It absolutely is, but [using it for production of new items and using it for a repair shop] might take more resources than [just having the former and supplying some replacements]. What I'm saying is that we can't just compare consumption/waste of materials (which is obviously worse when doing replacement instead of repair) because there are also "overhead" resources required in order to offer repairs. Theoretically, in cases where replacements are better for the bottom line than repairs, it's due to using fewer resources, and the open question is how "green or dirty" those resources are.

If replacement is cheaper only because of geographic differences in wages, then we ought to repair. But if replacement is cheaper because of streamlining the use of nonrenewable electricity and so forth, then we ought to replace.