Deposits on beverage containers are by no means new – they have been around for more than a century.

Today there are more formalized programs known as deposit return systems (DRSs, also known as deposit return schemes, container deposit schemes or bottle bills) that play a significant role in encouraging recycling around the world. They work by adding a small refundable deposit to the price of a drink, which consumers get back when they return the empty drink container for recycling.

More regions than ever before are implementing these systems through legislation, in a bid to address the scourge of plastic pollution and litter. However, when looking at the history of deposit return systems, tackling pollution was not the original motivator for early deposit programs for drink containers.

The first wave: Goodwill and voluntary systems for recouping valuable assets

If we rewind to the late 18th century, plastic beverage containers were unheard of. Drinks like beer and soda were typically available in glass or even stoneware bottles.

Unlike today’s plastic bottles and aluminum cans, these costly items were not perceived as being disposable. They were seen as the property of the seller and indeed a business asset to be accounted for, and there was an understanding between both seller and consumer that containers should be returned. This was typically done as a gesture of good will, with no financial incentive of a deposit. In the UK, for example, "Rinse and Return" for doorstep milk bottles saw dairies reuse these glass bottles up to 40 times.

But in the decades that followed, as markets expanded and producers were faced with financial losses due to diminishing container returns, something had to be done to help increase the likelihood that they got their assets back. This was a key moment in the history of deposit return systems, as introducing deposits on the containers was the logical solution. These were so-called “voluntary” programs, where the beverage producers took the initiative to implement the deposit, without the programs being legislated.

In 1803, UK soft drink producers were offering money back on returned beverage containers, and from 1900 the first producer charged deposits up front for this purpose. US records show some producers began introducing these deposits as far back as the 1870s and 1880s, but it would take until the mid-1920s for bottle deposit systems to become commonplace.

The rise of single-use packaging

The popularity of single-use PET bottles and aluminum beverage cans grew, as they were pitched to beverage brands as great new substitute materials that would be lightweight and disposable, and enable producers to entirely eliminate the idea of their containers as business assets.

“It was an exciting time. Brands were very receptive to this change, as the concept of not having to invest in an asset that you’d have to manage throughout its lifecycle was hugely appealing," said Wolfgang Ringel, Senior Vice-President Group Public Affairs at TOMRA. "Suddenly problems like taking back crates of refillable bottles, or suffering losses due to breakage, were taken right out of the equation. These new containers were lighter, easier to handle, would bring cost savings and they knew consumers would buy in.”

From industry solution to municipal burden

However, this excitement was later tempered with the realization that the change brought its own set of challenges.

“It was all going swimmingly until it became apparent that these throwaway items created a waste stream that would put a burden on municipalities,” explained Wolfgang Ringel. “Suddenly they had to work out how on earth they were going to deal with this influx of drink containers, but municipalities didn’t have the capabilities." It wasn't feasible for the government to allow the industry to put single-use products on the market without a way of capturing them back, so they had to come up with an answer.

And so began the evolution of multi-material, household curbside recycling. It would allow certain materials that had a value to be separated from waste, which municipalities could then sell and turn into a revenue generator.

Ontario was the first in the world to implement curbside collection, in a deal that saw the soft drink industry (through the Ontario Soft Drink Association) provide seed financing for the program, known as “blue box” collection. What started as a $1 million contribution rose to $41 million, distributed over 10 years (1986-1996), although taxpayers covered considerable remaining costs of $2.33 billion including landfill.

Curbside collection challenges

This coordinated effort from the value chain in establishing curbside recycling brought an array of initial benefits: an injection of cash, the establishment of infrastructure, and grants to help fund areas such as sorting equipment or even trucks.

However, the peaks-and-troughs pattern of solution, problem, solution, problem continued. Over time, many curbside recycling programs became government mandated, making them a legal requirement. Yet some municipalities found the arrangement wasn’t always paying off or proving cheaper than disposal – it could even be more expensive.

They were at the mercy of market challenges like commodity prices dipping. In addition, they were also finding that their mixed waste streams morphed over time and became predominantly plastics – more than they could deal with.

The second wave: Combatting litter and waste

While this was ongoing, another part of Canada had also become a driver of major change and innovation.

In 1970, through the Litter Act (designed to reduce the burden of litter control), British Columbia marked a world first by introducing a mandatory refund system for beer and soft drink cans and bottles: the world’s first government-legislated deposit return system. (This was later replaced in 1997 by the Beverage Container Stewardship Program Regulation, which is considered “best in class” thanks to its high collection rates and recovery rates: 83% in 2023.)

From that point onwards, the concept of implementing a system where deposit return was actually legislated started to gain traction.

Throughout the 1970s, similar systems were adopted in other parts of Canada as Alberta and Quebec launched deposit return systems, and they also sprang up in parts of Australia and the US. Europe followed from the 1980s, with Sweden in 1984 becoming the first country in the region to introduce deposit, starting with cans.

