2022). These product categories were chosen because of their common prevalence in households, and they represent a significant impact on economic household budgets and the environment (HOP, 2022). The repairability index presents itself as a score out of ten; a higher number indicates the product, or device is easier to repair. The calculation of the repairability index is based on the following five criteria:

1. Availability of technical documentation

2. Ease of disassembly

3. Spare parts availability

4. Spare parts price

5. Product-specific criteria (HOP, 2022).

The repairability index is self-declared (i.e., manufacturers grade their products using scoring grids defined by the French Ministry of Ecological Transition (European Environment Agency, 2025). To mitigate too generous self-scoring, manufacturers must also publish all the information that went into calculating the repairability index out of 10. As the information is provided to customers, it is designed to be a market driven initiative. With reparability being factored into shopping decision, in an easy way, it also encourages industry and manufacturers to design more sustainable products (Williams, 2021). From 2024, the repairability index evolved into a durability index (still including the criteria on repairability). It includes additional criteria designed to provide information on the robustness, reliability and upgradeability of a product (Vasserur, 2021). The index has already positively influenced consumer behaviour: 76% of consumers who bought new products in 2021 relied on the index in orienting their purchasing decisions, and 91% of people would recommend to others (HOP, 2022). Though has also welcomed criticisms given its voluntary nature and onus on manufacturers to assess themselves fairly. 

Case Study 3. Austria’s Repair Subsidy Program

There are many approaches to strengthening a culture of repair. One option which addresses concerns of affordability and accessibility implemented in Austria is a repair incentive. A repair incentive is a financial or non-financial measure designed to encourage the repair of a product (Meyer & Molnar, 2024). In April 2022, Austria launched Reparaturbonus, a federal repair subsidy program. Taking the form of a repair voucher, each voucher covers 50% of the repair cost (including VAT), up to a maximum amount of €200 (AU$320) per product repair. It also subsidises 50% of the price of a repair cost estimate up to €30 (AU$48) (Bell, 2023).

The Austrian Ministry of Climate Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology (MCAEEMIT) reports that since introduction of Reparaturbonus in April 2022, approximately 840,000 repair vouchers have been redeemed (Meyer & Molnar, 2024). This figure far exceeds the Ministry’s target of 400,000 repairs by 2026, demonstrating the popularity and success of the repair bonus (Federal Chancellery Republic of Austria, 2023). The effects of Reparaturbonus have been significant for both consumers and repairers. The high number of redeemed vouchers shows how consumers have benefited directly from saving money on repairs. At the same time, local businesses have seen positive economic effects (Bell, 2023).

Understanding the Domestic Policy Landscape

Australian Consumer Law

The Australian Consumer Law (ACL), set out in Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), grants consumers a range of consumer guarantees. It is useful to examine the one that is most relevant to this paper; the right to a remedy – repair, replacement or refund – for defective products. However, consumers may not have the power to choose their preferred remedy, limiting repair options and potentially contributing to e-waste (Productivity Commission, 2021).

A key provision is section 58 (‘guarantee as to repairs and spare parts’), which requires manufacturers to take “reasonable action” to ensure facilities for the repair of goods and spare parts are available for a “reasonable period” after a product is supplied. The vague language of “reasonable” leaves consumers with inconsistent protections. Section 58(2) further weakens this guarantee by allowing manufacturers to disclaim these obligations. As the main legal recourse for consumers seeking to enforce their rights under consumer guarantees, the ACL in its current form does not provide reliable access to repair.

2021 Productivity Commission Right to Repair Inquiry

In October 2021, the Australian Productivity Commission (PC) released its final report into the Right to Repair. In its report, the PC proposed several recommendations to overcome barriers to repair that fall into three broad categories:

1. Enhance consumer rights

2. Promote competition and enable access to repair supplies

3. Improve product information and e-waste management (Productivity Commission, 2021).

Figure 2. Summary of PC Recommendations

As of December 2024, none of the recommendations put forth in the inquiry report have been formally responded to or implemented. The absence of implementation may be attributed to regulatory complexity (Rimmer, 2021) and a lack of political prioritisation.

Ecolabelling in Australia

Ecolabelling and ecolabel certification schemes are not a novel concept in Australia. Nationally, there are two well established schemes – the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (WELS) Scheme and the Energy Rating Label – that were designed to help consumers make informed choices about the water and energy efficiency of products.

Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Scheme

The WELS scheme, established under the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005 (Cth), is a mandatory national program designed to conserve water, provide consumers with information about water-use products, and promote water-saving technologies. Administered by DCCEEW in partnership with state and territory governments, the scheme ensures consistency through complementary legislation across Australia. The WELS labels display three key elements: a star rating (out of six) indicating water efficiency, product-specific water consumption rates (e.g., litres per wash or flush), and registration details, helping consumers compare water efficiency across products. Compliance is mandatory for registered products sold or advertised in-store or online, with penalties for non-compliance.

Energy Rating Label

The Australian Energy Rating Label is a mandatory program aimed at helping consumers make informed decisions by providing clear, standardised information on the energy efficiency and consumption of appliances. The label includes two key components: a star rating (out of six or 10 stars) indicating energy efficiency compared to similar models, and the annual energy consumption in kilowatt hours, based on standardized testing. Mandatory for in-store sales but optional for online sales, the label promotes energy-efficient purchasing decisions and incentivises manufacturers to improve product efficiency. Administered by the Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards (GEMS) Regulator within DCCEEW, the program operates under the Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Act 2012 (Cth) and associated legislation.

These schemes demonstrate Australia’s ability to implement consumer information programs that foster sustainable purchasing decisions. However, they focus only on product efficiency (energy and water use), leaving a critical gap: they do not address product repairability or durability. Longevity is a central tenet of sustainability, yet consumers lack the information needed to assess how long products will last or how easily they can be repaired.

Policy Options

To address the growing e-waste crisis in Australia, a critical measure of success is to reduce the volume of e-waste by incentivising repair and extending the lifespans of e-products. Several policy options could feasibly achieve this goal.

Option 1. Develop and Introduce a National Repairability Index for E-Products

A national repairability index, administered by DCCEEW, would provide clear and accessible information to Australian consumers about the repairability of electronic products. By enabling consumers to assess repairability at (or before) the point of sale, the index aims to curb e-waste generation by encouraging sustainable purchasing decisions. It would also incentivise manufacturers to design more repairable products to remain competitive, ultimately phasing out poorly designed items from the Australian marketplace.

To align with international examples, such as France’s Repairability Index, the Australian index would assign e-products a score from one to 10 (to one decimal place) based on standardised, objective criteria such as ease of disassembly, and accessibility of technical documentation. The score would be displayed both in-store and online, positioned prominently near the product price. A repairability index would enhance transparency by providing consumers with clear, accessible information on product repairability. However, reliance on manufacturer self-declaration poses a risk of score manipulation or greenwashing, underscoring the need for robust auditing mechanisms to maintain the index’s integrity.     

Based on the implementation of similar indexes, it is estimated the Australian Repairability Index would cost $4.6 million over five years.

Option 2. Amend Section 58 of the ACL to Ensure Greater Consumer Guarantees for Repairs

This option proposes amending section 58 of the ACL to improve consumer access to repairs and provide clearer manufacturer obligations. The current provision requires manufacturers to take “reasonable action” to ensure the availability of repair facilities and spare parts for a “reasonable period”. The lack of clear definitions results in inconsistent consumer protections.

Drawing inspiration from the EU EcoDesign Directive, the proposed amendment would define a ‘reasonable period’ as up to 10 years after purchase for maintaining repair facilities and spare parts. Additionally, ‘reasonable action’ would be clarified through a non-exhaustive list of specific manufacturer responsibilities that constitute reasonable efforts to maintain repairability (such as supplying spare parts and providing repair information). These amendments would enhance access to repair, facilitate sustainable consumption habits and reduce national e-waste. This policy could increase costs for manufacturers, potentially raising product prices, however, robust enforcement mechanisms and collaboration between government and industry could mitigate these challenges.

Although the amendments to this legislation would have minimal associated costs to enact, there will most likely be an increased burden on the ACCC which will need to enforce these new requirements under Consumer Law.

Option 3. Develop and Introduce a National Repair Bonus Scheme for E-Products

A national repair bonus scheme would provide a financial incentive to make repairs more affordable and accessible for Australian consumers. By addressing the financial barriers to repair, the scheme would aim to extend product lifespans, reduce e-waste, and counteract the market reality that replacing products is often cheaper or more convenient than repairing them.

