Skip to content

How do deposit-return systems interact with packaging EPR?

Almost every jurisdiction in this library is now committed to running a deposit-return system and a packaging EPR scheme simultaneously — and most made that commitment without performing the system-level calculation the combination demands. A deposit system strips the highest-value, easiest-to-recycle containers out of the kerbside stream, leaving the EPR system to finance the collection of what remains: heavier, dirtier, lower-revenue material. This interaction — cannibalisation — is the most consequential instrument-interaction problem in packaging policy, and this article treats it in full: the quantified mechanics; the four cost-boundary models now operating and the live stress each is under; the two newest case studies (Ireland's launch, Ontario's refusal); the glass problem, which concentrates every element of the topic; and the empirical question that remains unanswered in every jurisdiction that has run the experiment.

1. Three questions hiding inside one topic

Discussions of the DRS–EPR interaction reliably go wrong by blurring three distinct questions. First, what does the deposit system do to the economics of the kerbside and sorting system it drains? Second, where is the cost boundary drawn between two producer-funded systems, and who polices it? Third, is the combined system worth more than kerbside alone — the net welfare question? The first is now well quantified; the second is where the live disputes sit; and the third remains essentially unmeasured anywhere, which is the finding this article ends on.

2. The mechanics, quantified

The physical mechanics are undisputed — deposits remove PET bottles and aluminium cans, the materials whose scrap value carries kerbside economics (the commodity-revenue article). What the 2022–25 modelling literature added is numbers, and the instructive feature of that literature is that studies commissioned by opposed industries broadly agree on the magnitudes while bargaining over the response.

The US waste industry's reference model (commissioned by its association NWRA, which opposes bottle bills, from the consultancy RRS in 2022) ran six deposit scenarios on a reference sorting facility serving about 1.25 million people: revenue losses of $11.90–23.50 per ton marketed, municipal cost increases of $2.50–5.00 per household per year — while conceding offsetting disposal and litter savings. The can manufacturers' counter-modelling (their industry favours deposits, which feed it clean scrap) ran the same reference facility and computed the compensation that would make sorting facilities whole: roughly 18% of the scrap value of deposit containers still marketed by the facility, or about 30% of refund value. Between them, the two interested modelling exercises define the field's bargaining range: cannibalisation is real, bounded, and purchasable.

The best recent granular numbers come from Eunomia and Reloop's 2025 modelling of a modernised New York bottle bill: statewide sorting-facility losses of $57.4 million a year (about 4% of revenue) at 90% redemption — against municipal collection savings of $39.5–108.6 million a year and roughly $590 million in unclaimed deposits over three years. The report's own arithmetic shows the offsets can exceed the losses. The catch, and the political heart of the entire topic: the losses and the gains accrue to different parties. Sorting facilities lose revenue; municipalities save collection costs; the state or the system keeps the unredeemed deposits. Cannibalisation is a cost-allocation problem masquerading as an existential one — and one jurisdiction has long operated the solution everyone else debates: California's deposit programme transferred $183 million in a single documented year to kerbside and drop-off programmes. The compensation mechanism exists; it is simply almost never copied.

3. The performance side of the bargain — and who fights for it

What the deposit system buys with the disruption is the strongest performance record in the packaging field, and the dose-response evidence is now clean enough to state as a rule. Germany returns 98% of containers and Finland 97%; Connecticut moved from 43% to 92% in two years by doubling its deposit and expanding return points; Slovakia climbed from 71% in its first year to 92% in its second as its network matured. Deposit level and return convenience — not culture — set the rate, and the failure modes are the mirror image: Massachusetts's unchanged five-cent deposit returns 36%, and the Netherlands' under-target system pairs weak enforcement with an operator that keeps unredeemed deposits — self-financing underperformance. Even the best systems leak value at the margins of honesty: Germany's Pfandschlupf — deposits paid but never redeemed — has been estimated by the conservation group NABU at roughly €180 million a year, money whose destination (operator, producers, or state) is precisely what the boundary models below allocate.

The political economy beneath the performance numbers deserves one paragraph, because it explains the coalitions in every DRS fight. Aluminium wants deposits: used beverage cans are the highest-value scrap stream in household recycling, deposit-collected cans are the cleanest feedstock, and the can industry's analyses argue a national US deposit system could push can recycling toward 85%. The waste industry resists them: deposits strip its sorting plants' best revenue — "you can't just change up the mix of materials and expect [facilities] to have the same throughput capacity," as its association put it. Beverage brands split by jurisdiction, and retail — as Ontario's case below shows — is the quiet veto player. The fight over deposits is substantially a fight over who captures the aluminium, and any jurisdiction reading advocacy on either side should price that interest in first.

