Are Deposit–Return Schemes an Optimal Solution for Beverage Container Collection in the European Union? An Evidence Review

Abstract

The insufficient effectiveness of the European packaging waste policy has prompted the European Union to adopt more decisive measures in 2025. The Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation of 2024 obliges Member States to use deposit–return systems to achieve high collection rates for beverage packaging and, as a result, to enhance packaging circularity. As evidence supporting this approach, i.e., that deposit systems indeed are an efficient solution for packaging waste collection, is still scattered, this article provides a systematic review of the evidence on various aspects of the use of deposit systems. A key finding of our review is that both scientific and empirical evidence support the European Union’s decision to make deposit–return systems mandatory: in European countries that have fully operational systems, the collection rates of packaging covered by these systems exceeded 85%. In addition to this positive contribution to packaging circularity, a significant (40–60%) reduction in littering is reported after implementation of the deposit systems. A significant novelty of this review is the presentation of the latest empirical data suggesting that deposit systems may be comparable to alternative collection methods in terms of costs to producers. Comprehensive assessments conducted using the cost–benefit analysis methods confirm that deposit systems generate net social benefits. It is suggested that innovations in logistics contribute to reduced environmental impacts of transport and transport-related costs. For this reason, updated life cycle assessments and cost–benefit analyses of deposit systems are needed to assess the role of deposit systems within the European circular economy framework.

1. Introduction

Over the past 25 years, the European Union’s policy paradigm regarding packaging waste has evolved, shifting from a focus on meeting minimum recycling targets to the broader objective of packaging circularity. This policy evolution has been operationalized through a combination of regulatory and economic instruments implemented at both the EU and Member State levels. So far, the European Union’s policies on packaging circularity, implemented since the last decade of the 20th century, have not proven sufficiently effective, especially in reducing waste and increasing recycling. Although the average EU packaging recycling rate exceeded 67% in 2023, there were significant differences between Member States, from around 50% in Hungary and Croatia to 80% in Belgium. Worryingly, the last decade saw a decline in the recycling rate of packaging waste in the large, most developed EU countries, such as Germany (from 71.3% to 69.4%) or Sweden (from 69.6% to 66.6%) [1].

Insufficient growth in packaging recycling rates results from a range of factors, both pan-European and country-specific. These factors include, in particular, the following:

• rising consumption driven by trends such as fast fashion and online shopping, which leads to greater volumes of packaging placed on the market; between 2012 and 2023, per capita packaging waste generation in the EU increased by almost 15%;
• insufficient separate collection and underdeveloped sorting infrastructure;
• significant waste incineration capacity in some Member States, competing with recycling.

A further challenge requiring particular attention is the generational gap expressed by the lower involvement of Generation Z and Millennials in separate waste collection practices. These claims were confirmed in a survey commissioned by DS Smith in 2024 on a representative group of 2000 residents of the United Kingdom. The following findings were reported:

• only 19% of Gen Z paid attention to the separate collection of waste paper and cardboard;
• 92% of Gen Z and 84% of Millennials threw waste into the mixed waste bin instead of following the recycling rules because they did not want to clean the packaging;
• 53% of Gen Z declared confusion regarding proper waste collection;
• among the waste most often thrown into the wrong bin by Gen Z were food leftovers (33%), packaging with leftover food (30%), and plastic bags (24%);
• as many as 31% of the respondents believed that the responsibility for engaging more people in proper waste segregation lies with the government [2].

These phenomena require new solutions targeted at shaping the desired business practices and consumer attitudes and behaviors. The European Union responded to these problems with new regulations, including the following targets:

• the obligation to achieve at least 70% recycling rate of packaging waste (by the end of 2030) [3];
• a minimum of 90% separate collection target for single-use plastic beverage bottles and single-use metal beverage containers (by 2029) [4,5],
• at least 25% recycled content in new polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles by 2025 and 30% recycled content in all plastic beverage bottles (regardless of polymer type) by 2030 [5];
• the contribution to the EU budget based on non-recycled plastic packaging—Member States are required to pay EUR 0.80 per kilogram of non-recycled plastic packaging waste [6].

These legislative changes were caused by the ineffectiveness of the “soft” tools previously used to build a circular economy in relation to single-use plastic and metal beverage containers. Some countries have only met the minimum recovery and recycling levels required by the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive [3], and have not undertaken more ambitious goals. New regulations have been implemented to change this and to build more circular packaging systems.

In order to meet these collection and recycling targets, the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) of 2024 [5] obliges Member States to use deposit–return schemes (DRSs) for single-use plastic and metal beverage containers. Deposit–return schemes have been widely used for packaging, both single- and multiple-use, with high effectiveness [7]. However, for a range of reasons, not all EU countries have implemented a DRS. As of 1 September 2025, 16 of 27 EU countries had operational systems, 4 countries had adopted appropriate regulations and were preparing for implementation, and 7 countries did not have a DRS. The PPWR is a radical change in this respect. It states that a DRS is mandatory and must meet certain requirements. Exceptions to this obligation are provided for packaging in the HoReCa industry, wine, and spirits packaging. In addition, countries that can demonstrate a minimum 80% collection rate of beverage bottles through other separate collection methods may request not to establish a DRS.

The preamble to the PPWR states the following: “It has been shown that well-functioning deposit and return systems ensure a very high collection rate and high-quality recycling, especially of beverage bottles and cans.” It goes on to state that the main goal is to increase “the supply of good quality secondary raw material suitable for closed loop recycling and reduce beverage containers litter” (paragraph 141). The main argument in favor of adopting this solution as mandatory is the effectiveness of the DRS. However, the impact assessment prepared for the regulation proposal, due to the extensiveness of the regulations in the PPWR, presented limited quantitative arguments justifying the obligation to use the DRS to collect used beverage containers [8,9].

Deposit–return schemes for post-consumer packaging were recently the subject of meta-analyses in the scientific and gray literature. In a review published in 2025, Picuno et al. [10] included 143 papers, and in the full-text analysis covered 36 papers. They distinguished five groups of aspects discussed in the literature: regulatory, environmental, economic, social, and technical. Their analysis of the research results on the environmental effects of DRSs did not indicate clear conclusions as to whether DRSs are better or worse than other methods of municipal waste collection in this respect. However, it was pointed out that transport significantly increases the environmental footprint of a DRS. The analysis of the economic aspects focused on the level of costs of this system and the ways in which they were covered, including the fees incurred by producers as well as the amount of deposits and their importance for the effectiveness of the system. It was also pointed out that DRSs are associated with the transfer of the burden of collection costs to the manufacturers of packaged products. The factors limiting the effectiveness of the system were analyzed, and it was concluded that DRSs generate overall positive economic impacts. Regarding social aspects, with a limited number of studies focusing on DRSs, their review relied on research on the broader issue of recycling behavior. The authors provided evidence that social factors, such as location and gender, may affect the effectiveness and adoption of a DRS. They also emphasized the problem of the deposit fee amount and its motivating effect. The social aspects also included the positive impact of a DRS, both direct and indirect, on job creation, including in the informal sector and for disadvantaged people.