The bonus would be delivered through repair vouchers, covering 50% of the repair cost (including GST) up to a maximum of $200 per product. These vouchers would be provided annually, with a limit of $200 per person (defined as someone over the age of 18) per calendar year. These vouchers would be redeemable only at certified repairers who meet the program’s standards and hold the required certification. The scheme would focus on common household electrical appliances such as smartphones, computers and small kitchen appliances. DCCEEW would administer the program. To streamline implementation, the bonus would be directly deducted from the invoice at the point of payment (e.g., for a repair costing $400, the customer would pay only $200), ensuring immediate benefits for consumers.

Using Austria’s uptake rates as a guide, this policy would initially cost Australia approximately $84 million annually with additional administrative costs to oversee the program.

To maintain focus on genuine repairs, the scheme would include clear exclusions, such as routine maintenance, cleaning services, and software updates. Robust oversight and accountability mechanisms would be critical to prevent misuse or fraud and to ensure the program achieves its intended environmental and economic objectives.

Policy Recommendation

Option 1, a national repairability index is recommended as the most effective approach to reducing barriers to repair, empowering consumers, and extending product lifespans. This policy aligns with Australia’s sustainability commitments by addressing e-waste generation at the source, with the potential of influencing both manufacturers and consumers at the point of design and purchase, respectively.

Proposed Structure and Framework

Australia’s national repairability index would require manufacturers to self-score their products against standardised criteria, resulting in a score out of 10 to one decimal place (the ‘index score’). Drawing inspiration from France’s Repairability Index, and domestic programs like the Energy Rating Label and WELS Scheme, the repairability index would provide clear, accessible information to consumers.

Sellers would be required to display the index score prominently:

• For in-store sales: index scores must be shown on shelf labels near display models.

• For online sales: index scores must appear on any purchasing webpage, near the price or "add to cart" button.

• For other marketing materials: index scores should also be included in promotional posters and leaflets where applicable.

Two components define the repairability index:

1. Index score: products covered by the index will be assigned a score out of 10 (to one decimal place), calculated by manufacturers using a standardised calculation grid developed by DCCEEW. The criteria for scoring will be based on international best practices, and will include factors like availability of spare parts, and cost of repair (to help consumers weigh repair against replacement). Environmental specific criterion may also be included such as factoring in CO₂ savings from repair over replacement and the use of recycled or sustainable materials in the product design.

2. Mandatory labelling: sellers must clearly display the index score to inform consumers at the point of purchase.

Implementation Plan

Government Responsibility

DCCEEW would be best suited to lead the development and oversight of the program, drawing on its experience managing similar labelling schemes (i.e., the Energy Rating Label and WELS Scheme. This approach also minimises additional administrative costs. Collaboration with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission would be critical to ensure compliance and enforcement, supported by relevant state environmental authorities where necessary.

Timeline

It is recommended that Australia’s national repairability index be developed in four key stages.

Stage	Details and Activities	Duration
Stakeholder Consultation and Criteria Development	During this consultative 24-month phase, a working group with representatives from government, industry, environmental groups, and consumer advocates will be established. Their role will be to co-design and steer development of the repairability index. Where required, there will be calls for submissions, and public surveys and drawing on experiences from other jurisdictions Measure of success: · Determination of ‘First Generation’ products covered by the repairability index · Determination of the standardised criteria of the repairability index · Creation of technical standards for establishing scores for each of the criteria (the ‘calculation grid’).	Years 0-2
Public Awareness Campaign	Concurrent to the Stakeholder Consultation and Criteria Development stage and during the first year of the repairability index rollout, a government-funded public awareness campaign will be implemented to educate key stakeholders (including manufacturers, sellers and consumers) about the index and its benefits. Measure of success: · Improvement in manufacturers’, sellers’ and consumers’ comprehensibility of the repairability index.	Years 0-3
Pilot Program	Launch of two-year pilot program covering First Generation products. Measure of success: · Collection of data from consumers on how helpful they found the index in orienting their purchase choice.	Years 2-4
Review of Pilot Program	Formal review of the pilot program two years after commencement to assess the index’s effectiveness. The review will also explore possible modifications and expansions to the program, including but not limited to: · Extension of product categories; ‘Second Generation’ products · Introduction of controls, sanctions and penalties in cases of fraudulent scores or failure to display the index score · Establishment of minimum index score for different products · Development of incentives for manufacturers to reward repairability Measure of success: · Measurable decline in annual domestic e-waste generation · Review of data collection to identify what, if any, changes in consumer behaviour · Increased consumer use of the repairability index in purchasing decisions · Identification of what, if any, evolving practices of manufacturers.	After Year 4

Table 1. Summary of Australia’s National Repairability Index Implementation Plan

Funding and Costs

To estimate the expected costs of implementing the repairability index, comparisons can be drawn from existing domestic eco labelling schemes.