4. Four cost-boundary models, all under live stress

Where a deposit system and an EPR scheme coexist, someone must decide which system pays for what, who keeps which revenue, and what happens to deposit containers that end up in the blue bin anyway. Four models operate, and 2025–26 has stress-tested each.

Two separate producer bodies — Quebec. Éco Entreprises Québec runs modernised kerbside; a separate body (Consignaction) runs the expanding deposit system; glass and multilayers stay in kerbside until March 2027. The boundary devices are explicit — deposit containers captured in blue bins count toward deposit-system recovery through a capped 5% "sorting additions" credit — and 2026 brought the disputes into the open: press reporting on producers "paying twice" for the same container categories, the government publicly compelling the deposit operator on glass readiness, and bottlers fined for non-compliance. Quebec matters precisely because its two-body architecture makes boundary conflict visible; a single-organisation jurisdiction would internalise the same tensions silently.

A fee holiday in the gap — the United Kingdom. Drinks containers destined for the October 2027 deposit launch were excluded from packaging EPR disposal fees from the moment fees went live in April 2025 — clean in principle, except that for 2025–27 those containers sit in neither fee net: local authorities still collect them at kerbside and receive no container-specific producer payment for doing so. The glass carve-out produced its own casualty: glass stays in packaging EPR (England excluded it from the deposit), so the pub sector faces high weight-based EPR fees on "household" glass on top of commercial waste contracts — the brewing association's "paying twice" campaign, priced by the industry at some £60 million a year.

Producer-owned integration — the Nordic model. Norway's Infinitum and Sweden's Returpack are owned by producers and retailers; unredeemed deposits and scrap revenue stay inside the system, and aluminium's producer fee is zero, because its scrap value plus unredeemed deposits exceed its costs. Unifying ownership dissolves the boundary problem — the can industry's "fair fees" assessment rates Norway, Sweden, Oregon, Alberta and British Columbia as the only systems passing its tests — at the price of the moral hazard the Netherlands now demonstrates: an operator that keeps unredeemed deposits, under weak enforcement, is paid by its own underperformance (the Dutch record).

State escheat — much of the United States. Where unredeemed deposits go to the state (Maine and Massachusetts at 100%, Michigan at 75%, New York at 80%), the deposit system is partly a revenue instrument — and the state acquires a fiscal interest in imperfect redemption. Michigan's slide from roughly 89% to 73% redemption coexists comfortably with a fund that grows as redemption falls.

5. Ireland: the newest full launch, and its unanswered question

Ireland's Re-turn system (launched February 2024) is the most instructive recent case because everything happened fast and in public view. Performance was solid rather than spectacular: 877 million containers in year one, 1.4 billion and a 76.4% redemption rate in 2025. The unambiguous win was litter — bottle and can litter down by roughly half, beach container counts falling from about 100 items per kilometre to eight (the litter evidence). The structurally interesting development is the money: Irish consumers left €66.7 million unclaimed in 2024 and €60.1 million in 2025, retained by the not-for-profit operator — which now plans to fund a domestic bottle-to-bottle PET plant from the surplus, converting the escheat question into industrial policy in a country that exports roughly 90% of its PET.

And the live metrics fight carries field-wide significance: the operator told a parliamentary committee in July 2026 that recycling of in-scope containers rose from 49% to 91%; the waste industry association countered that kerbside recycling is "of equal standard" — an attack aimed at the quality premium that justifies the deposit system's cost, and implicitly at the 91% figure, which counts non-deposit capture. Beneath the argument sits the gap that defines this whole topic: more than two years after launch, no published study quantifies what Re-turn actually did to Irish kerbside tonnage and revenue. The central empirical question is unanswered in the best-instrumented new system in the world.

6. Ontario: the politics of not having one

Ontario is the reference case for deposit absence, and its 2023–26 record inverts the assumed politics. When the beverage industry's own organisation proposed a non-deposit recovery programme funded by a visible 1–3¢ container fee, the fee was branded a "pop can tax" and paused within months. The government then convened a working group on a deposit system for non-alcoholic containers — and the beverage industry supported it, arguing 90% recovery was achievable at around ten cents, with polling showing 81% public support. Brands, it turned out, preferred a deposit system they would help govern over uncontrolled fee politics. The government dissolved the working group anyway in July 2024, citing costs for small businesses — and the decisive opposition had come not from producers but from retail, the party that hosts the friction of returns. Ontario's beverage container recovery sits around 51%, the lowest in Canada; the 2025 Blue Box amendments then narrowed producer responsibility to residentially consumed containers, excluding the roughly 30% consumed away from home.

