French Repairability Index: Fairphone takes the lead

Originally published at: French Repairability Index: Fairphone takes the lead - Fairphone

Fairphone has become one of the first phone manufacturers to comply with the French Repairability Index that came into effect on January 1, 2021, achieving a score of 8.7/10!

What does this mean exactly? Well, the Index makes it a legal obligation for French resellers and operators to show a repairability score for each smartphone, and other electronics, they sell. The score is calculated based on answers from a set of criteria, such as spare parts availability and ease of disassembly. The aim of the Index is to reduce electronic waste by informing people about the easy repairability of products, which plays a vital role in the product’s life span. The higher the score, the better the repairability and the longer the life of the product.

Let me help you understand what this means for Fairphone and for you.

A little background

Last year, the EU Commission presented their Circular Economy Action Plan, which is an evolution of the original CSR/sustainability thinking – reduce, reuse, recycle – and includes many more measures regarding sustainability and circularity. Efforts from different public institutions are aligned and France is really showing leadership here by taking sustainable thinking and translating it into something practical with this index, holding resellers and buyers accountable in the effort to create a circular economy.

Incorporating repairability – easily upgradable components and software, effectively increasing product lifetime – ensures the product doesn’t become obsolete too soon.

Fairphone was invited to consult and help with the development of this index, specifically for smartphone measures.

Fairphone as a pioneer

Now keep in mind, even a simple swapping of a battery is virtually impossible with most smartphones nowadays. This, however, is nothing new for us here at Fairphone. Since the inception of our modular design, we have become a pioneer in easy smartphone repairability in order to achieve longer phone use.

Fairphone 3 teardown, courtesy of iFixit.

The reason is simple: if we use our phones twice as long, we only need to produce half the amount of phones, lowering the industry’s environmental footprint. By placing focus on simple DIY repairs – replaceable parts, modular upgrades and extended software support – Fairphone is making it easier to use phones far beyond the industry average lifespan of 2-3 years, extending usage to at least 5 years. Great news for those of us who are not only conscious consumers, but who want to keep our phones longer!

Easy phone repairs: A step in the right direction

Many voices in the electronics industry would have us believe that some of the products we buy can’t be easily fixed. For example, when your smartphone needs even the simplest of repairs, it is necessary to take it into a repair shop or buy a new one! Both of which take money, energy, and perhaps most importantly, a bit of time without a phone (*Gasp)!

However, there are products out there that can be repaired easily at home or in a shop, and mandating a visible repairability score helps people clearly identify them. This Index is a step in the right direction and signifies the importance and ease of repairability, especially for smartphones – bringing it to the attention of consumers and manufacturers alike.

While the Index highlights repairability in electronic products and shines a light on the importance of reducing electronic waste, in the next iteration we would love to see more focus on the currently underdeveloped software support aspects. At the moment, vendor commitments to software updates have not been factored into the Index criteria. Software and security updates are a crucial part of smartphone repairability, so we hope to see this in the next edition of the Index.

Can a true circular economy be realized?

There are some important factors to consider that are not currently included in the Index criteria. For example, and this is much more complicated and difficult to address, most manufacturers push out new products and encourage people to upgrade to a completely new device, even if their current phone is in working order. While this would require a fundamental shift in the way the industry promotes and markets its products if there is enough demand by community members the promotion and marketing of products can do nothing but shift.

We all benefit from more repairable products, not just those of us who use them, but those who are in the business of manufacturing and repair. In order for a true circular economy to be realized, then repairing, refurbishing and repurposing products needs to become the new normal for manufacturers, resellers and consumers. For example, the more repairable a product is, the faster and less expensive it is to have a repair center fix it, effectively giving the product a second or even third life: a realized circular economy.

We are applauding the fact that repairability of smartphones is becoming an increasingly important factor in the circular economy and sustainability and will be visible on products – encouraging people to think more about their purchasing behavior.

We got this!

Our score of 8.7 reflects everything we’re doing well! But until we’re a perfect 10, and until the Index and the industry are both much more ambitious, there’s still work to do. From the beginning, we at Fairphone have championed the idea of repairability because we understood that in order for phones to have longevity, they need to be able to be refurbished easily.

It’s great to see the public sector and the industry finally catching up on this. Fairphone has been making repairability possible since 2013, when we launched Fairphone 1, more than 7 years ago. Next up is encouraging more people to jump on the repairability train – it’s good for the environment and your wallet!


Hi Fairphone team,

Great to see these indices finally appearing! But Fairphone are not top - CrossCall are! Why did their devices get a better score than Fairphone? And who decides the scoring? Is there a French government agency which decides?

Cheers :slightly_smiling_face:


Why? Because they seem to have a better engagement on the availability of their spare parts, and also better shipping times. That’s about it. Also, the difference between CrossCall and FP3 for the global note is 0.3/100 (CC: 87.6/100→8,8/10 and FP3: 87,3→8,7/10), so frankly there isn’t much difference.

I did a few searches, and from what I understood, it seems the manufacturers should calculate their own mark based on precise criteria and giving proves with official documents. Then it’s validated by the French government. In case the regulation isn’t followed correctly, then they are subject to fines (from the 1st of January 2022 on).

Nice move from France, I appreciate. Though I’m still waiting for the stupid law forcing smartphone manufacturers to include earphones to be removed…


Hi @Alex.A,

Thanks. Yes, I could have read the scorecards in detail myself! Thanks for doing it and summarising. The fact that Fairphone isn’t top gives them something to work on for the future!

So if it’s company-submitted that explains why glued-shut Samsung’s get such a good score. It will be interesting to see if these scores evolve.

