Why deposit return scheme modernization is key to future-proof recycling systems

On top of this, since 2020, 11 more existing deposit jurisdictions have doubled-down on their approach to beverage container litter prevention and recycling by significantly modernizing and improving their existing DRSs (raising deposit value, adding more beverages or container types, increased convenience requirements, more modern system management).

The debate is no longer whether to implement DRS, but how. With two of these DRSs updating just last month, we take a look at how existing deposit return schemes change and evolve. 

Global regions double down on deposit return schemes with “modernization” measures

Deposit return schemes endure for decades and decades, but to remain impactful they occasionally need to be updated. Aspects like the deposit value, the types of beverages included, and convenience requirements for the public evolve over time and may require new legislation, regulations or action from a private central system operator. 

However, without periodic adjustment, deposit values lose their impact due to inflation. This has real-world consequences. For example, Massachusetts’ 5-cent deposit has not changed since 1978, when it was an engaging value. Adjusted for inflation, this is equivalent to 26 cents today (€0.22). But, remaining at the same deposit value saw the return rate drop from 88% in 2002 to 35% in 2024, making it the lowest return rate in the world. In contrast, Oregon’s stakeholders agreed to incorporate a performance target for its DRS in a 2011 legislative update. By 2016, the return rate had fallen below the target of 80% for two consecutive years and triggered an automatic increase in the deposit value in April 2017 from 5 to 10 cents. The return rate rose from 64% in 2016 to 86% in 2019. 

Similarly, regions such as Sweden, Norway and Connecticut have increased deposit values to boost participation and meet legislative targets. As Wolfgang Ringel notes, “A deposit must always feel relevant to the consumer. If it becomes too low, it stops functioning as an incentive, and the entire system risks underperforming.” 

For policymakers, this highlights a critical design principle: 

• Deposit values should be set at a meaningful level from the outset. 
• Legislation should include mechanisms to adjust values over time.

In practice, this ensures that DRS continue to meet return-rate targets and can continue to incentivize consumer returns, even in the face of economic changes.

2. Expanding the types of beverages and containers included in the deposit scheme 

A second key lever of deposit return scheme modernization is broadening the types of containers and types of beverages included.  

Capturing more material 

Some DRSs begin with a focus on a particular set of materials, typically plastic bottles or aluminium cans. But modern DRSs are moving toward a comprehensive approach that captures as many containers as possible. 

This is essential for two reasons: 

• Maximizing material collection: Excluding certain materials leaves valuable resources unrecovered. 
• Reducing consumer confusion: A broader, clearer scope increases participation 

The Netherlands provides a clear example. Initially, its DRS covered only large plastic bottles. It expanded the scope of its DRS to include small PET bottles (<1L ) in 2021 and aluminum cans in 2023, reflecting an increase in the volume of these containers in litter streams. This changed added 3.7 billion more containers to the scope of the DRS (from 550 million to 4.25 billion). As of April 2025, the collection rate for PET bottles and cans is approximately 77%. 

Likewise, Croatia will in January 2027 expand its DRS to include aseptic containers (for example, Tetra Pak), and will increase the container size threshold to cover beverage containers up to 3L in size. 

As Wolfgang Ringel highlights, “A well-designed deposit system reflects what is actually sold and consumed in the market. If containers are left out, they are more likely to be littered or lost to low-quality recycling streams.” 

From a policy perspective, expanding the scope of containers ensures that DRSs keep pace with evolving packaging trends, including lightweight plastics, new material formats, and composite packaging types. It also strengthens the economics of the system by increasing material flows and enabling greater efficiencies. 

Capturing more beverage types to adapt to changing consumption patterns 

Alongside container scope, modernization of a DRS often involves expanding the types of beverages included. Consumer habits are changing rapidly, with new product categories driving growth in the beverage market: from energy drinks to plant-based beverages and ready-to-drink products. 

If legislation does not address these shifts, entire categories of containers can fall outside the system, creating gaps in collection and increasing litter. For example, some older systems in the US did not include bottled water, which is now one of the most widely consumed products. When New York expanded its scheme to include water in 2009, it doubled the amount of PET plastic containers captured by the system. Water containers now make up over 30% of all the containers that New Yorkers redeem for recycling (source: TOMRA's internal data).

Modern deposit return systems address this by including all beverage categories within a defined size range, and establishing mechanisms to add new beverage types as markets evolve. 

High-performing DRS typically include water, soft drinks, alcoholic beverages, juice, and merging categories such as plant-based beverages. “Deposit systems must be future-proofed from the beginning. That means designing legislation that can adapt as new beverage types enter the market,” explains Wolfgang Ringel. This forward-looking approach is essential for long-term policy effectiveness.

3. Improving consumer convenience  

While deposit value and scope are central to modernization, policymakers are increasingly recognizing additional areas where DRS evolve over time, such as improving convenience for the public. Convenience is a decisive factor in participation. Systems that do not provide convenient access often see declining return rates – even when deposits are in place. For example, California’s reduction in redemption locations has been linked to declining performance, demonstrating how access directly impacts outcomes. Without a convenient return infrastructure, the deposit runs the risk of becoming an unauthorized tax. 

High-performing systems do not allow design of collection point infrastructure and operations to be left to producers or a central beverage industry-run administrator alone, due to conflicts of interest. Convenience is guaranteed through at least one of these methods: 
 
a. Legislation defines a retailer takeback requirement (e.g. “return-to- retail”), which by the nature of retailer density, establishes an accessible network of return locations. Nine out of 10 of the world’s best-performing deposit return systems employ some form of return-to-retail collection, achieving an average return rate of 92%.* As of 2024, the median return rate for return-to-retail-only deposit systems was 89%, vs 77% in systems that do not involve retailers at all. 

b. The legislation defines a specific “convenience standard” that a producer-funded Central System Administrator or independent network operator must meet. For example, in Quebec, prior to modernizing its deposit system to include more beverage categories and raise the deposit value, retailers were the only type of return location in the province. To accommodate the increase in redemption volume, policymakers determined that the province needed at least 1,500 active return locations. Eventually policymakers required the DRS Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO), Consignaction, to ensure at least 1,200 return locations across the province by the first effective date for expansion (November 2023), in order to reach return-rate targets that eventually ratchet up to 90%. The legislation designated a certain number of required return locations per region, depending on their population and density. Retailers above 375 square meters (about 4000 square feet) were also established as takeback locations and could ‘count’ towards the 1,200 minimum return locations along with any depots established by the PRO.

Modern DRS legislation increasingly includes:

• Minimum numbers of return points.
• Geographic coverage requirements.
• Retailer participation or equivalent convenience standards.