The lesson generalises: where a deposit system exists, the fight is over cost boundaries; where one does not, the blocking coalition is retail, not beverage producers.

7. Glass: the whole question in one material

Glass concentrates every element of this topic. It is heavy, so weight-based EPR fees punish it; low-value, so neither system wants it; and quality-destroyed by commingling — which is the argument both for and against putting it in a deposit system, depending on which collection route one believes handles it better.

England excluded glass from its 2027 deposit scheme on complexity, safety and quality grounds — glass crushed in reverse vending machines makes poorer remelt feedstock than well-run kerbside — armed with industry-commissioned modelling claiming improved kerbside beats glass-in-DRS on both carbon and capture. Scotland is the cautionary tale of getting the boundary wrong: glass inclusion was the wedge issue in the UK internal-market dispute that delayed the scheme, drained industry funding, and collapsed the scheme company into administration — a boundary dispute killed an entire national system. Wales drew the opposite conclusion and withdrew from the joint UK scheme partly to keep glass in, with a transitional 0p deposit from 2027. Quebec set a differentiated 25¢ deposit on larger glass, is in open conflict with its deposit operator over glass readiness for March 2027, and heard from its only glass plant that delay threatened the plant's viability. The result is a genuine multi-jurisdiction natural experiment — glass in the deposit system in Wales and Quebec, in kerbside EPR in England — with cullet quality as the outcome variable. No sub-question in the field has as clean a forthcoming test.

8. Where the argument stands

Five propositions, with the confidence the record supports. Cannibalisation is real, quantified and bounded — modelling from opposed sponsors converges on sorting-facility losses around $12–24 per ton marketed, against municipal savings of similar or larger magnitude accruing to different parties; it is a cost-allocation problem, and California's transfer mechanism is the existing, un-copied answer. The deposit performance record is the best-evidenced result in the packaging field, and its failure modes — low deposits, weak enforcement, operators keeping unredeemed deposits without performance pressure — are equally well documented. Every boundary model is under live stress somewhere: Quebec's two-body visibility, the UK's fee holiday, the Netherlands' operator moral hazard, the US escheat states' fiscal capture — with the Nordic integrated model performing best and being least imitated. The design rule follows: set the EPR system's cost and revenue architecture on the post-deposit stream from the start, and route deposit-system money to the systems it drains. And the genuinely open question — the net system effect of adding a deposit system to a mature EPR market — has no ex-post study anywhere, Ireland two years in included. Quebec's 2025–28 expansion and the UK's 2027 launch will generate the data; whether anyone independent analyses it is the same evaluation question that closes Theme 6.

References

  • RRS for the National Waste & Recycling Association (2022) — the sorting-facility impact model; industry-commissioned, deposit-opposing sponsor, identified as such.
  • Circular Matters for the Can Manufacturers Institute, Fair Fees in Deposit Programs (2022) — the compensation arithmetic and system ratings; industry-commissioned, deposit-favouring sponsor.
  • Eunomia / Reloop, expanded New York bottle bill impact modelling (2025) — the $57.4M/$39.5–108.6M figures.
  • CalRecycle — the California curbside-compensation transfers ($183M in the documented year).
  • Re-turn (Ireland) annual reports 2024–25 and Oireachtas committee testimony (July 2026); IBAL and Coastwatch litter surveys — the Irish case.
  • RECYC-QUÉBEC and AQRCB/Consignaction documentation — the Quebec boundary devices (the 5% sorting-additions rule); 2026 dispute reporting (La Presse; Radio-Canada) — paywalled; verified at headline level only.
  • UK: Commons Library briefing on the deposit scheme and the pEPR exclusion; the brewing association's glass campaign materials; Senedd and Welsh Government documentation on the Welsh scheme; Commons Library on the Scottish collapse.
  • Ontario: CBCRA programme filing (2023); reporting on the 2023–24 working group and its July 2024 dissolution; the September 2025 Blue Box amendments (ERO 025-0009).
  • OECD Environment Working Paper No. 208 (2022), Deposit-refund systems and the interplay with additional mandatory EPR policies — the reference treatment.
  • Bottle Bill Resource Guide — the unredeemed-deposit taxonomy; Michigan fiscal documentation.

Verification note: opposed-sponsor modelling is presented with sponsors named; paywalled dispute reporting is flagged; and the closing absence finding — no ex-post net-effect study anywhere — is stated as such. See Sources and method.