Event: On May 21, National Business Daily reported that Chinese NEV repair increasingly faces a “digital wall” of diagnosis-device restrictions and parts-key authentication, with industry interviewees saying average NEV insurance premiums are more than 30% higher than fuel vehicles and insurance-repair unit costs at least 40% higher.
One-thesis: The right-to-repair problem matters for ESG because vehicle software security is necessary, but excessive authentication around ordinary parts can raise lifecycle costs, weaken consumer choice, inflate insurance costs and turn electrification benefits into after-sales governance disputes.

On May 21, National Business Daily published an investigation into what repair practitioners called the ‘digital wall’ in China’s new-energy vehicle maintenance market. The report described two barriers: diagnosis-device restrictions and parts-key authentication. Independent repair shops said they often cannot read fault codes without authorized equipment and accounts, and that many electronic parts must be matched with the manufacturer’s cloud server after replacement. If authentication fails, the vehicle may display persistent fault codes or restrict functions.

The problem is not that EVs use software. Connected electric vehicles need cybersecurity, high-voltage safety, battery protection and anti-tampering controls. The controversy is the boundary. Industry interviewees in the report accepted that encryption is reasonable for battery systems, high-voltage components and intelligent-driving modules. The concern is that some automakers extend forced authentication to ordinary parts such as lights, bumpers or maintenance consumables. When that happens, safety logic becomes channel control.

The cost signal is material. National Business Daily quoted an industry consultant as saying that average NEV insurance premiums are more than 30% higher than those of fuel vehicles, and that average insurance-repair unit costs are at least 40% higher. Repair shops also said NEV diagnosis equipment can cost more than RMB 20,000, roughly twice the price of comparable fuel-vehicle equipment, while third-party databases do not cover many new or high-end models. These are hard operating costs, not abstract consumer complaints.

For ESG investors, this turns after-sales openness into a governance issue. If a vehicle saves fuel costs but locks owners into high-cost repair channels, part of the consumer value proposition is weakened. If ordinary repairs require manufacturer authorization, independent service providers lose market access and consumers lose choice. If insurance costs rise because parts, diagnostics and repair procedures remain closed, the total cost of ownership increases. Electrification is then partly offset by a less competitive service ecosystem.

Automakers have a defensible argument. EVs contain many electronic control units, over-the-air software and safety-critical systems. Unauthorized access can create accident, cybersecurity and warranty risks. But the ESG standard should be proportionality. Safety-critical systems deserve strong control. Non-critical service parts should not be locked in ways that primarily protect after-sales revenue. A mature regulatory framework should distinguish between secure repair and restricted repair.

This issue also affects circular economy. Repairability is part of product sustainability. If parts cannot be replaced, reused, refurbished or diagnosed outside closed channels, more components may be discarded, repairs may be delayed and informal workarounds may spread. The report mentioned ‘board reuse’ methods that repair shops use to bypass some authentication by transferring original control boards to replacement parts. That is a market response to closed systems, but it is not the same as a safe and standardized repair ecosystem.

For Chinese EV makers expanding overseas, the issue will become more sensitive. Europe, the United States and other markets already debate right-to-repair rules, data access and aftermarket competition. A brand that exports intelligent EVs without transparent repair access may face regulatory and reputational pressure. Conversely, a company that can offer secure, auditable, third-party-compatible repair systems may turn after-sales openness into a competitive advantage.

The takeaway is that China’s EV ESG story is entering the ownership phase. Sales penetration and battery technology are no longer enough. Investors should ask automakers how they define encryption boundaries, what diagnostic access they provide, how they support third-party repair, how they price parts, and how repair data affect insurance costs. A low-carbon vehicle should also be maintainable, affordable and governed fairly across its lifecycle. Otherwise, the digital wall becomes a hidden transition cost.

From Issue 006 · 18–24 May 2026.

Questions or corrections? Contact the editor.