Weighing in on the DRS debate

While the plans for implementing Scotland’s Deposit Return Scheme (DRS) in August forge ahead with the rest of the UK trailing behind, Scottish authorities reaffirm their commitment to making the scheme work, even though many questions remain. Several industry organisations have voiced their concerns, with some calling for DRS to be scrapped altogether.

On the surface DRS is a relatively simple system that has been implemented very successfully in most European countries. It entails charging a deposit on certain glass or plastic bottles or tins and then issuing a refund as a credit when they are returned. Europe’s DRS may well be a success story worth emulating, but there are distinct differences between Europe and the UK. Implementing a DRS system needs to take these factors into account if it is to work.

What’s different about recycling in the UK?

Firstly, Europe’s DRS is not new. For decades Europeans have become accustomed to returning bottles for deposits. It’s well established as part of the culture and there’s little confusion as to what must be returned or where. Their success is underpinned by limited kerbside recycling systems and in some instances chargeable residual collections.

By contrast, in the UK DRS is not part of the current recycling system. Up until the 1980’s, we had a perfectly workable DRS system, and many people will remember taking bottles back for pennies. We were well educated on the benefits of DRS. Sadly, cheap plastic bottles put an end to this system.

Implementing yet another form of recycling when there’s already little consistency between counties and cities regarding recycling, is only going to cause more confusion. Where there’s confusion, adoption rates decline. Many households may perceive it to be too much effort to separate out DRS bottles. In that case they are more likely to simply continue to use their kerbside recycling collections as they always have.

Secondly, there is a strong existing DRS infrastructure in Europe. DRS is integrated into retail outlets and even some transport systems and is a widely used form of recycling. In the UK, many local authorities have created their own recycling policies which range between different forms of kerbside collections as well as drop off points. Many local authorities have become very proficient, achieving recycling rates above 80%. But the challenge is that there’s little consistency, which means implementing a broader system such as a DRS is more challenging as it will impact different areas in different ways.

What’s the goal of DRS?

Repeatedly, the argument for DRS is that it will improve recycling rates as well as the quality of the recyclable materials produced. The argument against DRS is that in many cases recycling rates are already high, and in many cases above 80%. The law of diminishing returns does apply. Implementing a new system comes with costs and requires infrastructure. Is it a worthwhile investment if effective recycling infrastructure already exists? Should we focus on investment in the consistency in collections which could ultimately have a greater impact?

Impacts and consequences of DRS

There are also additional policies that impact the scheme such as extended producer responsibility (EPR). How will different policies impact the success of DRS and how will they integrate, and how will this be managed? For Scotland’s DRS, producers are already being warned that they may not be able to sell drinks if they do not register. Additionally, retailers and wholesalers will be required to only sell certain products registered with the DRS. This requires buy-in from various stakeholders in the supply chain, many of whom have well established contracts and relationships which will now be impacted by this change.

Existing recycling schemes will also be impacted.  Where there are kerbside collections, additional effort will be required by households to separate out DRS items from other recycling. For recyclers there’s the very real concern that they’ll be losing out on revenue as materials are diverted to DRS instead of through their processing facilities. Smaller companies are likely to feel it most, especially if glass bottles were one of their primary revenue streams. There’s the suggestion of digital DRS that may help fill the gap if household adoption doesn’t meet expectations, but this requires packaging labelling in order for the materials to be properly tracked and processed.

One of our team, Lisa Selby de Haan, has a wealth of experience in Local Authorities and has been in active discussions with industry colleagues on the subject of the DRS implementation. The general consensus within the industry is that while the DRS may sound like a good idea, the UK is not Europe, and, sadly, DRS is not part of the culture anymore. Additionally, local authorities and recycling companies have been consistently working towards achieving year on year improvements in recycling and they are achieving good results without a DRS.

DRS is more likely to add complexity and costs to recycling efforts. In an industry where the one factor that improves recycling is simplicity, this is counter intuitive. If national government wants greater consistency in recycling, a DRS is not the silver bullet to make that happen. There’s a lot more going on which needs to be taken into consideration.