This paper further explains the context of this new legislation and describes, compares and then analyzes the four alternative strategies to reducing end-of-life waste, i.e., repairing, reconditioning, remanufacturing or recycling. It also presents a more robust definition of remanufacturing, which differentiates if from repair and reconditioning engineering. By using a two-stage sequential decision game model, the economic behavior of the main stakeholders under three different types of take-back modes are presented; based on the objective of social welfare maximization, the issues of take-back network, recycling targets setting, recovery catalogs sorting and, supervision and stimulation of take-back models are discussed. Our conclusions demonstrate that: manufacturers, recyclers and consumers do not always share the same preference over three patterns, but the mode of manufacture-leading take-back can reach maximum social welfare; the most efficient network system should be around the manufacturer individual take-back responsibility to build; the take-back level and the recovery catalogs must synthesize the factors involve environmental impact of product, take-back cost/benefit, and recycling and manufacturing industries’ market structure etc.; the supervision and stimulation decision matrix associated with the Producer Responsibility Organization is as an effective tool to balance the environmental benefits and social welfare.