On September 16th, 2025, the PRISMA project hosted a webinar titled “How Economic Incentives and Behavioural Drivers Shape Consumers’ Engagement in Repairing Energy-Using Consumer Goods and their Environmental Impacts”. The event brought together experts to explore the complex factors influencing consumer repair behaviors and their implications for sustainability. Discover here the key takeaways.
Summary:
Japan’s transition to a Sound Material-Cycle Society necessitates a multifaceted approach that extends beyond the 3R framework. High waste generation, incineration of large volumes of waste, and high dependency on primary material imports necessitate a comprehensive strategy. To achieve more significant reductions in waste, lower material imports, and decreased CO₂ emissions, focusing on consumer-focused circular economy strategies is crucial. Policy support and lifestyle changes can be key enablers, but potential trade-offs between consumer-focused circular economy strategies and rebound effects must be carefully addressed.
This study employs the CIRCEE-LIFE model, a dynamic general equilibrium model augmented with material flow analysis and a lifestyle change module. It explores how economic incentives and lifestyle changes impact household behaviors related to the repair of energy-intensive goods. Furthermore, it evaluates the subsequent consequences on resource consumption, waste generation, and CO2 emissions.
Three key takeaways from the webinar:
- Lower repair costs are key to reducing waste and increasing resource security.
- High repair barriers can cut potential waste reduction benefits by over two-thirds.
- Strengthening the low-carbon cognitions of high-income groups is key to CE policies.
During this webinar, Darius Corbier, CMCC, and Hazel Pettifor, Oxford University, highlighted several findings:
- Decreasing the relative cost of repair is more effective than increasing solely the cost of replacement: A subsidy on repair services (rising from 5% in 2025 to 30% by 2050) combined with increased Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) fees (up to 20% of a new good’s price) can more than double repair rates compared to simply increasing replacement costs through higher EPR fees.
- Barriers to repair matter: High barriers to repair, which limit the substitution from new replacement goods to repaired goods, can significantly reduce the effectiveness of economic incentives. Eliminating these obstacles is crucial.
- Lifestyle changes are key antecedents to consumer-focused circular economy strategies: Households motivated by strong low-carbon values are more likely to engage in repair activities and achieve roughly twice the reductions in material use and waste generation compared to those motivated purely by the need to save money. Education and awareness campaigns to strengthen low-carbon cognitions alongside fiscal measures are essential for the success of repair policies.
- Trade-offs between R strategies: Higher replacement costs encourage Repair, Rethink (“sharing” in CIRCEE-LIFE), and Refuse (“sufficiency”), while lower repair costs encourage households to own. This highlights a tension between “Repair” and “Rethink” strategies.
- The circular economy presents potential trade-offs with climate change mitigation goals. Repairing products extends their lifespan, reducing waste generation by up to 12 Mt/year and decreasing material imports by up to 10 Mt/year in 2050, under specific conditions, such as low barriers to repair and strong environmental beliefs. However, the increased use of older, less efficient goods results in higher energy consumption. On the positive side, the reduction in waste processed in incineration facilities due to lower acquisitions of energy-using goods helps mitigate the negative impact of repairing old goods on CO2 emissions.
Summary of Q&A:
Q1: Since the context is very important in your study, on the empirical front data availability is challenging. Given the challenges with data availability, especially in different regions, how transferable do you think these findings are to other parts of the world? What would be necessary to better understand the situation in other global contexts—particularly in areas with less historical policy development? What steps should be taken to improve our understanding and comparability across different regions?
A1: Darius Corbier emphasizes that the study only considers Japan, a small and resource-poor country. Even when examining other countries like the EU or resource-poor nations, we can still observe some tension between SDG-12 and SDG-13. However, these lower resource imports and the higher shift to a circular economy in resource-poor economies will lead to reduced material extraction, refinement, and ultimately, lower CO2 emissions from extractive industries and refined material production in resource-rich countries, which are not considered in this study. While CO2 emissions may increase locally in Japan, they can actually decrease in other countries due to lower material production and extraction. Therefore, Darius Corbier believes there’s a need for a more global perspective to understand how advancing circular economy goals in resource-poor countries impacts climate change mitigation efforts in resource-rich economies. Only one side of the argument has been presented here. Still, there is also the other side, involving resource-rich countries that produce materials requiring significant energy in their production processes.
A2: Hazel Pettifor emphasizes that empirically, context plays a crucial role; however, significant drivers, such as income (GDP), often dominate models and can obscure other factors. While education appeared important, it was likely a proxy for digitalization. Social influence also holds significance. The questions posed in the survey for the LIFE model were particularly focused on digitalization and its influence on society. Therefore, the next phase of our research on these types of models involves examining digitalization as a primary driver of lifestyle and its impact on behaviors.
Q2: How was the modeling of awareness campaigns, and how do these change behavior? Also, do you have any insights on how the results change if the country relies less on incinerators to manage waste?
A1: Darius Corbier responds that this study does not model awareness campaigns; rather, it is a policy implication of strengthening low-carbon cognitions among high-income groups in the model.
Additionally, Darius Corbier points out that there are two cases to consider. Either the country relies heavily on recycling or it has a lot of landfills. Landfilling also causes significant air pollution issues and potentially biodiversity losses. If we examine countries with higher recycling and landfilling capacities, we will observe lower, perhaps less beneficial, outcomes in terms of cumulative CO2 emissions due to less waste being treated through incineration sectors.
A2: Hazel Pettifor explains that dreams consist of agency (perceived ability to act), values, and belief systems (which are challenging to shift through simple awareness campaigns). To strengthen low-carbon cognitions, here are some potential interventions:
– Improved education: Accessible through social institutions like schools, universities, and workplaces, improved education shapes low-carbon cognitions.
– Improved digitalization: Equipping people with skills and knowledge to be informed and take action on responsible behaviors is crucial.
– Improved social cohesion: Strong social networks provide support and guidance, enabling people to make informed choices and observe desirable, responsible behaviors.
Leveraging social networks, influential institutions, familiarity, and making specific behaviors visible can trigger social spillovers. However, it is important to note that values and beliefs change gradually, and behavioral shifts occur over time.
Watch the recording: https://youtu.be/ow1wKBhBa98
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 101081604 – PRISMA. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA). Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.