This paper aims to supplement the paper by Tojo, Lindhqvist and Davis (2001) with several dimensions that have so far been underrepresented in discussions on EPR. The central question is how far producer responsibility extends in terms of the waste hierarchy, the product lifecycle, and the global market and the harmonisation. Moreover, the issue of harmonisation of EPR programmes across countries is addressed. Several conclusions are drawn from the paper. First, setting recycling targets as part of an EPR programme should be closely coordinated within the context of integrated waste management to avoid conflicts within the waste hierarchy. Second, the emphasis on the waste stage within EPR is not necessarily justified. Other stages in the life cycle, such as the consumption stage, also require attention within EPR programmes. Third, EPR programmes should not make the mistake to reinvent the wheel as far as international markets for recyclables is concerned. Rather than developing isolated trade channels, existing markets should be used to links international recycling programmes. Fourth, the international differences in EPR concepts are a natural phenomenon. Harmonisation of EPR programmes is therefore not immediately required. This does not imply that information on EPR should not be made available in a more uniform and consistent manner. Information currently available on EPR programmes is heavily fragmented, inconsistent and unreliable. There appears to be a great need for an international effort to systematically collect information on EPR using uniform definitions of performance rates and other terminology.