In another review, Zhou et al. [11] discussed the operation mechanisms and typology of DRS operation modes. The authors distinguished three DRS organizational modes—reverse logistics mode, retail recycling mode, and repo recycling mode—and analyzed their main characteristics. They pointed out that the reverse logistics mode generates the greatest burden for producers. They did not provide clear conclusions on which mode is better, but stated that the convenience of consumers and the economic viability of the system should be taken into account when designing a system in a particular country.

Apart from these reviews focused on the particular features of DRSs, there are also reviews focusing on DRSs as a research object. In a recent review of this type, Rotsios et al. [12] conducted a bibliometric analysis focused on how dominant themes in the field of deposit–return schemes have shifted over the decades; the detailed results on concrete DRS-related issues were not analyzed. However, the authors pointed to the research gaps related to the socio-economic impacts of a DRS and its effectiveness across different geopolitical contexts.

In 2022, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) published a report on DRSs, which was not a systematic evidence review, but provided a comprehensive review of research results on selected aspects of DRSs and their interplay with extended producer responsibility (EPR) systems [7]. In this report, the synergies between DRSs and other EPR instruments were analyzed, but it also confirmed many research results on DRSs, among others, that DRSs are highly effective in achieving high collection rates, providing higher-quality recycled materials with less contamination. However, in this report, the environmental footprint and cost efficiency of DRSs were only analyzed to a limited extent.

Although various aspects of DRSs have been the subject of numerous studies, recent changes in EU law and rapid technological advances in logistics have contributed to a knowledge gap in the multidimensional assessment of DRS efficiency. In our opinion, there is a need to supplement the existing reviews, especially regarding economic and certain environmental aspects, and to indicate the extent to which the obligation to use a DSR has scientific foundations. The assumptions regarding the efficiency of DRSs adopted by European legislators should be systematically and continuously verified. Our review contributes to this process.

The research problem addressed in this paper was the effectiveness and efficiency of DRSs, including their technical, economic, environmental, social, and regulatory dimensions, with regard to beverage containers. Accordingly, the objective of this paper was to provide an EU-focused review of the scientific, expert, and statistical evidence on various aspects of DRS efficiency. The following hypothesis was formulated: the existing literature and recent empirical data justify the mandatory use of DRSs for the collection of beverage containers in the EU and confirm that DRSs are effective when considering the overall economic, social, and environmental impacts.

The added value of this paper is that we supplemented the existing reviews by incorporating the latest literature and empirical data, with particular attention to aspects underrepresented in previous analyses. Specifically, we aim to verify the claims regarding the higher costs of a DRS compared to alternative waste collection methods, in light of recent technological advances.

2. Materials and Methods

In this paper, we provide an overview of the current state of knowledge on the detailed aspects of the functioning of a DRS, based on the current scientific and gray literature and empirical data. Our analysis was conducted in five stages, following general methodological guidelines regarding systematic literature reviews, including PRISMA [13]:

• Eligibility criteria, i.e., the DRS assessment criteria relevant to the research objective.
• Information sources.
• Identification of keywords used.
• Search strategy, including keywords for database searches, consistent with the defined DRS evaluation criteria.
• Source selection, including both the scientific and gray literature,
• Content analysis.
• Interpretation of the results in the context of the EU.

To address the specificity of the research problem, we also incorporated recent empirical data on economic aspects not yet covered in the literature.

We used the scheme of assessment criteria (aspects) presented in a recent study by Picuno et al. [10] and its systematic mapping of DRS-related issues. Similar criteria were applied, for instance, in the OECD report [7] and in the assessment report accompanying the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation [8]. We supplemented this scheme with more detailed issues within each area. For each aspect, we presented the latest evidence and data, focusing on whether the deposit system was better or worse than the municipal system in a given respect (Figure 1).

The technical criteria refer to the effectiveness of DRSs; that is, whether they actually meet the objectives of collecting packaging waste and providing high-quality secondary materials. The second group of criteria is environmental, particularly regarding the environmental footprint, including the carbon footprint, of waste collection in the form of DRSs compared to municipal systems, to what extent DRSs mitigate the problem of littering and reduce the space occupied by landfills. A group of criteria that is very important from a practical point of view are the economic effects: the costs and benefits of the system for producers, consumers, and local governments, as well as the potential inflationary effects of possible higher costs. The social dimension of DRSs refers to their acceptance by society, as well as the accessibility to various specific groups, impact on the perception of waste as a resource, and environmental awareness. The last group of issues is the ability of DRSs to eliminate regulatory errors; that is, to internalize the external costs and to implement the principle of extended producer responsibility. Eligibility criteria were formulated using a PIO (Population–Intervention–Outcome) statement, as shown in

Table 1. Eligibility criteria for review.

PIO Statement	Operationalization	Inclusion	Exclusion
Population	Countries and communities around the world	Operational or planned DRS in any location, including non-country-specific studies	None
Intervention	DRS for packaging, including beverage containers	DRS used for collection of used packaging, including beverage containers	DRS for other waste streams, e.g., batteries
Outcome	Multidimensional effects of DRS, including technical, environmental, economic, social, and regulatory	Results, challenges, and trade-offs related to the implementation of DRS, for any of the assessment criteria; Evidence published in 2015 or later	Content that does not examine results, challenges, or trade-offs related to the implementation of DRS for any of the relevant assessment criteria; Evidence published before 2015

Source: Authors’ own work.

.

For these criteria, keywords used in the database searches were specified. In our search strategy, we covered both the academic and the gray literature. For peer-reviewed papers, we conducted multiple searches of the major bibliographic databases, Scopus and Web of Science, for the specified keywords. For the gray literature, we searched the Internet using the same keywords. We used a combination of notations, wildcards, proximity operators, and synonyms for terms such as deposit–return scheme/system, deposit–refund scheme/system, advanced disposal/recovery fee, reverse vending machine/system, and beverage plastic container/bottle/packaging. In addition, for the detailed evaluation criteria, we performed additional searches taking into account additional keywords, as shown in

Table 2. Summary of the search strategies.

