Skip to content
Smartphones 📱Laptops 💻
Jeans 👖
Product design for repairability & upgradability → Evaluates how a product's physical design facilitates or hinders repair and extension of its useful lifeRepair support & services → Examines the manufacturer's and brand’s commitment to supporting product repair Documentation & information → Assesses the availability and quality of information that supports product repairAccessibility to spare parts → Evaluates how easily consumers or repair shops can obtain replacement componentsAffordability of product repair → Examines the economic factors that influence repair decisions
How durable is the product? Does it use quality materials and construction methods that prevent premature failure? Are components designed to withstand extended use?Can the product be opened and serviced without specialized tools? (Universal design)Are components modular and independently replaceable? Are fasteners easily accessible and reusable rather than permanent?Does the product use standardized components and connections rather than proprietary ones? Can parts be replaced with generic alternatives? Is the product compatible with standard tools?How comprehensive and long-lasting is the warranty? Does it cover common failure points? Does the manufacturer offer extended service options?Are authorized repair services readily available? What is the geographic distribution of service centers in Thailand? Does the manufacturer offer mail-in repair options? Are there independent repair providers partnered with the brand?Does the manufacturer actively promote repair through their communication channels? Do they educate consumers about repair options? Do they celebrate product longevity rather than frequent replacement?Does the manufacturer provide detailed information about components and materials? Are there clear instructions for maintenance and care to prevent damage?Are repair manuals publicly available? Are there troubleshooting guides, video tutorials, or other resources for DIY repairs? Are schematics or technical drawings accessible?How long does the manufacturer commit to producing spare parts? Are critical components available for the expected lifespan of the product?Can parts be purchased directly by consumers? Are they available through multiple channels (online, retail stores, service centers)? Are there geographic limitations on spare parts availability in Thailand?Are spare parts priced reasonably relative to the product's overall cost? Are pricing structures transparent and consistent?Is the cost of official repair service reasonable? How does it compare to the replacement cost of the product? Are there tiered service options at different price points?
Scoring scale: Each assessment criterion is evaluated on a scale of 0-3 points.0 points: Fails to meet the minimum requirement1 point: Meets basic requirements The scoring criterion for 1 point was developed using the existing practices that have already been adopted by at least one major brand (not legal enforcement), no matter the geography. 2 points: Demonstrates good practices The scoring criterion for 2 points was developed using either existing practices that are leveled between the scoring criteria for 1 point and 3 points.3 points: Exemplifies best practices The scoring criterion for 3 points was developed using the best practice from either a regulation or brand(s) that are progressive with product repairability. Aggregation method: The points from all applicable criteria are summed to create a raw score.Normalization: The raw score is then converted to a standardized scale with a maximum of 10 points using the following formula: Score presentation: Final scores are presented as a ratio out of 10 (e.g., 4.0/10, 7.5/10, 9.0/10)In the case of a 2-digit decimal, we will round down the result only because we see no point in doing so. This assessment was not developed to let brands compete with petty spirits over negligible performance improvement. It was never a competition from the beginning. Therefore, for example, a score of 7.52 and 7.57 would both be rounded down to 7.50.
