While Transitional Justice instruments have been implemented in plenty of post-conflict cases, what little knowledge we have about the effects of these measures shows contradictory findings, indicating that they are often ambiguous and disappointing. Consequently the last decade has seen a specific call for a ‘new agenda for practice’ proposing a transition from Transitional Justice to Transformative Justice. It is a request by scholars such as Paul Gready and Simon Robins (2014) to develop from the bottom-up a concept of justice that is more ‘transformative,’ specifically challenging ‘unequal and intersecting power relationships and structures of exclusion at both the local and the global level’. This article contributes to this consideration by exploring the Dutch debate on its slavery past with the following question: how could reparations—fundamental in the debate around the acknowledgment of the slavery past—facilitate transformative justice? In the Netherlands over the last decade, memory and reparation activists seeking recognition for slavery and the transatlantic slave trade have been influenced by two major events; the 10-point reparation claim put forward by the Caribbean CARICOM countries against the formerly colonizing powers in Europe (2013), and the UN-International Decade for People of African Descent (2015-2024). This article describes the reparation claims articulated by various groups in and outside the Netherlands addressing the slavery past of the Dutch and some of the institutional responses. Reparations have gained little conceptual attention in transitional justice scholarship, and in investigating the concept of reparation we refer to Lisa Laplante’s (2013) dictum, which is that ‘Reparations can and should be viewed through a lens of justice’. Laplante made an important intervention in the field by asking which reparations contribute to what kind of justice. Reading the Dutch question through the lens of Laplante’s continuum justice model (2013) makes it possible to identify different justice claims made by interested and affected parties. Laplante’s model ranges from a narrow (minimalist) to a broader (maximalist) conceptualisation of justice; distinguishing four types of justice aims: reparative justice, restorative justice, civic justice and socio-economic justice. All four types are relevant when considering the various options a government and a society have in dealing with (historical) injustice. The empirical findings suggest that current reparation claims in Afro-Caribbean and Surinamese communities are less about a specific product (such as an apology or reparations) but rather about a social process of relation building (such as addressing structural injustices). This notion of ‘social repair’ challenges and extends our current understanding of what justice for historical wrongs is about, but—as is argued in this article—it will at the same time also make reparations more acceptable to larger parts of Dutch society. It avoids the narrow ‘blame-and-guilt’ framework associated with reparations in politics and the media, which exacerbates the problem of acceptance in the first place.The key arguments in this article firstly show that reparation theory is essential in identifying the kind of claims for justice that are being made, and secondly evaluate whether those claims are being addressed. Laplante helps us to see that if these justice goals of social repair are not clearly articulated and addressed, we would be likely to disappoint memory politics and memory activists, who ‘may compromise the overall justice project,’ thus jeopardising the potential for a transformative outcome.The notion of social repair, as proposed in this article, recognizes a joint struggle for a more fair and equal society.