Assessment Criteria	Search Terms	Number of Scientific Papers	Number of Gray Literature
Effectiveness	Effectiveness, results, effects	5	2
Quality of collected material	Impurities, quality, contamination	5	2
Space for DRS infrastructure	Space occupation	1	2
Environmental footprint	Environmental footprint, carbon footprint/effects	3	2
Litter reduction	Littering, improper disposal	6	-
Decrease in landfill space	Landfill space	1	1
Collection costs	Packaging cost, collection cost	7	8
Deposit fee	Deposit fee/amount Low/high deposit fee	3	2
Inflationary effect	Inflation, increasing prices	2	1
Prices of secondary materials	Recycled plastic prices, secondary plastic prices	-	4
Reduced plastic tax	Plastic-based own resource, plastic tax	-	1
Social aspects	Recycling behavior, social acceptance, willingness to use	8	-
Regulatory aspects	Internalization, externalities, free riding, market structure	2	1
Total, of which: unique records		43 40	26 23

Source: Authors’ own work.

, column 2. We searched for English-language texts only, published in 2015 and later. The database searches were conducted in March 2025 and were verified in September 2025 to add the most recent literature. A summary of our search strategies is presented in Table 2, including the number of information sources for each detailed criterion.

Initial searches in the bibliographic databases yielded 168 records. At the screening stage, 25 duplicates were removed, and the titles and abstracts were searched for the keywords. Then, we searched the full texts for detailed keywords related to the particular assessment criteria shown in Table 1. We excluded texts that did not concern packaging waste-related issues but other waste streams or, for example, banking and monetary systems where the term “deposit–return system” is also used. Team members analyzed the texts independently to reduce bias. The total number of texts included in our review was 63, of which 40 were scientific papers and 23 were gray literature. A summary of the scientific literature search and selection was shown in Figure 2.

After selecting the relevant papers, the authors read the individual articles and analyzed their results and conclusions regarding the identified criteria, focusing on whether the obligatory deposit system for beverage packaging provided for in the new PPWR has scientific justification.

3. Results

3.1. Technical Aspects

3.1.1. Effectiveness of the DRS in Separate Collection

Empirical data on the collection rates of PET bottles and DRS implementation in EU countries clearly confirmed the effectiveness of the DRS in achieving separate collection goals (Figure 3).

In countries using the DRS, the collection rate of plastic bottles exceeded 85%, except for the Netherlands, where the scheme covered only large-volume plastic bottles (bottles and cans under 1 L were covered after 1 July 2021). Notably, high collection rates of PET bottles covered by the DRS are not necessarily accompanied by high levels of municipal waste recycling in general. This means that the efficiency of the DRS is not correlated with the efficiency of the waste management system as a whole and is a feature of this collection method rather than a result of the level of development of waste management in a given country. Deposit systems have the potential to effectively achieve high collection rates, even if the municipal system in a given country has low efficiency. The widespread implementation of DRSs in the EU will therefore enable a relatively rapid and significant increase in the level of packaging circularity, regardless of the initial quality of waste collection systems in individual countries.

The role of DRSs in achieving packaging waste management targets, mainly recycling rates, was assessed in a number of studies. There is strong evidence that DRSs were much more effective in achieving separate collection targets for beverage containers than municipal systems. This has been systematically confirmed in all studies on the effectiveness of DRSs. In their meta-analysis of DRSs, Calabrese et al. [14] concluded that the average percentage of returned and recycled packaging for countries with a DRS was by 20 to 30 percentage points higher than for countries without a DRS. Colelli et al. found that deposit schemes increased the recycling rate by 5 percentage points for plastic and by 15 percentage points for glass [15]. This regularity is also confirmed in studies concerning individual countries, such as Slovakia [16], Germany [17], and the United States [18], i.e., in countries with somewhat different socio-economic conditions.

Another technical issue is related to the fact that plastic bottles occupy space in separate collection containers for plastic waste. Recent studies of municipal waste morphology in Poland [19] confirmed that beverage packaging accounts for approximately 24% of the yellow bags containing plastics, metals, and multi-material packaging (including PET 21.1% and aluminum approx. 3%). However, if we take into account that the PET bottles are not compacted, the volume share can reach up to 40% of the container for separate collection (the yellow bin). Their collection under the DRS would therefore significantly reduce the frequency of collection of these containers and thus achieve significant savings. Reduced costs related to smaller load of waste collection were mentioned in the OECD report, but no specific estimates of this reduction in load or frequency were provided [7].

3.1.2. Quality of Packaging Waste Collected Within the DRS

The requirements of Directive 2019/904 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment (SUP Directive) regarding the minimum recycled content in new PET bottles mean that there are specific requirements for the quality of the recycled material to secure a high level of protection for human health. Regulations on food contact materials are particularly important here, including Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1616 on recycled plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food [20] and Commission Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 on plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food [21]. For metal packaging, including aluminum, there are no specific provisions apart from the general regulations on food contact materials.

Regulation 2022/1616 provides specific requirements for the decontamination of secondary plastic raw materials to eliminate potential contamination from both food residues (including microbiological contamination) and incidental contaminants, depending on the source and method of collection of plastic waste. The regulation stipulates that recycled plastic intended to come into contact with food must simultaneously meet the following criteria:

• consist only of plastic materials and articles originating only from municipal waste, or from food retail or other food businesses if it was only intended and used for contact with food, including waste discarded from a recycling scheme,
• originate only from plastic materials and articles manufactured in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 or recycled plastic materials and articles manufactured in accordance with Regulation 2022/1616,
• originate from separate collection.

According to Regulation 2022/1616, separate collection means that waste material has been collected as follows:

• separately for recycling from any other waste,
• together with other packaging waste categories of municipal waste or with other non-packaging plastic, metal, paper, or glass fractions of municipal waste collected separately from residual waste for recycling, as long as the collection system only covers non-hazardous waste and the collection was designed and carried out to minimize the contamination of collected plastic waste.