Brand's official website and channels: Corporate websites, product pages, support sections, and other official online channels (e.g., YouTube and Facebook)Product documentation: Digital and physical user manuals, warranty cards, specification sheets, and technical guides provided by manufacturersRepairability score from iFixit: Information reference from iFixit’s Repairability ScoreAll information must be publicly accessible to ordinary consumersData sources are documented and verifiableInformation is collected within a defined timeframe to ensure consistency across products
The total point from all criteria in the assessment aspect is less than 25%The total point from all criteria in the assessment aspect is equal to or more than 25%The total point from all criteria in the assessment aspect is equal to or more than 50%The total point from all criteria in the assessment aspect is equal to or more than 75%
All the assessed products scored less than 5 out of 10, except for Fairphone, which is not available in Thailand. (The brand was included in the assessment to demonstrate the best case is possible — see more in section 10.2.2.)Newer models of the same brands have better Product Design for Repairability & Upgradability (Aspect 1), particularly the software update warranty in Criteria 1.1 (Design for long-lasting) and design for disassembly (Criteria 1.2). Besides Fairphone, the Pixel 9 offered the longest period of OS and security updates (up to 7 years). In the aspect of Repair Support & Service (Aspect 2), all of the brands (except Fairphone) provide only a 1-year commercial warranty unless the consumers purchase an additional warranty package. Apple and Samsung performed well in providing access to their repair services (Criterion 2.2) through official and authorized partners nationwide. We couldn’t find official repair services from Google Pixel in Thailand. However, in January 2024, Google published a white paper that supports the concept of repairability. It wrote a strong statement saying “we want our devices to be used as long as possible,” which allows the public to hold the brand accountable for its repairability performance in the coming years. All brands generally performed well in the documentation & support information (Aspect 3), which entails 1. general information of the product’s component and maintenance (Criteria 3.1) and 2. access to repair guidelines (Criteria 3.2). It is important to note that the repair guidelines provided by the brands are available on the global website, but not communicated on their Thai website.All the brands are unsupportive in providing their consumers with access to spare parts in Thailand (Aspect 4, Criteria 4.1 & 4.2). Thai consumers cannot purchase authorized spare parts from the brands, unlike consumers in the US or Europe.Regarding the affordability of the repair service (Aspect 5, Criteria 2), the performance varies across the brands. Google doesn’t publish repair pricing publicly, only through quotation from its support system (but the repair service is not available in Thailand anyway). Apple’s maximum repair pricing is over 50% of the product’s original price. Fairphone and Samsung have almost equally the lowest amount of the maximum repair pricing, which is about 30% of the original product price.
Similar to the case of smartphones, all the laptops we assessed scored less than 5 out of 10, and all brands generally performed well in the document & support information (Aspect 3).In terms of the design for disassembly (Aspect 1, Criteria 1.2), Lenovo and HP have both designed their laptops to be easily disassembled for a long time. Most of Lenovo’s ThinkPad models scored 9/10 or 10/10 on iFixit. Most of HP’s products also scored about 9/10, if not 10/10, except for the EliteBook x360 1040 G5 model. On the contrary, Apple and Microsoft improved their product designs after 2020. Particularly, Microsoft’s products saw a significant improvement, with their score going from 0/10 to 8/10 for the first time. The improvement coincides with the beginning of legislative pressures on eco-design and the right to repair in the European Union and the United States around that time. All brands provide online repair guides (Aspect 3, Criteria 3.2) for the assessed products (in English), except for Apple’s MacBook Pro 16″ (2019). Unlike smartphones, we couldn’t find video tutorial(s) for the MacBook we studied. We couldn’t find any brand that clearly informs its consumers about the repair guidelines of the product in the user manual.Besides Microsoft’s Surface laptops, other brands have authorized repair shops in Thailand (Aspect 2, Criteria 2.2). HP and Apple, in particular, offer mail-in or delivery repair service. Unlike smartphones, we couldn’t find information regarding the actual repair price for most brands (including Apple) (Aspect 5, Criteria 5.2). We could find the information from Microsoft, but the maximum repair price of both models is about 50% of the product’s price upon release. The information is also negligible since the brand does not have authorized repair shops here yet.Apple and Lenovo offer a 5-year guarantee period for spare parts availability, while Microsoft provides a 3-year guarantee (Aspect 4, Criteria 4.1). We couldn’t find the official guarantee period for HP. Nonetheless, none of this matters as none of the brands offer market accessibility to spare parts in Thailand (Aspect 4, Criteria 4.2).
