The AGEC law set out an ambitious roadmap for France’s transition towards a circular economy. Promulgated in 2020, its impact has been recognized not only internationally but also in the day-to-day practices of consumers, NGOs, and manufacturers. Since its adoption, three major developments have shaped product durability: the repair bonus, the extended producer responsibility (EPR) system, and the introduction of product indexes. The NGO HOP – Stop planned obsolescence closely followed the development of the law, which marked a real turning point. Several provisions of the AGEC law have since inspired European legislation, including the Right to Repair Directive.
Two main tools: the repair bonus and the indexes
The AGEC law represents a systemic effort to reshape France’s relationship with manufactured goods, shifting away from a throwaway model towards one based on durability, repairability, and accountability. Within this framework, two key tools were introduced: the repair bonus and the product indexes.
The repair bonus, a scheme fully financed through EPR organisations that provides consumers with an immediate discount, has long been a central advocacy priority for HOP, aimed at stimulating demand for repair. It is based on a simple observation: if repair were more affordable, consumers would be less likely to replace products prematurely. Surveys conducted by ADEME confirm this: consumers only repair when the cost is under 30% of the purchase price, above this threshold, they tend to opt for replacement. Similarly, the indexes are based on the assumption that providing consumers with transparent and reliable information will drive manufacturers to adapt their production models accordingly.
Towards greater transparency : the development of repairability and durability indexes.
Implemented in France on 1 January 2021, the repairability index is one of the most visible innovations of the AGEC law. To date, it applies to five categories of products: laptop, electric lawn mower, dishwasher, vacuum cleaner, high‑pressure cleaner. Each product receives a score out of 10 based on criteria: availability of technical documentation, ease of disassembly, availability and price of spare parts. The objective is twofold: to guide consumers at the point of purchase and to encourage manufacturers to improve product repairability.
Designed to complement and replace the repairability index, the durability index also provides a score out of 10, allowing comparisons within product categories. It aggregates several criteria related to robustness, upgradability, ease of maintenance, warranty conditions, and repairability. Rolling out from 2025 for televisions and washing machines, and expected to expand to other categories in the coming years, the durability index marks a significant step forward. A key improvement lies in transparency requirements; manufacturers must publish their full scoring grids on the public platform data.gouv.fr, enabling consumer organizations and other stakeholders to scrutinize and challenge the results. This improves on the repairability index, where detailed scoring methodologies are not systematically disclosed. As a result, the index encourages manufacturers to integrate repairability considerations from the design phase, improving eco-design, spare parts availability, and repair documentation. These developments benefit consumers, repair professionals, and manufacturers alike by reducing repair costs and better anticipating user expectations.
Repair bonus, a tool on demand side
In addition to the indexes, the repair bonus is funded through a portion of the contributions paid to eco-organizations under the EPR system. It covers five broad product categories: electrical and electronic equipment, textiles, DIY and garden equipment, sports and leisure goods, and furniture. The subsidy, ranging from a few euros up to €60 depending on the product, is directly deducted from the consumer’s bill at certified repair shops, with no administrative burden for the customer. The rationale is straightforward: by reducing the financial barrier at the point of payment, consumers are more likely to choose repair over replacement.
Six years on, HOP offers a mixed assessment of the AGEC law
France pioneered genuinely innovative tools and positioned itself as a European leader, including influencing the EU’s Right to Repair Directive. But the law still suffers from structural weaknesses:
- On accountability, the self-declaration model undermines the credibility of both indices, and audits remain too infrequent to prevent manipulation. Enforcement authorities lack the resources needed to conduct regular checks, leaving room for manufacturers to game scoring systems or obstruct repair.
- On institutional governance, excessive delegation to eco-organisations, without stronger public oversight and transparency requirements, continues to dilute accountability in the management of repair funds.
- On repairability, the repair bonus remains largely unknown to the general public due to limited communication, and the low number of certified repairers continues to hinder the sector’s development.
- On legal gaps, software obsolescence (recognised as a criminal offence in French law since 2015) remains insufficiently addressed in practice, and product standard criteria are still considered too favourable to manufacturers.
Looking ahead, HOP’s priorities are clear to develop durability
- To develop repairability: the durability index and repair bonus should be extended to more product categories. A training fund should be fully enforced to grow the number of certified repairers. A single national communication platform (with a unified bonus name and a shared repairer directory) should be deployed to simplify consumer access to the repair bonus. Proximity conditions should also be capped between drop-off and repair sites to support the local development of the sector.
- On enforcement: authorities should allocate adequate resources for regular audits and introduce deterrent sanctions against companies that manipulate scoring systems or obstruct repair. The management of repair and reuse funds should be transferred from eco-organisations to ADEME (the National Agency for Ecological Transition), given the conflict of interest eco-organisations face in these missions. Finally, certified brands should be required to repair all makes and models (not just their own) as a condition of their accreditation.
- On financing: the bonus-malus system should be extended to penalise manufacturers with the lowest repairability scores, and greater transparency in EPR fund allocation is essential. Bonus amounts should be increased where they currently cover less than 20% of repair costs, and eligibility should be broadened to include diagnostic fees and software repairs, while guaranteeing consumers unrestricted access to the bonus with no time or frequency limits. More broadly, EPR schemes should not be treated as the sole financing mechanism for the circular economy, nor as a substitute for direct public investment.
