Purpose Multinational companies have recently been encouraged by government policies to implement Extended Producer Responsibility. One objective is to stimulate high-level recovery, and the other is to introduce life cycle thinking. This paper studies decision making in recovery, comparing opportunistic decision making with short-term profit maximization (usually leading to one loop) versus a life-cycle perspective (leading to multiple loops). The question is (1) which business benefits this brings as well as reduction of environmental impact and (2) whether companies should be inclined to think multi-loop and if so how governments could stimulate this. Methods After comparing the problem with the literature, a non-linear optimization model is presented optimizing NPV of revenues and calculating environmental impact with cumulative energy demand and cumulative recovery rates. The environmental indicators chosen are motivated based on literature research in the area of streamlined LCA. Sensitivity analysis tests solutions on various sources of uncertainty. We study a real-life case with real data. Results and discussion Based on the results, we can formulate the following insights for industry. Firstly, cascade markets for reuse may appear attractive but new sales cannibalization compromised margins. To neutralize this effect, returns should be remanufactured to equal-to-new quality hence no difference should exist between new and recovered items. Companies must suppress their natural