Moreover, the recovered plastic should be controlled throughout collection and pre-processing by means of certified quality assurance systems. In the existing municipal systems, such requirements are currently difficult to meet, as demonstrated by many studies on the separate collection of plastic packaging. In the study by Malinowski et al. conducted in Poland, the content of contaminants in selectively collected waste containing food packaging was 26.8%, including 1.3% hazardous waste [22] (according to Polish regulations, plastic, metal, and composite packaging waste is collected together in the municipal system as a yellow bin). Significant contaminants in plastic secondary materials from various segregation methods were found, among others, by Feil et al., based on data from the Netherlands [23], and by Edjabou et al., based on data on separate collection from households in Denmark [24], as well as discussed in the report by the Joint Research Center [25]. Achieving the standards required by Regulation 2022/1616 in municipal systems would therefore require significant changes in user behavior and probably additional technological solutions to support compliance with the standards.

However, in the case of the DRS, there is strong evidence that such a collection technique provides secondary raw materials of much higher quality than other methods. Recycled PET (rPET) products originating from separate collection and mechanical recovery are much more contaminated than the rPET from DRSs. In the study by van Velzen et al., the result of the Partisol (Particles in Solution) test, which involves determining the number of contaminating particles in dissolved PET, for rPET from the DRS it was 130,570 particles, whereas for rPET from separate collection, it was almost nine times more (1,162,175 particles), and for rPET from mechanical recovery, it was over five times more (695,396 particles) [26]. In the same study, rPET from the DRS also had significantly better haze performance (rPET from the DRS 45.1% ± 0.5% compared to rPET from separate collection 87.7% ± 0.6% and rPET from mechanical recycling 84.4% ± 0.3%). Results confirming the higher quality of rPET collected in the DRS were also obtained in a German study from 2017, covering a period of 14 years [27]. Also, in Portugal, the collection of plastic bottles carried out by reverse vending machines (RVM) provided good quality raw materials [28].

The purity of the materials collected in a deposit system is the result of the verification of the packaging formats for which a consumer receives the deposit value back. Because the collection method is combined with a monetary incentive, a deposit value, the returned packaging unit is verified at the collection point. Only deposit-bearing containers are accepted, and only for those containers is a deposit paid back. In the DRS, beverage packaging is not mixed with other waste streams which makes it possible to meet the requirements for food contact materials. This is hardly possible in municipal systems. Achieving a high level of circularity will therefore be much easier and less expensive when using the DRS. These two technical factors—high collection rates and high raw material quality in the DRS —are crucial for assessing the economic performance of DRSs in comparison with alternative municipal curbside collection systems, where collection rates and material quality are lower. This will be discussed later in the text.

3.1.3. Space for DRS-Related Infrastructure

An additional burden on retail outlets, mainly the need to provide additional space and working time for the collection and storage of empty packaging and the settlement of deposits, is also considered in the research and analyses conducted before the DRS introduction [9,29,30]. Such statements appeared in the results of opinion polls, and expressed concerns about the implementation of the DRS among enterprises [9]. In practice, this additional burden is compensated for in the form of a retail handling fee, and small retail outlets are either exempted from the collection obligation or collection can be limited to the amount sold. Moreover, unlike non-deposit collection points, deposit-bearing containers are often compacted, which saves space at collection points. Unfortunately, in our review we did not find any similar surveys of entrepreneurs’ opinions after the implementation of the system.

3.2. Environmental Aspects

3.2.1. Environmental Footprint of a DSR

The most comprehensive assessment of the environmental effects of various waste collection methods is provided by an environmental life cycle assessment. Recent studies using this method have shown that implementing a DRS generates net environmental benefits. In a recent (2024) report commissioned by the European Commission, it was proven that systems accompanied by deposit–return schemes have visibly lower environmental impact, including climate change impacts, compared to systems without the DRS [25]. Of key importance for environmental effects is the degree of separation: municipal collection systems with three or four streams perform environmentally better than systems with a lower degree of separation, but in any case, the DRS further improves the performance. Simon et al. proved that a DRS based on collection points in supermarkets had the lowest carbon footprint compared to other collection methods for post-consumer PET beverage containers (curbside collection and collection centers used in municipal systems) [31]. A much greater advantage of the DRS was demonstrated in Norway in studies commissioned by a local DRS system operator [32,33]. A comparison of the carbon footprint of three waste collection systems for plastic beverage containers in this country (DRS, curbside municipal system, and the curbside municipal system with residual waste intended for incineration) showed that systems with the collection of waste beverage containers through the DRS resulted in an approximately 30% lower carbon footprint than traditional curbside municipal systems. For other impact categories (abiotic depletion potential, acidification potential, eutrophication potential), the impact of the traditional municipal system and the system involving the DRS were generally comparable. The authors concluded that the most important factor for improving the environmental impact of PET bottle systems is to produce PET bottles with as high a share of recycled material as possible. Therefore, collection systems with high collection rates and good quality of collected materials have a better environmental performance. Furthermore, the higher the collection rates, the better the environmental performance achieved.

A study on the Spanish DRS by Abejón et al. published in 2020 found that waste management systems using the DRS had higher negative impacts for all LCA categories, except for abiotic depletion potential. The authors concluded that these higher emissions were largely due to the transport of the collected packaging to the counting facilities without compacting [34]. A significant contribution of transportation to environmental impacts was also noted by Simon et al.; however, in this study, the deposit–refund system resulted in an excellent environmental profile, as well as a municipal curbside bag system [31]. Modern DRS collection points are based on RVMs equipped with compactor systems and allow for a volume reduction of up to 90% [33]. Moreover, the majority of deposit-bearing packages are collected at automated collection points, which makes the counting phase redundant (only manually collected items require counting at the counting centers). This means an even greater reduction in transport needs in modern DRSs and, as a result, their environmental footprint is also lower than older studies may have suggested. Therefore, the results of older studies should be taken into account with correction for the technological and organizational advances in DRSs.

In general, the LCA results are somewhat contradictory, with earlier studies indicating poorer environmental performance of DRSs, whereas more recent studies suggest that DRSs may have a lower environmental impact compared to other methods of separate waste collection. The widespread implementation of DRSs across the EU provides an opportunity to verify these LCA results for current technological options.