Unlike the electronic devices, all jeans brands scored above 5 out of 10. This is because there is a significantly different amount of assessment criteria included between textile and electronic devices.Except for Levi’s jeans, all the assessed products offer a 30-day return policy (Aspect 2, Criteria 2.1). Products purchased from Levi’s Thailand are subject to a 15-day return policy. However, the brand provides a 30-day return policy in the United States and Canada. In terms of product warranty, Nudies Jeans and Patagonia offer a lifetime product warranty, offering free repair in most cases. Levi’s jeans offer a 2-year product warranty to customers in the US and Canada only, and the warranty program does not cover product repairs. It only compensates the customer with a replacement voucher. Patagonia provides both online and walk-in repair service (Aspect 2, Criteria 2.2). However, for Thai consumers, the online repair service is the only option unless they travel abroad and drop their clothes in the store for the brand to fix (free of charge). Nudie Jeans does not offer an online service, but it provides walk-in repair services in its only store in Thailand and also at two other repair shops it partnered with (all located in Bangkok). Repair services from UNIQLO are available offline and only at RE: UNIQLO STUDIO at Central World (3rd Floor). Similarly, Levi’s offers repair services only at Levi's® Tailor Shop (3 stores in Thailand, Bangkok only)All brands performed well in documenting and sharing the product components and care, as well as the repair guidelines! (Aspect 3, Criteria 3.1 & 3.2). However, only Nudie Jeans and Patagonia clearly communicate their messages in public, encouraging product repair over buying new Aspect 2, Criteria 2.3).All brands offer reasonable repair prices, especially Nudie Jeans and Patagonia, which often provide them at no additional cost (Aspect 5, Criteria 5.2).
Apple’s MacBook Pro in 2021 has a better design for disassembly than its 2019 model. The same goes for Microsoft’s Surface Laptop 3 (2019) and Surface Laptop 5 (2022). Google announces that Pixel 8 (2023) and later phones will get updates for 7 years, starting from when the device first became available on the Google Store in the USAll brands launched the self-service program, releasing guidelines on product repair for new models to the public, and allowing consumers to purchase product spare parts.
At least a 5-year Operating System (OS) update after the model is discontinued: Under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR), from 20 June 2025, brands need to ensure OS updates at least 5 years from the date of the end of placement on the market of the last unit of a product model. Additionally, the EU Cyber Resilience Act (Regulation EU 2024/2847) — the first EU-wide regulation to place cybersecurity obligations on the entire lifecycle of digital products — will also require brands to provide security updates for at least 5 years (or longer). This will be enforced from December 2027.2-year legal warranty: Under the Sales of Goods Directive (2019/771 version), smartphones and other “goods with digital elements” sold by a professional seller in the European Union (EU) are legally required to have a minimum 2-year legal guarantee (also known as a statutory warranty or guarantee of conformity). This warranty is legally binding with the seller of the product, not the manufacturer. In Thailand, consumers only have a commercial warranty from the manufacturer, which is typically 1 year. 7-year access to authorized spare parts after the model is discontinued: Under the ESPR, manufacturers are required to make critical spare parts available within 5-10 working days, and for 7 years after the end of sales of the product model on the EU market.Unlike Thailand, some services from brands are available in the EU but not in Thailand: For example, the purchase of spare parts and repair services offered by the same brand.
The current methodology excludes the physical product design aspect for repairability.There is a lack of consumer research on the affordability of repair services for Thai consumers.The assessment did not cover the brand’s policy at the “point of sales”.The exclusion of other potential data sources in the assessment.The exclusion of the affordability of the spare parts from the assessment.Brands did not have the opportunity to share information that we might have missed from their public websites, other online channels, or documents.The methodology currently treats all criteria with equal significance for all products.The methodology did not consider the importance of information in the local language.The maximum repair cost was not as insightful as benchmarking the cost of several key repair services.Form a partnership with repair experts to better assess the physical design for product repairability. (Relevant to Criteria 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3) Assess the brand’s policy on customer information at the point of sale, regarding their repair rights, support services, and repair guidelines. (Relevant to Criteria 2.3 and 3.2) Consider the availability of local language translation in the development of scoring criteria. (Relevant to Criteria 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, and 3.2) Conduct customer research to identify the affordable price ranges for key repair services for each product category and incorporate the results into the scoring criteria. (Relevant to Criteria 5.2) Developing the scoring criteria for the affordability of spare parts. (Relevant to Criteria 5.1) Include other data sources from the brand and its partners (e.g., customer services, salespeople, and authorized repair partners). (Relevant to all assessment criteria) Develop and apply a weighting system to prioritize the assessment criteria for each product category. (Relevant to all assessment criteria) Establish a voluntary disclosure period where we reached out to brands and set a period of time for them to voluntarily provide data or share their public data sources that we could use to conduct the assessment. (Relevant to all assessment criteria)
RCTH R-Score
- Pages
Share
Explore
1. Report Summary
About RCTH R-Score
The RCTH Repairability Score (R-Score) represents Thailand's first dedicated initiative to assess and communicate product repairability to consumers. R-Score is a civil society rating system that currently relies mostly on publicly disclosed information of the products from the brands or manufacturers to assess their repairability performance. In this first assessment report, R-Score covers 3 products from 2 product categories.
