Most discussions of city logistics focus on getting goods to people. The harder, less glamorous challenge is what happens when those goods reach the end of their useful life. Packaging, electronics, batteries, textiles — the volumes are enormous, growing with every e-commerce surge, and the urban infrastructure to handle them sustainably barely exists.
A chapter by Tom Vöge and Julia Hobohm in Urban Logistics Transformation (Springer, 2026) makes the case that Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR ) is the underused policy lever that could change this.
What EPR actually means for logistics
EPR is not a new concept. Conceived in the 1990s, it shifts the financial and operational responsibility for end-of-life products from municipalities back to the producers who put them on the market. The EU has enshrined it in legislation covering packaging, electronics, batteries, and increasingly textiles. But legislation setting collection targets and legislation that actually integrates waste logistics into the urban freight system are two very different things — and the gap between them is exactly what this chapter addresses.
The authors are direct: EPR implementation in urban contexts is fragmented, under-optimized, and largely disconnected from city-level mobility and sustainability planning. Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs) — the intermediaries who operationalize these systems on behalf of producers — often design their collection networks in isolation from municipal waste services, urban freight strategies, or low-emission zone policies. The result is a system that can meet regulatory collection targets on paper while missing most of the circular economy potential in practice.
What better systems look like
The chapter draws on case studies from across Europe that show what more integrated approaches can achieve. Norway’s battery take-back system uses a hub-and-spoke model in cities like Oslo, with GPS-optimised collection routes and fill-level sensors that trigger pickups only when containers are full — reducing unnecessary vehicle movements significantly. In France, the electronics PRO ecosystem has launched mobile collection events at transit hubs and local markets, notified by app, gathering neighbourhood-level data that allows targeted outreach. In the Netherlands, Sympany’s textile return hubs at shopping centres and public transport stations combine fixed locations with dynamic pickup schedules responsive to seasonal patterns, achieving high reuse rates through convenience and visibility.
A common thread runs through the successful cases: accessibility drives participation, data drives efficiency, and partnerships between PROs, municipalities, and logistics providers drive both. Where these three elements are present together, collection rates are higher, per-tonne emissions are lower, and the systems prove financially viable over time.
The repair and reuse gap
One of the more thought-provoking sections concerns repair and reuse — activities that sit above recycling in the waste hierarchy but are barely touched by most EPR frameworks. The authors argue that eco-modulated EPR fees — where producers pay more if their products are harder to repair, disassemble, or recycle — could incentivize better product design upstream, making the entire downstream logistics system cheaper and more circular. The success of the iFixit platform and the EU’s right-to-repair movement illustrates that consumer demand for repair exists; what’s missing is the infrastructure and economic incentive to formalize it within EPR frameworks.
The systemic problem
The chapter’s most important contribution may be its honest diagnosis of where EPR fails structurally. Take-back schemes are rarely coordinated with urban freight planning. Data systems are siloed by waste stream and operator. Regulatory frameworks differ sufficiently between Member States that companies face a patchwork of obligations, discouraging pan-European innovation. And the financial burden of collecting low-quality, non-reusable goods, driven by fast fashion and disposable electronics, is increasingly falling on PROs, with no mechanism to push that cost back to the producers responsible.
The recommendations are practical: harmonize EPR standards across the EU, integrate take-back logistics into city mobility strategies from the outset, invest in shared digital infrastructure, and hold producers of low-grade goods financially accountable through fee structures that reflect their actual environmental cost.
The circular city is not just about green delivery vans. It requires a logistics system that handles the return journey as well, and EPR, properly integrated, is one of the most powerful tools available for building such a system.
Based on: Vöge, T. & Hobohm, J., “Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in Urban Logistics: Enabling Circular Economy Through Efficient Waste Take-Back Schemes,” in Urban Logistics Transformation (Springer, 2026).