3.2.2. Littering Reduction and Avoided Landfill Space

The second main purpose of introducing a deposit–return scheme, in addition to the high collection level of high-quality secondary materials, is to effectively eliminate the litter problem. The PPWR preamble states that beverage and food containers account for 80% of litter. Many studies have confirmed that beverage bottles are important contributors to marine pollution [35,36]. In this respect, the research results are unequivocal; the introduction of a deposit system significantly reduces the uncontrolled abandonment of waste covered by the system. Evidence from Latvia, presented by Brizga et al. [37], confirmed that deposit systems are effective in litter reduction. The number of items found in a sample of locations on beaches and dunes on the Baltic Sea coastline was, on average, 61% less for plastic bottles, 52% less for aluminum cans, and 28% less for glass bottles in 2022–2023 compared to 2021. The evidence in Latvia was collected in 2021, prior to the deposit system implementation, as well as in 2022, a few months after the DRS was implemented, and in 2023, when the deposit system had been operating for 1.5 years. In Estonia, two years after a deposit system was implemented, the share of beverage containers in litter had dropped below 10% compared to 80% prior to its implementation [38]. This DRS effect has also been confirmed in Australia [39] and the United States [40]. In their study covering the US and Australia, Schuyler et al. found that the proportion of containers found in coastal litter surveys in states with a deposit system was approximately 40% lower than in non-DSR states [41]. Regarding the avoided landfill space, we have identified only one paper that considers this category of environmental effect, suggesting that deposit systems are effective in this regard [42]. In different regions of the world, the effects of the DRS on litter reduction were similar. This environmental effect also translates into significant social benefits, reflected in the results of cost–benefit analyses.

3.3. Economic Aspects

3.3.1. Collection Costs

The main argument against using the DRS is the relatively high collection costs of this method. It is mainly the gray literature that provides data on this subject. However, all cost analyses face the problem of the comparability of cost data, because in DRSs and municipal systems (including municipal systems combined with EPR systems), different types of entities incur costs in different institutional arrangements. Such a comparison of producer costs in two general types of systems can be made assuming that in both systems—DRS and EPR systems combined with municipal systems—producers pay a fee equal to the difference between the collection costs and the proceeds from the sale of the collected waste materials. The difference between a DRS and an EPR is that, in a DRS, producers pay a fee to a DRS operator and the collection of waste packaging is carried out by DRS operators, while in EPR schemes, the collection takes place in municipal systems and EPR operators charge producers a fee to subsidize the municipal systems by covering the difference between revenues from the sale of secondary material and collection costs. However, the regulations adopted in each country are different, and the level of co-financing varies between countries.

Producer fees per 1 kg of plastic packaging entering DRS systems range from about 0.45–0.6 EUR/kg in Malta and 0.56 EUR/kg in Norway up to 2.2–2.9 EUR/kg in Lithuania (for comparison purposes, rates per item were converted to kilos assuming that, on average, a PET bottle weighs 15–20 g) [43]. These fee rates in DRSs are for achieving collection levels exceeding 90%. Because of the implementation of the net cost principle combined with the fact that there is no cross-subsidization between materials, the producers’ fees for deposit-bearing aluminum cans reach the highest cost efficiency, ranging from a negative fee in Norway (−0.50 EUR/kg) and no fee in Latvia, Sweden, and Denmark to 0.95 EUR/kg in Lithuania [43].

These costs are usually compared with the fees paid by producers placing packaged products on the market under extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes. A study conducted in Slovakia in 2022 estimated the DRS costs for plastic beverage packaging and aluminum cans at EUR 0.54 per kg, which was less than the EPR rate for plastic packaging [16]. A report published in 2021 on the implementation of the DRS in France showed that, if unreturned deposits were included as a funding source for the system, the DRS could be more cost-efficient than the cost of achieving a 90% collection rate in a non-DRS system [44]. In an Austrian producer responsibility organization (PRO) ARA (Altstoff Recycling Austria AG), fees paid by fillers to the PROs for plastic packaging introduced onto the market were as high as EUR 0.78 per kg in 2023 [45], whereas in a Norwegian DRS, a fee paid by the producers introducing plastic bottles into the DRS was 0.56 EUR/kg [46]. If we consider that the Austrian PRO still does not achieve 90%, while the Norwegian DRS collection rate reported in 2023 was as high as 92.3% [46]), and that Austria has a much higher population density, and that Norway has about a 10% higher price level (2023 comparative prices level, EU-27 = 100: Norway 124.4 vs. Austria 111.7 [47]), one may conclude that high collection costs are not an immanent feature of DRSs, and that well-organized DRSs have the potential to be cost-efficient compared to curbside collection. French data on the packaging waste collection costs in municipal systems also offer a reliable benchmark. In 2023, the reimbursement rates (so-called eco-contribution fees that constitute the net collection cost in municipal systems) for packaging calculated by the French Agency for Ecological Transition were as high as EUR 0.776 per kg of plastic and EUR 0.47 per kg of aluminum [48]. When these cost levels are cross-referenced with collection rates in France—25.2% for plastic and 40.4% for aluminum packaging—the comparative advantage of the DRS becomes evident.

Of course, in many countries, including Poland, the fees incurred by producers within EPR systems are much lower than the estimated DRS fees. However, these lower fees incurred by producers in some countries under EPR combined with municipal systems are not the result of lower collection costs in municipal systems, but of incomplete cost transfer to the producers. This is related to the current design of EPR systems and the fact that, in many countries, in the absence of regulations imposing on producers and PROs the obligation to cover full packaging waste collection costs (net costs), EPR systems usually only partially cover the collection costs in municipal systems. Only after the implementation of the amendment to the Framework Waste Directive, imposing the obligation to cover the entire net cost of waste management by producers could these fees be fully compared with the producer fees within DRSs, but such data do not yet exist (Member States should have transposed these provisions by 1 January 2023, and the 2023 data have not been published yet).

A comprehensive method covering all costs and benefits of a DRS, including the economic, environmental, and social costs, both monetary and non-monetary, is the cost–benefit analysis (CBA). Such a CBA conducted for a deposit system in Australia indicated that the system would result in significant net socio-economic benefits mainly due to the environmental effects [49].

In a CBA conducted for Sweden, where two DRS scenarios were analyzed—recycling-oriented or reuse-oriented—the results showed that the costs would be greater than the benefits for the recycling scenario but not for the reuse scenario [50]. The benefit–cost ratio was estimated to be as high as 1.67 for the reuse scenario and 0.73 for the recycling scenario. Estimates for New Zealand also indicated a net social benefit. Benefits exceeded costs by 4 per cent to 118 per cent with the midpoint of 61 per cent [51]. In all cases, the major benefit category was the welfare gain to households from a reduction in litter.

