production that increasingly mimics the closed-loop organization of natures economy. A life-cycle-based economy ultimately must develop ownership patterns that encourage stewardship, and these tend to focus on use or service rather than property per se. Some obvious examples of state-led EPR do exist. In the case of packaging, nations like Germanywith its Green Dot programmehave employed EPR takeback legislation to reduce its waste stream substantially (Fishbein, 1994). In North America, the most familiarand modestform of EPR is the beverage container deposit/return program which was the norm decades ago and is now making a comeback due to environmental movement pressure. In Europe we are also finding an effort to coordinate various regulatory and market-based economic instruments in both national environmental product policy (or EPP), and the European Unions integrated product policy (or IPP) (Charter, Young, Kielkiewicz-Young, & Belmane, 2001). IPP is a set of policy instruments intended to stimulate green markets with coordinated initiatives on both the supply (product development) and demand (consumption) sides. Despite its corporate slant, its focus on front-of-pipe design solutions gives IPP promise as a transition to more comprehensive forms of stewardship. What is most significant, however, is the beginning of an apparent breakdown of many of the abstract boundaries between private and public, voluntary and mandatory. New de facto forms of regulation are emerging from civil society and from industries themselves which are every bit as mandatory as state law, but are expressed in various forms of certification and green market creation that build alternative value into everyday enterprise. We will begin to consider some of these systems, or elements of these