For initial development and implementation costs, the WELS scheme provides a useful reference. Established as part of the 2005–06 federal budget, the scheme received $4.6 million over five years for administration, as recorded in Budget Paper No. 2 (2005–06). A similar funding model could be considered for launching the repairability index.

For ongoing administration costs, both the WELS scheme and Energy Rating Label use a cost recovery model, charging registration fees to manufacturers. These fees contribute significantly to program funding. Under the current partial cost recovery settings, 80% of WELS administration costs are recovered through industry charges, with the remaining 20% split between Commonwealth (10%) and state and territory (10%) contributions (DCCEEW, 2024). When the WELS scheme was introduced, a five-yearly registration fee of $1,500 per product model was implemented (Australian Government, 2005). The Energy Rating Label operates under a tiered structure, with registration fees ranging from $440 to $780 depending on the product (Energy Rating, n.d.).

In November 2024, the government announced a $900 million National Productivity Fund (Kehoe, 2024) with $400 million per annum dedicated to the right to repair. It is anticipated that funding for the repairability index—both its initial development and ongoing administration—would be drawn from this fund. A tiered registration model for the repairability index may be most appropriate accounting for the complexity and scale of e-product.

Risks

The introduction of a national repairability index is an opportunity to reduce barriers to repair, provide consumers with greater autonomy and transparency and extend product lifespans. Notwithstanding, it is important to consider potential risks associated with its development and implementation.

Category of Risk	Risk	Potential Mitigation Pathways
Environmental	An increased focus on more repairable and durable products domestically may inadvertently lead to a rise in e-waste exports. Products already in Australia with low index scores may be exported to countries with limited capacity to handle e-waste in a sound environmental manner.	· Strengthen waste export laws under the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020 (Cth) to ban the export of unprocessed waste. · Bolster local e-waste recycling infrastructure to reduce reliance on exports and improve domestic waste management capacity.
Political	Industries and manufacturers benefiting from planned and premature obsolescence may lobby against the policy, arguing it unfairly impacts profitability and competition.	Engage industry stakeholders early during policy consultation to foster collaboration and address concerns.
Cultural	Consumers accustomed to frequent upgrades may resist repairable products, perceiving them as outdated or less advanced.	· Develop a public awareness campaign emphasising the economic and environmental advantages of repairable products. · Educate consumers on the sustainability impacts of repairable vs. disposable products.
Social	Consumers may experience confusion if the repairability index score is hard to interpret or if there are significant discrepancies in scores for similar products. This could lead to distrust or disregard for the index.	· Require manufacturers to publish the full calculation grid alongside the index score for transparency. · Conduct extensive market research during program development to ensure the index is intuitive and meets consumer expectations. · Provide educational resources to help consumers understand how to use the index effectively.

Table 2. Summary of Risks and Mitigation Pathways

References

Ankit, Saha, L., Kumar, V., Tiwari, J., Sweta., Rawat, S., Singh, J., & Bauddh, K. (2021, November 19). Electronic waste and their leachates impact on human health and environment: Global ecological threat and management. Environmental Technology & Innovation, 24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2021.102049

Australian Government. (2005). Budget Paper No. 2: Budget measures 2005-06. Department of the Treasury. https://archive.budget.gov.au/2005-06/bp2/bp2.pdf

Baldé, C., Kuehr, R., Yamamoto, T., McDonald, R., D’Angelo, E., Althaf, S., Bel, G., Deubzer, O., Fernandez-Cubillo, E., Forti, V., Gray, V., Herat, S., Honda, S., Iattoni, G., Khetriwal, G., Khetriwal, D., Luda di Cortemiglia, V., Lobuntsova, Y., Nnorom, I., Pralat, N., & Wagner, M. (2024, November 2). The Global E-Waste Monitor 2024. International Telecommunication Union and United Nations Institute for Training and Research. https://ewastemonitor.info/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/GEM_2024_EN_11_NOV-web.pdf

Bell, B. (2023, December 30). Austrian government launches repair scheme for electronic goods. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67777814

