Device repair statistics show a persistent gap between wanting products repaired and actually repairing them. A 2020 European Commission survey found that 37% of users bought a new digital device because an old one had broken, while London evidence suggests that almost half of electricals sent for recycling could be reusable. The figures below cover different years, geographies and definitions, so each measurement period matters.
Contents
- Why devices are replaced
- Who tries to repair broken devices
- UK failures and immediate responses
- Repair pathways in London
- Repair success and discarded value
- Repair-sector capacity and market trends
Why devices are replaced
The European Commission’s 2020 evidence points to failure and declining performance as major replacement triggers. A broken old device was the main reason for buying a new digital device for 37% of users. Performance that had significantly deteriorated was the reason for 30%, while applications or software no longer working accounted for 19%.
The pattern was particularly stark in the German users surveyed in 2019: 59% bought a new smartphone directly when the old one broke, but only 11% tried to repair it. An Austrian study from 2018 found a larger repair-attempt share, with 34% of consumers with a defective phone trying to repair it. Among those Austrian consumers who tried, 43% said the phone was beyond repair, 31% said it was reparable and 26% did not know how to repair it. Using those reported shares, the European Commission said only about 10% of all defective phones were actually repaired.
These findings describe different national studies and should not be combined into a single consumer average. They do, however, show three recurring barriers: a device can be technically unrepairable, the owner may lack repair knowledge, or replacement can feel easier than finding a repair route.
The European Commission’s source also reported operating-system support ranging from below one year to above five years across smartphone and tablet markets, based on 2021 evidence. Support duration is not the same as physical repairability, but it can affect whether keeping an older device feels practical.
Who tries to repair broken devices
Consumer preference is more repair-friendly than consumer behavior. A 2014 Eurobarometer found that 77% preferred having products repaired rather than buying new ones, even though they eventually replaced or discarded those products. In a 2021 DG JUST study, 62% of respondents frequently searched for durability information when buying products, and 55% frequently searched for reparability information.
Cost remains a major obstacle. In a 2018 mobile-phone survey cited by the Joint Research Centre, repair price was a reason not to repair for 39.8% of respondents. This helps explain why an expressed preference for repair does not always become a completed repair.
The repair market itself also faces price pressure. Among independent repairers surveyed in the Netherlands in 2018, 43.8% viewed falling mobile-phone prices as a threat to their business. The corresponding share among independent repairers surveyed in Poland was 38.5%. When a replacement handset becomes relatively inexpensive, the economics of paying for diagnosis, parts and labor can become less attractive.
UK failures and immediate responses
The UK OPSS Wave 7 survey, conducted from 13 December 2023 to 13 January 2024, found that 38% of respondents reported at least one electrical or large domestic appliance outside warranty stopping work in the previous year. The most frequently reported categories in the supplied results were chargers at 15%, small kitchen appliances at 13%, and laptops, tablets or mobile phones at 12%.
Reported failure rates varied across demographic groups. At least one electrical item had broken for 45% of LGB+ adults, compared with 37% of heterosexual adults. Broken chargers were reported by 20% of LGB+ adults versus 14% of heterosexual adults. Broken laptops, tablets or mobiles were reported by 17% versus 11%, and broken speakers by 8% versus 4%.
The response after failure often favored replacement. Among respondents whose charger had broken most recently, 67% bought a new one. The corresponding figure for a small kitchen appliance was 63%. For a broken large domestic appliance, the share buying a replacement fell from 54% in OPSS Wave 5 in 2022–2023 to 47% in Wave 7 in 2023–2024.
Repair was still a meaningful response for some categories. Professional repair was among the top three responses for 28% of respondents with a broken laptop, tablet or mobile, and for 22% of respondents with a broken large domestic appliance. Disposal was among the top three responses for 43% with a broken charger and 20% with a broken speaker. Only 13% took a broken electrical or domestic appliance to a dedicated e-waste bin.
| Broken item or response | UK share | Measurement period |
|---|---|---|
| At least one electrical or large domestic appliance stopped working outside warranty | 38% | OPSS Wave 7, 13 Dec 2023–13 Jan 2024 |
| Chargers broken outside warranty | 15% | OPSS Wave 7 |
| Small kitchen appliances broken outside warranty | 13% | OPSS Wave 7 |
| Laptops, tablets or mobiles broken outside warranty | 12% | OPSS Wave 7 |
| Took a broken item to a dedicated e-waste bin | 13% | OPSS Wave 7 |
Repair pathways in London
ReCare’s 2024 pan-London survey found that 67% considered repair first when a product broke or malfunctioned. Among reported problems, 60% involved broken or malfunctioning electrical products and 40% involved electronic products. Respondents considered repairing electronic products 75% of the time, compared with 61% for electrical products.
