Skip to content
Criteria 1.1 - Design for long-lastingCriteria 1.2 - Design for ease of disassemblyCriteria 1.3 - Universal design
Criteria 5.1 - Affordability of the spare partsCriteria 5.2 - Affordability of the brand’s repair services
For the physical design, it is difficult to assess the criteria from the consumer side in both categories. We would have to work together with technical experts to develop the scoring criteria in the future.For electronic devices, we also need to consider the product’s software as well. A durable product is pointless if the software updatability has short life-span. For smartphones, we will assess brand’s commitment to the OS & security updatability which is possible to conduct from the consumer side. We will not look at the software updatability in laptops since the decision depends on the OS providers - such as Microsoft Window & Apple - rather than the brands of the laptop itself.Similar to the above Criteria (1.1), it is difficult to assess this aspect from the consumer side. iFixit & French Repairability Index did the assessment but Smartphones and laptops which we can refer to the iFixit score & French Repairability Index. However, we do not have other references, particularly the local ones, to use as references at the moment. Therefore, for now, we will based our assessment from foreign sources such as iFixit which only covers some product categories such as smartphones and laptops.
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.
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%Z
RCTH R-Score
- Pages
Share
Explore
7. Scoring Methodology & Challenges
This chapter addresses the fundamental question: "How will we assess and score products?". We first begin by identifying the challenges in creating the scoring methodology from the Assessment Framework in . When we developed the Assessment Framework, it was crucial to us that we have a framework with a strong foundation that could cover repairability in different aspects throughout the product life-cycle as much as possible, regardless of our current capability to conduct the assessment. We can increase our assessment capability in the future, but the framework needs to be well-founded. Therefore, at the moment, there are several limitations to how we can assess and score each product category by ourselves.
7.1 Limitations of the assessment by product category
The main limitation is the data collection for the assessment. Due to the lack of resources both in finance and human capital, RCTH is only able to collect data that is publicly available online. As a result, our current scoring methodology (2025) cannot cover some key assessment criteria where information can only be retrieved directly from the brands (including their manufacturers) and customers.
7.1.1 RCTH is currently incapable of assessing the physical design of the product
At the moment, RCTH does not have the resources to dissect and analyze the physical design of the product like the iFixit team (see their repairability score in ). We are unable to develop the scoring rubric for any criteria that involves the physical design of products, including:
However, we are still capable of assessing the software updateability of the products (related to Criteria 1.1) because the information regarding the brand’s commitment to software updates for its consumers is usually available to the public already.
For Criteria 1.2, we are able to find an alternative solution for smartphones and laptops by using the iFixit Repairability Score as the scoring rubric for this year. The limitation with this solution is that the iFixit Repairability Score only covers portable electronic devices and gadgets, and not all popular smartphones and laptops sold in Thailand are assessed. Therefore, we will use the score only for this year to make a case in point for why we believe Thailand should have its own assessment as well. (NOTE: We will use the iFixit Repairability Score only on the part that covers only to prevent the double-counting issue with other assessment criteria.)
7.1.2 RCTH is currently unable to assess the affordability of the spare parts and repair services properly
To properly assess the affordability of both matters, we need to identify the affordable price range, but RCTH currently cannot do so because we lack the insight from the consumers and repair shops to justify the suitable range. This limitation directly affects two assessment criteria:
For Criteria 5.1, we can fortunately skip the assessment for now since the practice of selling spare parts is not even a common practice in Thailand. However, for Criteria 5.2, we have to come up with a price range using secondary data instead of primary data, like actual research with local consumers in Thailand. For this year, we developed the price range using a paper written the Right to Repair Coalition in Europe, which discussed the reasonable repair price for the consumer. The paper referred to a study on consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) from Deloitte. The study identifies the WTP range between 30-40%, or even lower by the coalition’s standard, not more than 30%. (Read the paper
.)7.2 Selected criteria list for the 2025 assessment
The table below presents the criteria selected for the 2025 assessment cycle. Due to the current limitations mentioned in the above section, not all criteria from the assessment framework (Chapter 5) are included. For this first implementation of the R-Score, priority has been given to criteria that can be reliably assessed using information accessible to consumers. This approach acknowledges RCTH’s current capabilities and ensures consistency and reproducibility of the assessment. Additionally, certain criteria have been excluded from specific product categories where they are less significant in terms of repairability — see the materiality analysis in Chapter , Section 6.3.
Assessment Criteria
☎️
💻
👖
Description
1.1 Design for long-lasting
1.2 Design for ease of disassembly
1.3 Universal design
Hard to assess from the consumer side. We need to work together with technical experts to develop the scoring criteria in the future.
2.1 Product warranty coverage & length
2.2 Repair services
2.3 Public communication encouraging product repairing
3.1 Documentation of product's component, composition, and product caring
3.2 Access to the repair guideline
4.1 Availability of the spare parts throughout the life-span of a product
Jeans product is excluded because the products can be fixed in many different way without using the original spare parts. And there are many substitutes materials or parts available in Thailand. (See Chapter for more information.)
4.2 Market accessibility to the available spare parts
Same reason as the above criteria (4.1)
5.1 Affordability of the spare parts
2025’s assessment will skip this criteria first as the practice of selling spare parts is not even a common practice. The focus in the aspect of selling spare parts at the moment will be solely on the market accessibility.
5.2 Affordability of the brand’s repair services
There are no rows in this table
7.3 Score methodology
The RCTH R-Score employs a straightforward scoring methodology:
Final Score = (Raw Score ÷ Maximum Possible Raw Score) × 10
This scoring system balances simplicity with nuance, allowing for meaningful differentiation between products while remaining accessible to consumers.
7.4 Result presentation & interpretation
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.
7.5 Scoring rubric for each assessment criterion in each product category
Each product category has specific scoring guidelines tailored to its unique characteristics and repair challenges. The pages below present the scoring rubrics for each assessment criterion in each product category.
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.