I mainly asked about who submitted the scores because if one does a search then the search results say “submitted by” then what reads like a first name, not a company name.

Definitely a good move by France, I hope that other EU countries, EEA, UK etc quickly follow suit. Having a repairability index in English might also help North America change their general attitudes and that will help change the whole industry.

Cheers :slight_smile:

1 Like

I found an article explaining this better than me (in French though):

A corrected DeepL translation of an important part:

“It’s a matter of scale economy, points out Miquel Ballester Salvà, product manager at Fairphone. Everything is more expensive for us because we order smaller volumes”. Spare parts management and logistics are also challenges for this company employing 80 people. “We preferred to specify delivery times ranging from three to five days rather than one to two days, because we are not sure we are able to keep up a faster pace […] This also gives us a margin in case something goes wrong,” admits the manager.

To say it short, they haven’t a 10 because they don’t have the resources (yet) to do much better. What FP need is to grow. To get a better mark, other brands would need to rethink completely their phones and their industry. That’s an important difference.
That’s also why the repairability index isn’t perfect, because it doesn’t include everything and reduces complex considerations to a simple mark out of ten, since it’s much easier for the end-consumer. In FP’s case, it doesn’t include the ethics and engagements they have.

Also in full agreement with Miquel’s last sentence in the article:

“making a 100% ethical smartphone means changing the global economic system”.

Could you give an example, I’m not sure to understand?

They’re also considering including reliability and sturdiness, and have it become the durability index under 2024. So yes, they might evolve at some point.

Well, this repairability index would only be for products sold in Europe in any case… We can hope USA would follow, but I have high doubts about this…

1 Like

Crosscall gets 10/10 for availability of their spare parts, but only 5.8/10 for ease of disassembly, whereas Fairphone gets resp. 7.9 and 10.
Both are important, but this reveals a difference of philosophy, because one might not take the risk to change the parts oneself and might change phone instead. Let’s hope that the repairability index will go together with the creation of repair cafés where one can learn how to repair, get help and borrow tools!


Hi @chrisse,
Good spot. I think I value ease of disassembly over availability of spare parts, because secondhand spare parts are often easier and cheaper to find anyway!

Hi @Alex.A,
Thanks for the link to the article, I’ll read it when I’ve got a bit more time (I can read French but I need time!).

Here’s an example of what I mean about the “submitted by”: Vous avez cherché nokia - Indice de Réparabilité and when you click on “Wajih” you get a blank page: Wajih – Indice de Réparabilité

Cheers :slight_smile:

1 Like

I’d think that’s rather which admin uploaded the article.
If you search for “Fairphone”, you’ll find the FP3/+ was submitted by “Etienne”, who also wrote other articles on the site.


Hi, I would like to know if it’s possible to have a look at the excel document used in order to obtain the “Indice de réparabilité” for the FP3+? This document would very likely help me with my scholar research.
I precise that I already hae the empty grid, I need the one fulled with the data about FP3+.

Yours faithfully,


Hello and welcome to this forum.
As this is a community forum, there will be no official Fairphone contact regularly available, though it might be, that someone drops in.
Therefore you should definitely contact Fairphone, the company; themselves.
I would go for the “Press and Events” contact:

Probably you should be a bit more elaborate about your research project, when asking for that kind of information. If they know, what it’s all about, they might be more willing to help, when it’s some interesting project. :wink:


It’s not the excel document you’re looking for, but it’s the most detailed decree I could find about it with the detail of the criteria:

Yes it is, i’m talking about this one: Indice de réparabilité | Ministère de la Transition écologique (, the calculation grid in English is a the bottom of the webpage.

I already know the text law and everything about that repairability indicator, i’m just looking for the data that led to that result for the Fairphone FP3+.

1 Like

Well, getting just that data might not be enough, as you probably would want some information as well, why they did enter the data the way they did it.

And I do know now, why they did include the little screwdriver with the FP3.
List 2 of Table C2 - Disassembly is giving points based on what tools one need for disassembly.
And the most pooints go to:

D : Removable with no tool, with basic tools or with tools supplied with the product or the spare part = 4 points.

Just kidding. They surely didn’t do that for this ranking. :wink:


Anyway, I think the PH00 screwdriver is considered a basic tool :wink:

That’s the problem, terms need to be defined! I hope they are in this French index. Can’t find it, even in the legal publication n° 0316 du 31/12/2020 though I’ve looked through the Instructions manual for the calculation of the repairability index - crikey, large chunks of the English language version of this didn’t get translated!!
The Olduvai Stone Chopping Tool could be described as a “basic tool” but I bet no-one on this forum has one :upside_down_face:

More seriously, it’s clear that ease of disassembly is far more important than a few days’ additional wait for a spare part. The document linked by @TurboHugo sets this out clearly (“coefficient” column), in that (my translations) “2.1 Ease of disassembly” has a weight of 1 against “3.3 and 3.4 Spare parts delivery time” which average 0.25. However, globally the “ease of disassembly” (2) and “spare parts” (3) are given equal weight, the argument I suppose being that you won’t need spare parts if you can’t open the phone, but conversely it’s not much good being able to open the phone if spare parts aren’t available. (That second affirmation is debatable of course. I would argue it’s somewhat more important to be able to open the phone than to obtain spare parts as these could also be obtained from broken phones, and not all problems require replacement of parts.) I also note that the “duration of availability” for the parts that most often need to be replaced1 is given more weight than delivery time. So looks to be quite well thought out on the whole.

1 - Just wondering how you’re supposed to know which parts most often need to be replaced when you’re launching a new product… :wink:


This topic was automatically closed 182 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.