An additional issue is the extent to which the costs of the different waste collection methods increase as the desired collection levels increase. In a report from the JRC on separate collection of municipal solid waste [52], it was stated that “when the recycling rate for a certain product is already high, the effort of introducing a DRS might not be compensated by the relatively smaller gain that could still be achieved.” Therefore, the PPWR [5] allows for exemption from DRS introduction for equally high performing countries. From the JRC report, it can be concluded that, when using cost-related arguments, one cannot assume a linear increase in total costs as the separate collection rate increases, and the law of increasing marginal costs must be taken into account. If there is a need to increase the levels of separate collection and recycling, the cost of increasing separate collection levels by each subsequent percentage point will probably grow faster in a municipal system than in a deposit system. For this purpose, in a municipal system, it is necessary to develop infrastructure (including containers, sorting plants, transport, and reloading infrastructure) and, above all, change the behavior of users in terms of collection at the source and separate collection. This is a long-term process. In the case of the DRS, most expenditures relate to establishing the system, and the subsequent operating costs (handling fees at collection points, logistics costs) are relatively constant (ceteris paribus) for each ton of waste.

Another cost-related issue is the appropriate level of deposit fees. The literature provides extensive evidence that it is important to have a proper, sufficiently high level of deposit fees for packaging so that the fee motivates the return of the packaging [53,54]. In particular, the TOMRA report published in 2021 clearly indicated that higher minimum deposit fees correlated with higher return rates in the DRS. It was also suggested that deposit fees should reflect the environmental or health costs of the potential improper management of waste that is covered by the DRS (i.e., entering regular waste streams or littering) [6]. In any case, the deposit level must be appropriate to the price levels and household income in a given country, so as to provide sufficient incentive to return empty packaging. This also means that specific, universal minimum deposits are not recommended.

3.3.2. Impact on Municipal Budgets

Deposit–refund schemes cover a selected waste stream, and must operate in parallel to municipal waste collection systems. For this reason, there is doubt whether their existence has a negative impact on municipal systems, mainly by redirecting a valuable waste stream into DRSs (resulting in reduced revenues to the municipal systems), while maintaining costs (because the municipal system must continue to function). This is an argument raised, for example, in the OECD study published in 2022 [7]. Analyses conducted for the existing deposit systems indicated that these fears are unfounded, although such analyses are difficult due to the specificity of recording the costs and revenues of municipal waste management in municipalities and the fact that costs are usually not allocated to waste streams in a detailed manner.

This aspect should also be analyzed in the context of the provisions of the Waste Framework Directive [55]. The amendment to this directive, introduced in 2018, sets out the minimum principles of extended producer responsibility, including the net cost principle (Member States should have transposed these provisions by 1 January 2023). The net cost principle means that the producers are to bear the costs of collecting waste in municipal systems and covered by the EPR, including packaging, taking into account the revenues generated by a collecting entity. Therefore, if a given country does not have a deposit system, producers in that country should pay the collection costs in the municipal systems reduced by the revenues from the sales of the secondary material. As a result, even with the growing market attractiveness of rPET, if municipalities are the ones who collect bottles, they will not earn any extra profits. If a deposit system is introduced in such a situation, municipalities do not lose any benefits.

Notwithstanding these new regulations, many studies confirmed the economic efficiency of deposit–return schemes. Eunomia’s 2017 study for selected Scottish local authorities [56] suggested that, even with a high recycling rate within a municipal system, despite the reduced amount of materials in curbside collection systems, DRSs still result in net cost savings for a municipal budget, mainly by the reduced amounts of residual waste requiring treatment. It was also suggested that there is a potential reduction in street cleansing costs. Authorities with low recycling rates could make greater savings: annual total savings were estimated in the range from EUR 0.82 to 4.64 (GPB 0.72 to 4.06) per household, with the average savings among the ‘high recycling authorities’ EUR 1.68 (GPB 1.47 per household) and EUR 3.8 (GBP 3.33) per household among the ‘low recycling’ authorities.

The OECD report on the deposit system and extended producer responsibility, published in 2022 [7], provided an overview of the projections of the implementation costs for more than 20 deposit systems in various countries, and concluded that most prospective studies indicated net costs for producers (DRS implementation and operation costs after considering revenues from unredeemed deposits and material sales). These costs varied by material, with some studies suggesting a net benefit in the case of metal cans. Additional costs for producers also tend to be higher for EU countries than in Canada, the UK, the United States, or New Zealand. Several studies included in this report assessed these additional costs to producers against the additional benefits to society resulting from DRS implementation. When considering the total cost, DRS implementation can provide net social benefits due to a substantial reduction in litter and the resulting environmental and social benefits. This was consistent with the results of cost–benefit analyses.

3.3.3. Inflationary Effect

The potential inflationary effects of the increased costs for producers related to the implementation of a DRS were rarely analyzed in the literature as a consequence of the costs of the system’s operation. We identified three papers on this issue. In a report by Bose from Columbia University in 2022 [57], it was estimated that, in the US, even if the cost of food packaging doubled due to an increase in EPR costs, the increase in product prices would be very low; the maximum estimated increase in food and beverage prices would be 2.3%. Given that the share of food and non-alcoholic beverages in the inflation basket for urban areas in the US is 13.7%, the potential increase in inflation due to the increase in the cost of food packaging would be approximately 0.3 percentage points. Similar findings were reported in 2025 by Keller and Guyt, who examined the effects of New York’s 2009 law introducing a deposit on certain beverage containers [58]. They estimated that, on average, the prices of the covered package sizes of bottled water increased by 4%, which suggests that the overall impact on inflation may be comparable to that estimated by Bose.

Similarly, in reports on the assessment of the effects of the EPR system in the United Kingdom, the potential impact on price increases was estimated at 0.29%, and the increase in inflation by 0.07 percentage points (the range of the estimate of 0.04–0.09 percentage points) was therefore also at a very low level [59]. For Poland, similar estimates of the potential inflationary effect of the DRS ranging between +0.02 and +0.08 percentage points were provided by Broniewicz et al. [60]. Compared with the 2.5% inflation target set in Poland, this impact was considered insignificant.

3.3.4. Prices of Secondary Materials

Another economic effect associated with the implementation of the DRS for beverage containers is the development of the market for recycled materials, particularly secondary plastics PET (rPET). The SUP Directive aims to stimulate the demand for recycled plastics by determining the minimum recycled material content in new beverage plastic bottles (25% in 2025 for PET bottles). The new PPWR also formulates requirements in this regard.

