A comprehensive overview of the current repair incentive systems: repair funds and vouchers

Repair funding programs are gaining popularity across Europe and receiving numerous positive feedback from the population. People enthusiastically have their devices repaired within the framework of these funding programs. Particularly, the programs running in Austria and Thuringia for several years allow us to formulate the following recommendations based on the experiences gathered there, which could prove valuable for regions, cities, and countries considering the introduction of a repair voucher:

1. Appropriate Funding Amount: To create an incentive effect through the repair bonus and ensure that the administrative effort is in reasonable proportion to the funding amount, the funding sum must be sufficiently high. For example, in Thuringia, an average value of €75 per repair has emerged as the funding sum. In France, the funding amounts per product were increased after a few months to enhance the incentive effect of the program.
2. Low entry barriers for Repair Businesses: To ensure that there are sufficient opportunities to avail the repair bonus, criteria for participating repair businesses, if any, should be chosen as low-threshold as possible. An in-depth assessment of the first phase of the French repair fund concludes that the effort and costs for businesses to qualify for the funding program are deterrent for many, especially smaller, businesses.
3. Predictability for Repair Businesses: Predictability for repair businesses is crucial when it comes to responding to increased orders due to the funding program and, for example, hiring new employees. Short-term suspensions of the program and unplanned order declines can lead to significant difficulties, as demonstrated by the example of the RUSZ repair workshop in Vienna, which had to declare bankruptcy. Therefore, a stable framework is essential.
4. Easy Application Process: Complex hurdles for participants should be avoided as much as possible during the application process. A digital process has proven successful in various systems. In Saxony, it is observed that the required electronic signature can pose certain hurdles for some consumers.
   Therefore, attention should be paid to making the verification process as user-friendly as possible. At the same time, the effort of application processing and resulting costs, as well as security and potential vulnerabilities for fraud cases, must be kept in mind.
5. Repair Map for Visibility: Introducing a repair map, as practiced in Saxony and France, makes repair offers visible in the region. This service should continue to exist even after a possible end of the funding period and serve citizens as a useful source of information. The updating of the data is crucial to ensure the correctness of the information.
6. Fraud Prevention through Clear Processing Procedures: Experiences from Austria show that the procedure should be designed to minimize fraud cases. Accordingly, the reimbursement process was changed so that the reimbursement no longer goes through the businesses but through the consumers' accounts. This is intended to ensure transparency and integrity.
7. Financing through Extended Producer Responsibility: Financing through extended producer responsibility is sensible to avoid burdening public budgets and enable long-term incentive systems. Manufacturer contributions should be tiered based on product quality (Eco-Modulation). This creates incentives for producers to market high-quality and repair-friendly products.
8. Data Collection: Data collection is important for calculating emission savings and potentially adjusting the program. Continuous analysis of the data can optimize the efficiency and success of the program. Furthermore, data on repaired products can be useful for implementing and evaluating further measures for repair promotion. Example: Evaluation of the third funding period of the Thuringian bonus through an accompanying study.