traditional, and less damaging, materials. To some critics of command-and-control, his solutions might seem like a de-emphasis of control in favour of increasing command. Perhaps this is true, but he does show that prevention is a low-cost strategy that typically requires much less bureaucracy than conventional regulations monitoring and control of dangerous substances and processes. William McDonough and Michael Braungart (2002) make a similar point in a different way, portraying the very need for regulation as resulting from design failure. They argue that, if products were properly designed to meet real needs, to regenerate natural systems, and to facilitate reuse, recycling and resource efficiency, etc., there would be no need to regulate them. Despite their rhetoric, it is probably fair to say that McDonough and Braungart are not criticizing all regulation, all economic rules, but the external command-and-control variety that fails to touch the producers basic motivations and methods of making things. After all, ten years previously, Braungart (1994) developed the Intelligent Product System concept, a major regulatory proposal for extended producer responsibility (EPR) from a design perspective (see the Horizons section below). McDonough and Braungarts focus on eco-effectivenesswhich sees a bigger picture than simple eco-efficiencymirrors the role of prevention in Commoners more systematic critique of regulation a decade earlier. While the ideas of Commoner, McDonough and Braungart represent a radical critique of regulation, elements of the design perspective have found echoes in the general trajectory of regulation in the western countries. Notwithstanding Commoners (justifiable) pessimism about existing regulatory regimes, we do find some movement particularly in more progressive Europeaway from end-of-pipe controls and focus on