Euroconsumers 2024 Forum hosted two panels which brought together top sustainability practitioners from consumer organisations, the European Commission, repair programmes, MEPs, telcos, academia and national ministries.

This blog picks out some insights from speakers who unpacked the question of whether we’re ready for sustainability?

1. Are consumers ready to pay more for sustainable products? And should they have to?

Euroconsumers’ surveys consistently show that most consumers are eager to reduce their environmental impact, but that the price hikes can put them off taking the sustainable option.

Forum panelists pointed out that in many cases buying unsustainable, potentially lower quality goods actually costs more in the long run. They are likely to break down and need replacing sooner, and potentially burn through more energy when in use.  At the panel hosted by Testachats one speaker said:

It is also proving difficult for consumers to invest their money in more sustainable, long lasting products. Greenwashing and a proliferation of labelling schemes can cause confusion. People also need to weigh up the whole range of factors that make the optimal ‘sustainable’ choice, for how things like climate impact, durability, social justice issues are communicated and whether they’re accurate.

2. Are we ready to have our choices limited?

The Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) currently sets out eco-design requirements, covering aspects such as sustainability, energy efficiency and durability standards for electrical products – manufacturers must meet these if they want to sell in the EU market. 

Over the next few years the ESPR will cover almost all consumer products in the EU. Over time, this will take away a manufacturer’s choice to make unsustainable products, and limit what is on offer for consumers to buy.

Soon consumers’ choices will be limited, will this mean the costs of producing to higher standards will be passed onto consumers? The best case is that market prices correct themselves as they compete on efficiency, durability and quality instead. However, there’s a risk that these stricter regulations make goods unaffordable and worsen social inequalities. 

3. Are regulators ready to enforce?

Consumer advocates expressed concern that because the ESPR is a broad framework regulation, it will take time to see the effect of the new design rules and measures on the market which won’t be applicable until 2027.

The wide extension of products due to be covered by the new ecodesign rules also means a huge amount of change at all design stages needs to happen to meet the new requirements.   

Serious resources and monitoring are imperative to making the redesign of goods across so many product categories a success. 

Alongside manufacturing, new ecosystems of repair services need to be developed and supported by consumers ready and willing to fix failed products. We are talking about a culture change, and that inevitably takes time and consistent pressure from many different directions. 

4. Are we ready to repair?   

Panelists discussed what needs to happen to make key repairability initiatives like the ESPR, the Directive on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (DECGT) and new right to repair rules have an impact.

But right now, costly repairs stop consumers fixing their appliances and devices, and they end up as waste. 

We heard about how ‘fixing factories’ in the community can keep products from landfill, foster a repair culture, and build community links. But financial incentives are needed to boost and sustain uptake and for it to make sense economically. For example, in Berlin, 100% of the cost of spare parts for repair can be claimed back. In other places repairs and spare parts are VAT free. 

Accessing quality information on products, usage, maintenance and repairs is also critical for sharing knowledge and growing a repair culture.  

Innovative projects like CircThread have demonstrated that you can work together to build open data repositories which can pinpoint common faults and fixes. Getting manufacturers involved will help build this intelligence and be good news for end consumers and for companies wanting to manufacture long lasting, repairable products.  

 It’s also about getting the repair message to people in an enjoyable way as our speaker from the REPair PERspective (RepPer) project explained: 

5. Is anyone ready to tackle the taboo that we should produce and consume less? 

Whether we are even ready to consider lower consumption is perhaps the biggest question of all. We discussed how much of the sustainability legislation is based on finding better ways to continue doing what we do now.

For example, making more efficiencies, dramatically slicing out waste and prioritising reuse and repair to keep products and materials in circulation for the maximum time. There was less emphasis on more dramatic transitions away from production and consumption. 

One participant reminded us that constant overproduction was a symptom of a linear economy that had to change:

Another saw a difference between ‘excessive consumption’ – such as the fast turnaround, throwaway culture of low quality goods with high environmental footprints that has flourished online. That needed to stop but any more was a reduction of choice. 

For others, the focus on efficiency is a distraction from the bigger, more existential question that we must ask ourselves – is it time to make and consume a lot less? 

Embracing circular, sustainable consumption needs more change

The panels clearly showed that there is a lot we need to put in place before we are ready to embrace circular, sustainable way of consumption.  What was clear that with a systemic shift such as this, all parts of the economy, society and culture need to be part of the change, for example: 

And what about consumer organsiations? One speaker suggested that they must ask ourselves if they are ready to “kill their darlings” for example, reducing consumer rights to return multiple sizes of clothes bought online in order to discourage over consumption?  

Given the systemic issues of unsustainable production and consumption, fixing on this one aspect of consumer returns may turn out to be a distraction from the bigger picture.

What we know is that consumers have already stepped up and made changes, but they should not have to bear the hefty price tag of sustainability, especially given that many are already struggling financially. 

We need repairable products and better solutions to tackle e-waste and promote a circular economy. We need solutions that are both sustainable and affordable. We cannot stop repeating this simple message.