Bundesverband, V. (2022, August 29). Smartphone repairs are too expensive. https://www.vzbv.de/en/smartphone-repairs-are-too-expensive

Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. (2024, March 19). Cost Recovery Implementation Statement: Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards 2023–24. Australian Government. https://www.waterrating.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/wels-cost-recovery-implementation-statement-2023-24.pdf

Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (2023, August 28). E-Stewardship in Australia. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/protection/waste/e-waste#:~:text=We%20only%20recover%20a%20third,e%2Dwaste%20contains%20hazardous%20materials

Energy Rating. (n.d.). Registration fees and payment. https://www.energyrating.gov.au/industry-information/understand-requirements/register-product/registration-fees-and-payment

European Environment Agency (2025, February 1). Data on products evaluated against the French repairability index. https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/circularity/thematic-metrics/business/data-on-products-evaluated-against-the-french-repairability-index-1?activeTab=ce1ce5f5-fb32-42e9-81ea-5c801c12f78e

Federal Chancellery Republic of Austria (2023, June 22). National Reform Programme 2023. https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/dam/jcr:8fd55b2a-f7e9-454e-a5c4-691aa40ced9a/56_11_nb_nrp_2023_en.pdf

Halte A L’Obsolescence Programme (2022). The French Repairability Index: a first assessment - one year after its implementation. https://www.halteobsolescence.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Rapport-indice-de-reparabilite.pdf

Kehoe, J. (2024, November 12). Chalmers sets up $900m productivity fund. Australian Financial Review. https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/states-get-900m-sweetener-to-streamline-home-building-20241112-p5kpwa  

Lee, T., Crosby, A., Cooper, C., Adams Stein, J., & Scardfield, K. (2019, July 12). Design and repair must work together to undo our legacy of waste. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/design-and-repair-must-work-together-to-undo-our-legacy-of-waste-119932

Macklin, J., & Kaufman, S. (2024). How do we change what we cannot describe? A comprehensive framework of user behaviours in a materials’ circular economy. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 4, 384-412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-023-00289-8

Meyer, K., & Molnár, M. (2024, March 11). A comprehensive overview of current repair funds and vouchers in Europe. EU Right to Repair. https://repair.eu/news/a-comprehensive-overview-of-the-current-repair-incentive-systems-repair-funds-and-vouchers/

Pickin, J., & Macklin, J. (2025, January 20). National Waste and Resource Recovery Report 2024. Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/national-waste-and-resource-recovery-report-2024.pdf

Perzanowski, A. (2022). Why Repair Matters. In The Right to Repair: Reclaiming the Things We Own (pp. 14–48). Cambridge University Press

Productivity Commission (2021, October 29). Right to Repair Inquiry Report (No. 97). https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/repair/report/repair.pdf

Rimmer, M. (2021, July 23). A Submission to the Productivity Commission Inquiry on the Right to Repair (Submission to the Productivity Commission). Productivity Commission.

https://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/279154/subdr168-repair.pdf

Scelfo, J. (2009, May 27). Appliance Anxiety: Replace It of Fix It? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/garden/28repair.html?pagewanted=all

Vasseur, L. (2024, July 19). Financial incentives for repair: from national success stories to a European framework (Webinar).Right to Repair EU. https://repair.eu/news/financial-incentives-for-repair-from-national-success-stories-to-a-european-framework/

Vasserur, L. (2021, January 28). The French Repairability Index: Challenges & Opportunities [Webinar Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqMBwo2d0tM&t=2811s

Williams, J. (2021, February 24). France tackles throwaway culture with the repairability index. Earthbound Report. https://earthbound.report/2021/02/24/france-tackles-throwaway-culture-with-the-repairability-index/

Wiseman, L. (2024, July 18). Is Australia becoming a dumping ground for unrepairable appliances? The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/is-australia-becoming-a-dumping-ground-for-unrepairable-appliances-232266

Wiseman, L. (2024, October 30). Feedback on Opportunities in the Circular Economy Discussion Paper (Submission to the Productivity Commission). Productivity Commission.

https://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/387282/sub040-circular-economy.pdf

World Economic Forum. (2020, July). Plastics, the Circular Economy and Global Trade (White Paper). https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Plastics_the_Circular_Economy_and_Global_Trade_2020.pdf

The views and opinions expressed by Global Voices Fellows do not necessarily reflect those of the organisation or its staff.