Already in the ’70s and ’80s, the Netherlands have positioned themselves as frontrunners in the management of waste and secondary resources. A combination of policy ambitions, private entrepreneurship and high population density, has fostered innovation in the treatment and valorization of waste. The Netherlands are now aiming to sustain this leading role in the transition towards the circular economy. The circular economy aspires to transform the typical linear economic model in which resources are extracted, consumed and disposed to a circular model where resources are used in closed circles. In order to achieve its objective, the circular economy concept focuses on eco-design, prevention, re-use, remanufacturing, refurbishment and high-value recycling of products. Dutch regulations have implemented Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for a variety of products and waste streams: packaging, consumer electronics, batteries, vehicles, tyres and float glass. EPR means that producers become responsible, in a financial or operational way, for the end-of-life stage of products sold to consumers. In most EPR schemes, the main objective has up to now been the collection and recycling of waste. However, EPR also aims to foster eco-design and reuse of products as highlighted by the OECD definition (2001): • EPR shifts the costs for waste management from public actors to producers. This shift induces an internalization of costs that previously were external for producers and consumers of wastegenerating products. • By internalizing the costs of waste management, producers receive incentives to prevent waste. One of the key channels to prevent waste is eco-design of products. Taking into account that EPR has been successful in enhancing collection and recycling, policy makers are now increasingly looking at the role of EPR in order to enhance eco-design and other circular economy aspects. More specifically, Dutch policy makers have the intention to leverage two upcoming events that can foster the circular economy. First, the long-term National Waste Plan will be published in the coming months and will lay out the main priorities for the following years. Second, from 2016 the amendments in the EU Waste Directive will be negotiated. This offers an opportunity to look more closely at the options for strengthening the instrument of EPR. In order to support and inspire Dutch policy makers and stakeholders, this report discusses potential pathways to extend EPR with respect to eco-design and other aspects of the circular economy. The report draws upon insights of international literature and a review of EPR schemes in France, Belgium (Flanders) and the Netherlands. Also, some insights from Denmark and Sweden are used but the reviews of EPR in these two countries have only a narrow scope. Moreover, three well-known producers that have extensive experience with EPR in different countries (IKEA, Philips and C&A) have contributed to this report by giving their reflection on the identified pathways via in-depth semi- structured interviews (see Appendix for interview reports). One of the challenges of EPR assessment is the disparity of EPR schemes in Europe and worldwide. Differences in scope, structure, reporting practices and consumer behavior make comparison between countries difficult. Therefore, comparison between countries should be interpreted with care. In addition, since EPR is often implemented in combination with interacting policy measures such as waste bans or disposal taxes, there is an overall lack on quantitative data to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of EPR schemes. Therefore, in line with most assessments, this report uses qualitative and descriptive arguments to explore the role of EPR. Since the approach is exploratory, the report focuses on identification of pathways rather than on indepth assessment. Importantly, identification of a potential pathway does not automatically imply that the benefits of the pathway are sufficient to justify implementation. Indeed, extending EPR induces can induce a significant administrative burden for the involved market actors. Moreover, the design of EPR schemes needs to include compliance and enforcement procedures that are beyond the scope of this study. Therefore, this exploration is a first step but follow-up studies should prioritize, assess and elaborate the pathways in consultation with stakeholders before implementation can be considered. The study is structured as follows: • The next chapter discusses key elements of EPR and three potential routes to strengthen EPR in a circular economy perspective; • The three following chapters each discuss one route using examples from other European countries as illustration; • The last chapter summarizes the findings and highlights the following steps needed to go from exploration to design and implementation of policy measures; • The appendices contain a concise overview of the reviewed EPR schemes in the different countries, reports of the interviews and the feedback on the report from VPN (Vereniging Producentenverantwoordelijkheid Nederland – association of Producer Responsibility Organizations – communication in Dutch).