1. Portable electronic devices:
2. Textiles:
The Reason Why We Create R-Score
In today's consumer landscape, we face a critical challenge: products are increasingly designed for replacement rather than repair. Products are deliberately designed with a shorter lifespan through planned obsolescence, all for the sake of indefinite growth in our economy. As a result, this "take-make-dispose" model has created unprecedented ecological destruction and economic inefficiency by depleting natural resources, generating excessive waste, and burdening consumers with unnecessary replacement costs.
Thailand currently lacks transparent and publicly accessible information regarding the repairability of the products in the market, leaving consumers unable to make informed decisions about the long-term sustainability of their purchases.
The goal of R-Score was to offer a standardized method to evaluate product repairability that serves as both an educational tool and a market mechanism to encourage more sustainable product design and consumption patterns in Thailand.
How Does R-Score Work?
There are 5 key aspects of repairability in the RCTH R-Score. Accordingly, each aspect contains specific assessment criteria. In total, there are 12 assessment criteria in our framework. (See Chapter for detail.)
Five repairability aspects
Twelve assessment criteria
Repairability Aspects
Assessment criteria
What is expected?
Examples of research questions
1. Product design for repairability and upgradability
3
1.1 Design for long-lasting
The product is designed for long-lasting (both hardware and software) to minimize product repair or replacement
1.2 Design for ease of disassembly
The product is designed for ease of disassembly within a few simple steps
1.3 Universal design
The product incorporated universal design both in term of the components (e.g. universal product component) and its complementing products (e.g. phone and its charging wire)
2. Repair support & services
3
2.1 Product guarantee coverage & length
The brand offers product guarantee that covers repair services and up to suitable amount of years
2.2 Repair services
The brand supports repair of its product, including offering its own repair services (even after the guarantee expired), and also supports local repair shops
2.3 Public communication encouraging product repairing
The brand makes a clear statement to the public, encouraging its consumers to repair its product before buying a new one. In case it offers repair services, consumers are informed about the existence of the services and how to use the service before they purchase its product (point of sale)
3. Documentation & support information
2
3.1 Documentation of product's component, composition, and product caring
The brand informs the public about its product design and composition, and also product caring
3.2 Access to the repair guideline
The brand provides an instruction or guideline for self-repairing with clarity via different modes and channels for consumers to access widely
4. Accessibility to spare parts
2
4.1 Availability of the spare parts throughout the life-span of a product
The brand has spare parts available for product repairing throughout the lifespan of the product.
4.2 Market accessibility to the available spare parts
Consumers or repair shops can access and purchase spare parts conveniently from the brand
5. Affordability of product repair
2
5.1 Affordability of the spare parts
Consumers can purchase spare parts from the brand at reasonable prices
5.2 Affordability of the brand’s repair services
Consumers can purchase the brand’s repair services at reasonable prices
Scoring methodology
The RCTH R-Score employs a straightforward scoring methodology:
Final Score = (Raw Score ÷ Maximum Possible Raw Score) × 10
(See Chapter for the scoring criteria for each product category.)
Data collection for the assessment
The assessment draws from five key categories of publicly available information:
Regarding the principle of our data collection and timeline:
All data collection activities were conducted between July - October 2025 to ensure temporal consistency across all assessed products. This standardized collection window helps account for any changes in manufacturer policies or product availability that might occur over time.
How to Read R-Score?
The visual presentation of the result is shown in a pie-chart format. The final score (out of 10) is presented in the center of the chart. The five blocks of the chart represent the five key repairability aspects in the assessment framework (see Chapter ). We use color labels to define the overall performance of the product in each repairability aspect.
