Made obligatory by the anti-waste and circular economy law (Agec), the display of the reparability index still suffers from numerous shortcomings, according to checks carried out by the General Directorate of Competition, Consumption and Protection. fraud prevention (DGCCRF). In a report issued on March 20, the consumer watchdog warned of the numerous violations of the law noted by both manufacturers and resellers.
As the decree of December 29, 2020 indicates, all products affected by the hexagonal index (i.e. smartphones, computers, washing machines, televisions, lawn mowers, dishwashers, high-pressure cleaners pressure and vacuum cleaners) must be accompanied by their small pictograms with adjustable wrench, whether they are sold in stores or on the Internet. The details of the rating and the summary table must also be made available, automatically for online sales sites and on request for physical stores.
The subnotes are missing
Unfortunately, as the DGCCRF has noted, many establishments forget this obligation. Out of 523 establishments inspected, 341 did not comply with the rules set out in the Agec law. 4 years after the publication of the law and 3 years after the effective entry into force of the index, 65% of the brands inspected are therefore out of the box.
The offenses mainly concern “the absence of provision of calculation parameters“: the pictogram is present, but the details of the calculation with the different criteria (dismantability, price of parts, documentation, etc.) and the score assigned to each are not provided by the reseller, distributor or manufacturer. This fault represented “73% of total anomalies for physical stores“, indicates the DGCCRF. On the Web, after examining the sheets of 1241 products on around ten sites, the fraud repression noticed that the label was missing in 46% of cases, and that the availability of the grid was detailed in 52% of cases.
“Lack of knowledge of regulations, priority given to presentation on shelves rather than good information to customers, negligence, etc.“: the reasons for these omissions are numerous, details the DGCCRF. However, the armed wing of Bercy specifies that this mainly concerns “independent stores“, even if some “national brands” are not good students either, two hypermarkets having received an administrative fine.
An unreliable rating?
In a press release published on March 29, the Stop Planned Obsolescence (Hop) association “congratulates this essential sanctions operation“, but raises another problem: the reliability of the rating declared by the manufacturers. The repairability index being self-assigned by the manufacturers (according to specifications defined by the administration), Hop suspects a good number of manufacturers of inflating artificially the rating of their products. According to the DGCCRF, only “3.6% of models checked were considered non-compliant“. But according to Hop, the methodology needs to be reviewed.
The DGCCRF investigation examined the dismantling reports of 111 devices to verify that repairability was consistent with the manufacturers’ statements. Among them, 44 washing machines, “but only four smartphones, or even two vacuum cleaners“, regrets Hop. A lack of completeness which leads the association to say that the sample observed by the DGCCRF is “questionable“. Contacted by The worldthe DGCCRF explains studying “the possibility of having these declarations verified by a laboratory mandated by [ses] care, but this will not happen before 2025.“
Another blind spot is the price of spare parts, although it is essential for calculating the repairability index and, more broadly, an essential component for the development of a healthy repairability ecosystem. At Worldthe DGCCRF explains that “This is a competition law issue, which we could only control as part of another investigation into possible anti-competitive practices.“. A problem that is nevertheless very topical since European lobbies and defenders of the right to repair are fighting over the subject at this very moment.
Soon the repairability index in advertisements?
To raise awareness among the general public more widely and put pressure on manufacturers, importers and resellers, Hop strongly recommends forcing Indesit, Samsung, Miele and other Lenovos to make their calculation grids available on the data.gouv site, as will be the case for the sustainability index. The association also campaigns for “mandatory display of ratings in all advertisements broadcast by manufacturers and distributors“.
Following this major investigation, 256 establishments received warnings, 89 received an injunction and five received an administrative fine not exceeding €3,500. A lack of bite that the DGCCRF explains by a desire to “pedagogy” on the subject. Three years after its implementation, the repairability index is therefore not yet taken sufficiently seriously.