Among London respondents considering repair, professional repair was the selected route for 45%, home repair for 44% and repair events for 10%. Professional repair was considered most often for electronic products, at 52%. Electronic-product owners moved forward with repair 56% of the time, compared with 49% for electrical products.
The London results show that repair intent can lead to several different pathways. A person may use a commercial repairer, attempt the work at home or attend a community repair event. Those routes are not interchangeable: they involve different levels of expertise, cost and access, and the survey’s percentages describe selected routes rather than a universal ranking for every device.
Repair success and discarded value
Across all London repair routes in the ReCare survey, attempted repairs were reported successful 82% of the time. Professional repairs were attempted 50% of the time and had an 87% success rate. Home repairs were attempted 56% of the time and had a 77% success rate. Repair-event attempts were reported 52% of the time and had an 81% success rate.
The evidence also points to substantial reuse potential. Londoners spent an estimated £3.3 billion per year on electricals, covering about 273,000 tonnes of devices. In 2023, about £1.9 billion worth of repairable items were discarded in London, an average of more than £250 per adult. These are London estimates and should not be treated as a national total.
Almost 50% of electricals sent for recycling in the cited London evidence were estimated to be reusable. An additional 10% were estimated to need only minor repairs. The same ReCare evidence estimated that London’s electrical and electronic consumption generated up to 9% of the city’s goods-related emissions in 2024. Reuse and repair therefore concern both retained product value and the wider effects associated with consumption.
At London repair events, 50% of repairs in the Open Repair Alliance dataset were successful and a further 25% of products were diagnosed as repairable. The dataset period was not stated in the cited evidence, although the result was reported in 2024. Lamps accounted for 67% of products in that repair-event evidence and had a repair success rate above 50%.
Repair-sector capacity and market trends
European repair activity grew, but more slowly than the wider economy. The EU repair sector grew 14.6% from 2012 to 2018, compared with EU GDP growth of 18.8%. Employment repairing computers and personal and household goods rose from about 387,000 to more than 410,000 between 2012 and 2017.
Business availability differed sharply between countries. In 2018, Lithuania had 2.74 computer and communication-equipment repair businesses per 10,000 people, while Luxembourg had 0.16 per 10,000 people. These figures measure business density, not the number of technicians, repair attempts or successful repairs.
Turnover trends also varied. IT-repair-sector turnover fell 34.8% in Sweden between 2012 and 2018, while it rose 54.9% in Poland over the same period. The broader structure of the sector changed too: the number of EU enterprises in the overall repair sector decreased 0.9% between 2012 and 2019, while communication-equipment repair enterprises increased 17.9%. The number of enterprises in the broader EU IT sector decreased 0.9% over the period covered by the Joint Research Centre comparison.
Taken together, the available evidence describes a repair economy with demand, but also friction. Consumers often say they prefer repair and frequently seek durability or reparability information. Yet device failures commonly lead to replacement, repair prices can deter action, and the density and financial health of repair businesses differ by country. The London estimates show why the decision after a failure matters: reusable products and minor-repair candidates can be diverted from disposal while retaining value.
Sources
- Commission Staff Working Document: Impact Assessment accompanying the proposal for a Directive on common rules promoting the repair of goods (European Commission; study years 2014, 2018–2021)
- OPSS Product Safety and Consumers Wave 7: Main Report (UK fieldwork, 13 December 2023–13 January 2024)
- How and why Londoners repair their electrical and electronic products (ReCare, 2024, with cited secondary repair-event evidence)
- Repair as a resource efficiency strategy: opportunities and barriers in the EU (Joint Research Centre; study periods 2012–2019)