Color definition
Grey - “Excluded” - All criteria in the assessment aspect were excluded from the assessment
Red - “Unsupportive” - The brand’s product does not support repairability in this aspect
Orange - “Minimal support” - The brand’s product provides minimal repairability support in this aspect
Yellow - “Active supporter” - The brand’s product actively supports repairability in this aspect
Green - “Progressive supporter” - The brand’s product supports repairability in this aspect more progressively than the standard.
Selected product for R-Score 2025
Within each product category, several well-known brands and models were selected for the sake of giving examples, showcasing the application of the assessment framework and methodology, while balancing the amount of products with the limited capacity that us volunteers can work with. Some brands have more than two products chosen because we want to showcase that there can be differences in the repairability even among the products of the same brand.
Additionally, since Thai market does not have product brands that display exceptional performance in term of repairability in all product categories, RCTH objectively selected one or two more brand and model with high repairability performance as a case study (except for TVs as no exceptional brand was found).
The selected brands and models assessed in this initial R-Score implementation include:
Product category
Product
Brand
Model
Portable electronic devices
14
Phone
6
Apple
iPhone 14
Apple
iPhone 16
Samsung
Galaxy S23 Ultra
Google (Pixel)
Pixel 7
Google (Pixel)
Pixel 9
Fairphone
Fairphone 5
Laptop
8
Apple
MacBook Pro 16″ 2019
Apple
MacBook Pro 14″ (M1) 2021
HP
Elitebook x360 1040 G5
HP
HP EliteBook 850 G5
Lenovo
ThinkPad T14 Gen 3
Lenovo
ThinkPad T14 Gen 5
Microsoft
Surface Laptop 3 15″
Microsoft
Surface Laptop 7 15”
Textile products
4
Jeans
4
UNIQLO
UNIQLO EZY Ultra Stretch Jeans
Levi
Levi's® Men's 501® Original Shrink-to-Fit™ Selvedge Jeans
Nudie jeans
Nudie Jeans Lean Dean
Patagonia
Patagonia Men's Straight Fit Jeans - Regular
Result Summary
(see the full result in Chapter , and the analysis in .)
Smartphones
Laptops
Jeans
Legislative pressure matters
The case of electronic devices, both smartphones and laptops, shows why legislative intervention related to repairability is crucial for the right to repair. The reason why we selected some product models of the same global brands was that we wanted to highlight the difference in repairability performance between them. From 2019 onwards, when eco-design and right-to-repair legislation emerged, there is a strong pattern in the repairability improvement of products from the same brand, either in product design (hardware/software) or in the brand’s policies (or even both).
For example
Product design
Product policies
Social movements are the key driver of the legislative changes.
It is important to note that all these legislations were able to emerge and create system changes in our economy solely because of the decentralized initiatives mobilized by the social movements of various sectors, ranging from environmental NGOs, repair technicians, consumer advocates, to local communities (even farmers!). Without them, there would be no legislation as the private sector was not in support of this; some of them even use lobbying power to prolong the development.
However, most of the current legislation related to repairability has progressed within the developed continents, particularly the European Union. While some changes caused by the legislation of the regions also applied to other regions globally, some remain in effect only within the region. The following section shows the gap in the repairability standard between Thailand and the European Union for smartphones.
The double standard between regions: A case study of smartphones
The table below shows a comparative R-Score assessment of smartphone repairability (in each brand) between the Thai (TH) and European (EU) contexts under the influence of supportive policies.
Product (Brand & model)
Overall Score (TH)
Overall Score (EU)
Apple 'iPhone 16'
Google (Pixel) 'Pixel 9'
Fairphone 'Fairphone 5'
No results from filter
Note: Although Fairphone is not available in Thailand (even in Asia), we chose to include the brand to showcase the product that progressively supports repairability. The low performance in the Thai context was the result of the fact that Fairphone does not provide repair services or spare parts in Thailand. However, it has the highest score in regions where it is operating (Europe & the United States).
The result shows that there is a significant gap in the business practices on product repairability due to law enforcement.
Future Improvements
Despite the insights gained from the assessment, there are seven shortcomings in the scoring methodology that we wish to resolve in the future. (See Chapter for detail.)
As a result, we propose a list of recommendations for our future R-Score assessment below:
Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ··· in the right corner or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.