The prices of primary PET have been permanently lower than those of recycled materials, which, in the absence of the obligation to ensure the share of recycled raw materials, results in the low demand and profitability of recycling [61,62]. On the world markets, the price of PET shows regional variations. In 2020–2025, the material was the most expensive on the American market and the cheapest in the Middle East. Price fluctuations were observed due to changes in the geopolitical and social environment. On the European market, in March 2020, the price of PET was 0.97 USD/kg (0.88 EUR/kg), and in March 2025 it was 1.11 USD/kg (1 EUR/kg), with the prospect of a decrease in 2026 by 9%. At the same time, the rPET food grade price index in 2022 was higher than the PET price by 1.62 percentage points and in 2025 by 0.79 percentage point (Figure 4) [63].

The obligation to ensure minimum recycled content should generate a demand for rPET and increase recycling efficiency. On the other hand, the deposit system, by providing a substantial amount of high-quality material for recycling, should limit possible price increases [7].

3.3.5. Reduced Plastic Tax

In 2021, the EU introduced a new type of contribution to the EU budget by Member States, based on non-recycled plastic packaging waste, a so-called plastic-based own resource. This new contribution was supposed to diversify the EU’s revenue sources and support its environmental objectives by providing an incentive for Member States to reduce this type of waste. For each kilogram of plastic packaging waste that is not recycled, the Member State is to pay EUR 0.80; for Member States with a GNI per capita in 2017 below the EU average, the contribution is reduced by a lump sum equal to 3.8 kg per capita (calculated for the population in 2017). In 2023, the revenue from the plastic-based own resource amounted to EUR 7.2 billion, i.e., 4.0% of the EU’s total revenue [64]. According to the report from the European Court of Auditors, the average recycling rate of plastic packaging waste was 41%. Assuming that the implementation of the DRS would achieve a 90% collection (and recycling) rate of plastic beverage packaging, then with the weight placed on the market, as in 2023, and assuming that plastic beverage packaging accounts for 20% of plastic packaging, a lower plastic tax could reduce this burden on the national budgets of EU countries by approximately EUR 800 billion.

3.4. Social Aspects

Consumers are a crucial chain link in the circularity of packaging waste. Appropriate consumer behavior is the first step towards returning used packaging to economic circulation. In the literature, the willingness to use the DRS has been studied as part of a broader field of research on the factors of individual environmental behaviors. In most studies, three main categories of factors affecting household recycling behavior are discussed: the net costs of recycling (including non-monetary costs), personal moral sentiments, and social pressures [65].

Most of the empirical literature on household behaviors related to waste collection conclude that the main motivating factor is the direct cost to households engaging in recycling practices, both direct monetary and non-monetary costs, including time and convenience [65,66,67]. The essence of the DRS is based on the key principle that a deposit fee creates an economic incentive to return waste and ensures that not returning waste generates a cost for the consumer. The economic character of incentives in the DRS may account for the findings in some studies that identify a relationship between public acceptance and residents’ socio-economic status: individuals in a more difficult financial situation tend to express greater concern about the system’s implementation [67,68].

Although attention is drawn to the insufficient research on consumer attitudes to the DRS [9,69], the existing studies confirm that consumers generally have a positive attitude towards a deposit system [69], even though the public expresses concerns about the implementation of the system at the pre-implementation stage, as indicated in Hungary [67]. Some studies have indicated that consumers report problems with providing space for the collected waste [70]; however, providing space for segregated waste is necessary for every separate collection method, not just DRSs.

The availability of infrastructure is a key factor contributing to the non-monetary costs connected to the effort and time associated with returning packaging. As a result, the shortcomings of the system in this area may have a significant impact on public perception of DRSs, especially in the short term. These conclusions were confirmed in an analysis of Romania’s DRS implementation published in 2025. Negative consumer opinions were driven mainly by insufficient infrastructure and long queues at return points, rather than by the system itself [68]. Studies on the consumer perception of DRSs also point to doubts about the accessibility of the system for people with disabilities or the elderly [69]. In Hungary, older people were the group that often expressed concerns before the system was implemented [67]. There is also a group of consumers who are concerned about the contribution of the DRS to sustainability. In the study for Hungary, about 15% of respondents had negative expectations [67]. This means that the implementation of a DRS should be carefully prepared to ensure that gaps and shortcomings do not lead to the consolidation of negative attitudes and their extension to other areas of environment-related behaviors in households.

The importance of properly designed communication strategies for shaping recycling behavior and the need to use modern methods of communication to reach a wider audience are also stressed [66,71]. These findings should be the subject of particular attention now when European packaging waste policies are being revised to demonstrate the effectiveness of DRSs and to motivate residents to collect waste properly. In particular, it is essential to deliver relevant content and to promote circular behaviors through modern communication tools, especially among the younger generations, where worrying signs of indifference to environmental issues are emerging.

3.5. Regulatory Aspects

The basic regulatory effect of using the DRS for the collection of post-consumer waste is that it effectively implements the principle of the producers’ responsibility for packaging waste and the polluter pays principle. This allows the DRS to internalize the externalities related to packaging waste and to eliminate market errors [7,10].

An important positive regulatory effect is the elimination of free riding. The majority of DRS-based collection systems, as they are based on strict control of the number of packaging formats verified by barcodes, eliminate free riding, which entails underreporting the quantities of packaging placed on the market to avoid EPR payments. For existing EPR systems for packaging in the EU, free riding is estimated to be between 5% and 25%, depending on the country [72,73].

The introduction of a deposit system means that the collected secondary materials remain at the disposal of the system operator. This increases the likelihood that the secondary material remains in the packaging sector instead of being used for the production of non-packaging products. Currently, other industries benefit from the effects of packaging waste recycling activities carried out by the manufacturers of packaged products under EPR; only about 50% of rPET is used for the production of new bottles, about 25% is used for the production of containers, 15% for fibers, and 12% goes to other applications [74].

A general comparison of the DRS with municipal systems for the key assessment criteria was presented in

Table 3. Summary of review results.

Assessment Criteria	Deposit–Return Systems	Municipal Systems
Effectiveness	High	Varied, depending on the level of waste management development
Quality of collected material	High	Lower than in DRS
Space for DRS infrastructure in retail sector	Yes	No
Environmental footprint	LCA results contradictory Significant role of transportation
Litter reduction	High	Varied
Collection costs	Comparable
Inflationary effect	Low	Low
Prices of secondary materials	Positive	Limited
Reduced plastic tax	Positive	Depending on the level of waste management development
Social acceptance	Generally accepted, the importance of convenience
Regulatory strength	High	Varied, depending on the detailed solutions

Source: Authors’ own work.

.

