In light of the growing use of extended producer responsibility (EPR) as a principle that underpins environmental policy instruments among OECD Member States since the early 1990’s, this paper attempts to draw some lessons from the implementation of EPR programmes to date. The paper evaluates the results of different types of EPR programmes, analyses the institutional and structural factors that influence the results and the measures to overcome barriers, and suggests what types of products are most suitable for certain types of EPR programmes. The paper is written for the OECD Seminar on Extended Producer Responsibility: Programme Implementation and Assessment held in December 2001. The focus of the evaluation is on four product groups, namely packaging, small consumer batteries, electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) and cars, for which EPR programmes have been used widely among the OECD member states. Approximately 20 programmes, which have been implemented for a relatively long time and have taken different approaches (e.g. style of enforcement, responsibilities given to the producers), have been evaluated. The evaluated results include: collection, reuse and recycling rates; the stimulation of innovation (e.g. design for reuse/recycle/end-of-life management, reduction of toxic substances at source, change in a product system); the costs of implementation; soft effects (e.g. capacity building, generation and diffusion of information, improved communication between the upstream and the downstream); approaches to overcome barriers such as existing and orphaned products and free riders. The difference in the calculation method of collection/reuse/recycling rates, in the range of end-of-life management that is covered by the paid fee, as well as the question on the reliability of the data, posed limitation when comparing the results.