During these key decades, more and more countries continued to come on board across each territory, and the last ten years have seen particularly rapid growth in this global movement in an effort to address the crisis of waste and pollution.

A short overview of deposit return systems in operation across the globe shows the rise and reach of DRS, which now spans more than 50 worldwide:

• Since British Colombia led the way in the 1970s, 11 of Canada’s 13 provinces and territories now operate deposit return systems.
• Australia’s first territory to implement a deposit return system was South Australia in 1977. The Northern Territory was next in 2012, and by May 2025 all other states and territories in the country had followed. This made it the first continent fully covered by deposit return.
• In the US, ten states have implemented bottle bills – Oregon was first in 1972 and the most recent addition was Hawaii in 2005.
• In the Middle East and Africa, Israel implemented its deposit return mandate in 2001, and the Republic of Seychelles begain in 2007.
• Barbados was the first across Oceania and the Caribbean in 1986 and Kosrae, Yap, Kiribati, Palau, Pohnpei, Tuvalu and Republic of the Marshall Islands have since followed in its footsteps.
• Across Europe, 19 countries have deposit return systems in operation (as of October 2025).

Today’s third wave: Reputation and demand for recycled content

Wolfgang Ringel reflected on the changing motivations for bringing in deposit system, in light of the rising global demand for deposit return systems.

“The first bottle deposits were introduced for obvious economic reasons. When they later became legislated, this was also in response to the plastic waste problem and the burden on municipalities,” he said. “As the litter problem grew, it also meant there was a reputational issue for producers to consider. For example, the Ocean Conservancy produces an annual report on litter statistics that include a breakdown of litter by beverage brand, and that sort of reporting is a powerful tool in accountability and driving change.”

Wolfgang Ringel says there is another major factor influencing change: recycled content requirements. While this often includes voluntary pledges by beverage producers, legislation like the European Union’s Single-Use Plastics Directive (SUPD) means the clock is ticking for brands to meet stringent new requirements. The Directive set out a target for manufacturers to use 25% of recycled content in PET beverage bottles by 2025 and 30% in plastic beverage bottles by 2030, as well as separately collect 90% of plastic drink containers by 2029. The EU's 2025 Packaging & Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) retains those obligations, while adding metal drink cans to the 2029 target. 

The PPWR also in fact adds a requirement that member states introduce a deposit return system by 2029, in order to achieve those targets. The DRSs should cover beverages in plastic or metal containers sized up to three liters, but member states can exclude those below 0.1 liters. Member states should also endeavor to cover drink cartons and glass with their DRS, and packaging made of other materials (or packaging for other products) may be included. The PPWR allows exemptions for milk and wine, but member states can include these if desired.

With strict targets and deadlines fast-approaching, deposit return systems are attracting more interest than ever, due to their proven track record for enabling the collection of large quantities of beverage containers for reuse and high-quality recycling (experts say it will be difficult to impossible to achieve 90% return rates without deposit return systems). In Europe alone, the average PET bottle collection rate is 94%, versus the 47% collection rate achieved by curbside programs.

“Public pressure and reputation will always have a part to play, but right now the new legislation and need for recycled content is probably an even bigger player in powering the explosion we’ve seen in DRS numbers,” explains Wolfgang Ringel. “As governments introduce recycled content requirements, beverage producers are recognizing that deposit systems will help them meet their obligations and get access to their own material instead of having to seek out new material. It’s a very attractive value proposition. We now even see producers going to governments and urging them to implement a level playing field in legislation so that industry has to make a collective effort to solve this problem.”

The road ahead for deposit return schemes

“It has never been a more dynamic time for DRS, an there is rising demand for deposit return as more jurisdictions continue to come on board,” explains Wolfgang Ringel. In 2024, at least nine US states proposed adopting new deposit systems  and most of the existing 10 states with deposit systems saw legislation filed to update their programs in some way. The Canadian province of Quebec recently modernized its existing deposit system, including adding deposits to popular beverage categories and making the deposit value more meaningful. Singapore, Jamaica and Guadeloupe have also been having open conversations about DRS

There is also growing consumer demand for deposit return systems. A World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) poll in 2020 found that 88% of adult Americans supported the creation of a “nationwide beverage container refund program” for plastic containers. This aligns with research analyzed by Reloop into the public’s attitude towards DRS, which found on average 82% of participants were in favor of a system being implemented, across a compilation of over 80 public opinion polls conducted in 18 countries from 2003-2021.

Wolfgang Ringel concludes, “It is exciting to see how deposit return systems will continue to evolve in the years ahead, in response to public opinion, policy shifts, new container materials, and greater consideration to the impact of packaging on the planet.”