In terms of the technical criteria related to the effectiveness of separate collection, deposit systems performed better than municipal systems without the DRS. Regarding the environmental aspects, research results to date are inconclusive, although DRSs show a clear advantage in preventing litter. In terms of economic criteria, the data suggest that deposit and municipal systems may be comparable in terms of costs, while the DRS would have a more positive impact on the secondary raw materials markets and on reduced plastic tax.

4. Conclusions

The goal of this review was to conduct a multilayered analysis of the benefits and costs associated with the introduction of a DRS in EU countries. In our review, we focused on the current state of knowledge on deposit–return schemes, in the context of the new obligation imposed on the EU Member States to apply the DRS for the collection of waste beverage containers. We paid particular attention to the issue of costs and market situation, because the situation in this respect is changing the fastest and, as a result, the knowledge gap appears the fastest.

Our review confirmed the results of previous studies that DRSs are highly effective tools for increasing the collection and recycling levels of packaging covered by the system, with a limited scope of negative effects for implementation. The literature confirms that DRSs achieve collection rates exceeding 80%, while few municipal systems do so. The literature proves that the DRS supplies the recycling system with higher quality raw materials (including food grade rPET) compared to municipal systems where packaging waste is collected together with the other waste; for this reason, secondary materials coming from curbside collection tend to be more contaminated. This allows the DRS to contribute more to achieving sustainability goals in terms of circularity. This instrument is capable of mobilizing sustainable consumer behavior through economic motivation. The obligation to use the DRS imposed in the EU is therefore justified from the point of view of circularity objectives.

One of the significant challenges in building a circular economy is to reduce the environmental footprint of waste management. Previous studies and reviews have indicated that the main issue of DRSs compared to municipal systems is the environmental footprint resulting from the transport of waste and secondary materials. Recent results, however, have suggested that advances in logistics and reductions in transport needs in a modern DRS have the potential to alleviate this problem. The environmental footprint of the DRS is now lower than older studies have suggested. The situation in this area will probably continue to change dynamically, as digital technologies, including the internet of things or blockchain, are increasingly used in the DRS. For this reason, the results of older studies on the environmental impact of DRSs compared to curbside collection should be treated with caution. Apart from these negative transport-related effects, there is growing evidence that DRSs generate net social benefits, particularly in the environmental sphere, thus contributing to achieving sustainability goals.

Until recently, a significant problem was the higher costs of DRSs compared to municipal systems. In particular, this is related to relatively large initial investments in the infrastructure of collection points (currently these are mostly reverse vending machines) and transportation costs. Our review indicated that this weakness has been significantly mitigated as a result of improved logistics in DRSs. As a consequence, the costs of the DRS for producers of packaged products have become comparable to the costs they would have to bear under extended producer responsibility schemes combined with municipal systems.

For a circular economy, it is crucial that market forces support and sustain circular behaviors. The new obligation regarding the minimum recycled content in new packaging and fees for failure to achieve this requirement will generate a demand for recycled content, and the DRS will provide quality secondary material. The increase in the supply of food grade rPET obtained thanks to the DRS may potentially lead to a decrease in the market price of secondary plastic, which in turn will generate economic efficiency for its use for the production of new bottles in quantities above the legally defined levels. These market effects should be carefully monitored to assess the validity of the assumptions made at the design stage and to amend the regulations if necessary. This is also crucial to maintaining the acceptance of the circular economy policy by the business sector.

Our review provided a basis for formulating recommendations concerning the further development of deposit–return systems as well as for research in this area.

The amount of the deposit fee should be calibrated so that it does not discourage product purchases, while at the same time providing a meaningful incentive for the separate collection of packaging waste and its return to the system. Packaging collection and deposit–return should be as convenient as possible for customers to support system acceptance and high collection results. The research suggests that the acceptance of the system is generally high, with ease of use exerting a significant influence on collection outcomes. In particular, digital technologies should be leveraged to further enhance user convenience, thereby strengthening public acceptance and, most importantly, improving overall system effectiveness. Wider use of reverse vending machines can accelerate material circulation and further reduce system operation costs, notably in sorting, transport, and storage. The large-scale implementation of packaging deposit systems in the European Union and ensuring their social acceptance will also require operators to take into account the specificities of contemporary market trends, especially home delivery, the growing share of older people, and ensuring the availability of systems for people with special needs. The DRS should also be designed to remain administratively simple, especially for the retail sector. In particular, efficient material and financial flows should be ensured to minimize the burden on retail outlets. Models involving multiple competing operators, each establishing parallel systems and competing for collected packaging, should be avoided.

From the waste management system point of view, the DRS should be understood as one component of extended producer responsibility (EPR) implementation rather than a separate instrument. It constitutes an intermediate stage in a broader process that begins with eco-design and culminates in the creation of stable demand for recyclable materials.

Apart from many advantages, DRSs also have some limitations. Only selected waste streams are covered by the DRS, while municipal systems are basically universal in this respect. The parallel operation of DRSs and municipal collection systems may generate challenges with respect to their effective organization and optimization. Such difficulties are particularly possible in cases where DRSs operate ineffectively and the packaging waste intended to be returned to the DRS is instead diverted to the municipal system—for example, when deposit fees are too low. Another issue is that setting up a DRS involves significant initial outlays in infrastructure, logistics, and administration, which are often barriers to its implementation. DRSs generate some inconvenience for consumers who are required to return beverage containers to designated collection points. However, this practice contributes positively to environmental protection and generates net social benefit, as confirmed by cost–benefit analyses. However, neither DRSs nor municipal systems (without the EPR component) motivate producers to prevent waste generation. Improved collection must therefore be accompanied by other actions addressed to producers aimed at reducing the volume of packaging. Such solutions are provided for in the new European regulations.

The effects of implementing new regulations in the EU should be the subject of further research on all aspects discussed in the literature. In particular, up-to-date life cycle assessments and cost–benefit analyses are needed to capture the effects of technological and market changes. The widespread functioning of DRSs in the European Union, where uniform criteria apply, will also provide good conditions for testing the effectiveness of DRSs in different geographical, economic, and societal conditions, particularly in Southern and Eastern Europe, as well as in regions with both low and high population density. New studies are also needed to examine cost efficiency under conditions of maximized post-consumer waste collection, the role of a DRS for eco-design, and for secondary raw materials markets. The issues related to adapting the DRS to new packaging, technological possibilities, and consumer behavior and expectations will also be an important research field. The findings of all these studies should serve as a foundation for future revisions of EU legislation and its adaptation to evolving requirements.