A new fact sheet from Reloop names system scope, refund value, and convenience and accessibility as the keys to a successful deposit return system (DRS) while delving deeper into the social, economic, and practical contexts affecting return rates.
According to its latest global dataset, median return rates increase as deposit values rise. Across 32 jurisdictions, systems with deposits of €0.11 or higher achieve a 90% return rate on average; systems with €0.06 to €0.10 deposits reach 73%, while deposits of €0.05 or less achieve 69%.
Reloop also cites a global survey from Every Can Counts, in which 41% of respondents named financial rewards like deposit refunds as the most influential motivator for their participation. When asked about factors that might increase their participation, 45% stated that “more money back per container” would be effective.
On the other hand, low deposits can cause ‘return fatigue’, in which consumers believe that the effort of returning a container outweighs the reward.
The incentive for consumers to return their packaging can further decrease as inflation impacts the monetary value of a deposit. While Reloop acknowledges that governments fear the reputational impact of raising household costs, even refundable ones, the fact sheet points out that polls ‘consistently’ demonstrate consumer support for higher deposits, especially when consumer awareness of the economic and environmental benefits is high.
Therefore, Reloop recommends periodic reviews and adjustments of a system’s deposit rate. If deposits are too high (and effective traceability measures are not in place), the system risks encouraging fraudulent activity like cross-border returns.
Another contributing factor is the scope of the DRS. If a system accepts a ‘comprehensive’ scope of beverage containers – encompassing several drink types, container materials, and sizes – it is thought to simplify the consumer experience and encourage participation. It is also set to improve the cost efficiency of the collection and processing stages.
According to previous research from Eunomia, systems that cover most beverage types achieved an average collection rate of 81–82%, whereas those that exclude large beverage categories such as bottled water or non-alcoholic drinks averaged just 67%.
Reloop asserts that many existing DRS systems accept fewer containers than they are capable of, ‘often for political reasons rather than technical constraints.’ Milk and dairy packaging, liquid paperboard containers, and glass bottles are listed among the most frequently excluded formats – but existing systems are reportedly starting to expand.
On that note, the highest-performing deposit systems are thought to make returns ‘as easy as purchasing the beverage itself’ and fit recycling into a consumer’s daily routine. Return-to-retail (R2R) systems install reverse vending machines in shopping environments and allow consumers to return used packaging when they buy their groceries; return-to-redemption centre (R2RC) systems require a dedicated trip to a centralized, often standalone facility, which can cause inconvenience and decrease participation.
The number and distribution of return points are also influential. Participation is believed to improve when the average distance and time required to return containers are low (ideally a 10–15-minute drive in urban and regional areas), and systems with fewer people per return location are thought to achieve higher collection rates.
Further data from Every Can Counts indicates that 46% of respondents would be incentivized to return containers if the return location was convenient – especially in metropolitan areas, where 50% of respondents valued location and 46% sought simple processes. Figures decreased slightly in rural areas, with 39% citing location and 29% seeking simplicity.
Design features like ‘drop and go’ bag-drop options, mobile collection in remote areas, and cashless refunds are considered beneficial. Accessibility enhancements like reverse vending machines with tactile buttons, voice prompts, or flexible scanning methods, or even alternatives like staffed counters, may also ensure participation for consumers who struggle with automated machinery.
Nevertheless, Reloop notes that ‘a complex interplay of external factors’ can affect the outcome of a DRS. These include the age, gender, income, and education demographics of a particular region; the population density, housing types, and access to cars or public transport within a community; and cultural and behavioural norms among the social group.
Consumer psychology plays its own part, with self-consciousness and perceptions of social standing preventing some users from carrying their packaging back to return points. Distrust and scepticism around waste management practices also affect participation.
“Together, these findings demonstrate that no single factor, whether design-related or contextual, can fully explain a system’s success or failure,” the fact sheet reads. “Deposit systems operate within broader social, geographic, and behavioural ecosystems where contextual factors interact with design in ways that can either enhance or constrain performance.
“Understanding how contextual forces interact with system design is critical to explaining why systems with similar design features can produce very different outcomes, and why adaptation to local realities is just as important as the mechanics of system design.
“In the end, what makes a deposit system work isn’t just the deposit or the number of return points, it’s how all the parts fit together. When good design meets the right local conditions, participation soars, materials stay in the loop, and both people and the environment benefit.”
If you liked this story, you might also enjoy:
The ultimate guide to the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation in 2025
How are the top brands progressing on packaging sustainability?
Everything you need to know about global packaging sustainability regulation in 2025
The key to increasing the use of reusable packaging in supermarkets
No comments yet