For Sustainability & ESG Teams

Product-level traceability replaces aggregate weight reporting. Audit-grade evidence captured at the take-back moment, not estimated after the fact.

Brand, model, category, store, timestamp, customer consent, and the recycler's chain of custody, on one record. Exportable into your circular economy disclosure under ESRS E5.

The data layer sits alongside the producer responsibility scheme already in place. The same record set is what the CSRD Lead pulls into the internal business case for the CFO and the COO.

The data gap

From aggregate weight to product-level record

In one line: aggregate weight reporting describes what arrived at the recycler's gate. Product-level traceability describes what left the customer's hand. Year-one limited assurance accepts the first; year-two reasonable assurance asks for the second.

Each take-back interaction generates a structured record with brand, model, category, store, timestamp, customer consent capture, and the recycling partner handling the consignment. Exportable on demand into your circular economy disclosure under EFRAG's ESRS E5 standard. The chain of custody runs from the customer's hand to the verified circular outcome at the recycler's gate. The full evidence synthesis, including how product-level take-back records satisfy ESRS E5 disclosure granularity, sits in the research artefact at /research/.

What aggregate weight reporting captures

✗ Total kilograms collected
✗ Estimated item count
✗ Recycler weight report
✗ No customer record, no consent trail
✗ No product-level chain of custody

What product-level traceability captures

✓ Brand, model, product category
✓ Date and store of take-back
✓ Verified circular outcome
✓ Customer consent and audit trail
✓ Auditable chain of custody

The budget argument

From cost line to evidence line, and from cost line to acquisition line, in the same paragraph

In one line: the take-back budget is already approved under EPR and CSRD obligations. Product-level traceability turns that mandatory line into two value lines simultaneously. Audit-grade evidence for the auditor, and a verified email channel at €1–3 per subscriber for the marketing team.

Sustainability programmes that create operational cost without commercial return lose budget battles every cycle. A take-back programme that produces a verified email channel at €1–3 per subscriber pays for the data layer the auditor wants, out of the marketing acquisition line that is already chasing email volume. The Marketing & CRM team reads the same record set as a customer acquisition channel; the ESG team reads it as audit-grade circular economy disclosure evidence. One conversation. Two budget lines reframed.

For the internal conversation with finance. The decision-stage moment for the ESG approver is the written business case taken into a CFO or COO meeting to defend the budget line. The same record set this page describes is what the CSRD Lead pulls into that artefact: pain, audit standard, evidence layer, marketing co-funding, deployment timeline, KPI map. The full pillar piece on this is on the editorial queue; the Netherlands pilot evidence is the case-study spine the artefact draws on.

Where the data layer sits

Alongside your producer responsibility scheme, not in place of it

In one line: producer responsibility schemes manage the compliance layer. Recyclers manage the operational layer. Utilitarian's data layer sits at the take-back counter and produces the product-level record both layers have been waiting for.

The Dutch textile EPR scheme, the European Recycling Platform, and your existing recycler each operate at their own layer of the stack. None of them is replaced by what this page describes. The customer-and-product data layer captured at the point of return is complementary infrastructure that produces the evidence record the compliance scheme summarises and the recycler's chain of custody confirms. Take-back programme in the glossary names the wider category; the data layer is the part of it that captures the product-level record.

Implementation does not require store-staff retraining. The customer brings their own phone. The store brings the take-back counter that is already in the floor plan. The retailer brings the brand on the poster and the QR code that routes the data into the platform. The audit trail follows automatically, with consent captured and timestamped at the point of submission. The retailer remains the data controller; the platform is the processor.

What retailers report

The data-driven transparency point lands with finance, not only with sustainability

"The combination of simplicity, customer engagement, and data-driven transparency is what makes this approach stand out. This is exactly the direction our industry needs."
Ron Bruinenberg
Retail & Expansion, EK Netherlands

Questions ESG teams ask before they buy

Is this audit-grade evidence or a marketing artefact dressed up as compliance?
Audit-grade. The data is captured at the take-back moment with customer consent, the chain of custody runs from the customer's hand to the recycler's verified circular outcome, and every record carries brand, model, category, store, timestamp, and the recycling partner handling the consignment. The output is exportable on demand and is the same record set the auditor will read. The marketing team reads the same record set as a customer acquisition channel; that does not change the audit posture, because the data layer is the same.
How does product-level data map to ESRS E5 disclosure requirements?
ESRS E5 asks retailers to disclose how their products and materials enter and leave the circular economy. The product-level record set captured at the take-back counter answers the leaving-side of that disclosure with brand, model, category, store, timestamp, and verified circular outcome. The export feeds the resource outflows and circular-economy-specific disclosure points directly. The audit-trail captures the consent record and the chain of custody an auditor expects to see during reasonable assurance.
Does this replace our existing recycler or our producer responsibility scheme?
Neither. The data layer sits alongside the producer responsibility scheme that manages the country's compliance layer, and alongside the recycler that handles the operational layer. None of those entities is replaced by what this page describes. Implementation does not require switching recyclers, renegotiating EPR contracts, or restructuring how the take-back counter operates today. The data layer is complementary infrastructure that produces the product-level record both layers have been waiting for.
What does the audit trail look like at the take-back moment?
Every interaction generates a timestamped, store-located record with brand, model, category, customer consent capture, the recycling partner identifier, and the chain-of-custody confirmation back from the recycler. The retailer is the data controller; the platform is the processor. Records are exportable as CSV, as a structured API feed into your CRM and into your sustainability reporting stack, and as a static evidence pack the auditor reads alongside the rest of your circular economy disclosure.
What changes between year-one limited assurance and year-two reasonable assurance?
Year-one limited assurance accepts narrative reporting backed by the data the retailer already has, including aggregate weight reporting from the recycler. Year-two reasonable assurance asks for product-level evidence with chain of custody and audit trail. The data-collection moves a retailer makes during year-one determine whether year-two is achievable without restructuring the take-back operation. Capturing product-level records from the start of year-one gives the auditor a longer evidence window to sample and reduces the year-two scramble.
What does the internal business case for the CFO and the COO actually contain?
A two-page-one-slide artefact at the highest level: the pain (aggregate weight reporting will not survive year-two reasonable assurance), the audit standard (ESRS E5 plus scope 3 category 12), the evidence layer (product-level records captured at the take-back counter with consent and chain of custody), the marketing co-funding case (cost per email at €1–3 against paid social at €12–25), the no-operational-disruption case, the deployment timeline, and the KPI map. The full pillar piece on this is on the editorial queue. The Netherlands pilot evidence is the case-study spine the artefact draws on.

See all frequently asked questions →

See the evidence layer your CSRD audit will read

The Netherlands pilot ran across five stores and produced the product-level evidence trail this page describes. Read the case study. Audit-grade take-back evidence defined in the glossary. About Tim Lee, Co-Founder and CEO.

Calculate your ROI →