Background: With around 70 supermarkets, Hoogvliet is one of the smaller supermarkets in the Netherlands. During the past years, more companies have become aware of the importance of efficient reversed logistics (Senthil et al., 2018). By optimizing this return flow, the return hall of supermarkets plays an important role. With the expected increase of supermarkets that the same return hall must serve and the limited capacity of employees in mind, Hoogvliet wants to redesign its return hall. However, based on literature research, research is primarily done on reusable packaging systems instead of processes and the dynamics within a return hall. This article partly closes this knowledge gap with a conceptual design for the return hall of Hoogvliet, which gives insight in the efficient solutions and layouts within a return hall. Based on the brownfield of the return hall of Hoogvliets DC, this article aims to ‘design an efficient, flexible, scalable and future-proof return and packaging hall, which solves the capacity issues in employees and workspace and increases the throughput of containers per hour.’ Method: A design method is used, derived from Dym et al. (1999), containing five phases: problem definition, conceptual design, model and evaluate design, optimize and implement design, and conclusion. Results: Analysing the current situation shows that 23 main processes can be defined. The quantitative analysis shows that the transportation of loading carriers is one of the most labor-intensive jobs. For all of the 23 processes, three designs are made called ‘split waste and packaging’ (1), ‘carousel’ (2), and ‘completely automated’ (3). All these designs are simulated for three future scenarios. The simulation shows that design 2 has the best score for transport and loading. However, design 3 obtains a higher overall score. The disadvantage of design 3 is the long inbound queue. With some improvements, the second design will get the most stable performance in the future and has an inbound line that is acceptable for Hoogvliet. Implementation: The second design is advised to implement at the return hall of Hoogvliet. This could be done in different phases. First, Hoogvliet needs to make someone responsible for the implementation and coordination. One of his first tasks should be job standardization and allocation per employee, then relocating some sorting stations, and lastly, the different solutions could be implemented step by step. Per scenario, the estimated quantities per solution are given. Based on the developments in terms of growth, a separate floor is needed as a buffer zone for empty loading carriers, which is already part of the optimized second design of this thesis. Concluding: The (different) conceptual design(s) give insight that closes the knowledge gap: (1) Transportation within return halls with the same processes significantly impacts the workload and should be eliminated as far as possible. (2) In the short term (<3 years), transport solutions could result in significant savings. (3) In the long term (>3 years), advanced automated sorting systems have higher savings than minor improvements.