Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Novelty: The work devoted an important problem of Deposit-Return Schemes for Beverage Container Collection in the European Union. The authors made attempt to a systematic review of the evidence for the widespread use of deposit systems.
Significance: The hypotheses are not enough identified. The results are not interpreted satisfactory. The results practical significant is below average.
Quality:  The article is written in an unsatisfy way. The data and analyses presented requires updating, clarification and revision.
Scientific Soundness: The study is not enough designed.  The data need updating to draw conclusions. The methods, tools are not  described with sufficient details to allow another researcher to reproduce the results.  The raw data looks outdating.
Overall Merit: The study needs clarifications. Еhe authors' conclusion that "а key finding of our review is that the scientific evidence supports the EU’s decisions to make Deposit-Return Schemes mandatory" (line 20-21) requires clarification and scientific justification.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The goal of the review was to conduct a multilayered analysis of the benefits and costs associated with the introduction of DRS. In the review, authors 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 DRS for collection of waste beverage containers and to achieve a 90% collection rate for single-use plastic bottles and metal beverage containers with a capacity of up to three liters. The review confirmed the results of previous studies that DRS are highly effective tool for increasing the collection and recycling levels of packaging covered by the system, with a limited scope of negative effects of its implementation. One of the significant challenges for building a circular economy is to reduce the environmental footprint of waste management. In economic terms, the most important issues are: collection costs and potential inflationary impacts of DRS, the impact of DRS implementation on national and local budgets and price relations between recycled and primary material. The new legal requirement regarding the minimum recycled content in new packaging and fees for failure to achieve this requirement will generate a demand for recycled content, and DRS will provide quality secondary material. The large scale implementation of packaging deposit systems in the EU countries and ensuring their social acceptance will require operators to take into account the specificities of contemporary market trends. DRS to contribute more to achieving sustainability goals in terms of circularity. Apart from many advantages, DRS have some limitations. Only selected waste streams are covered by DRS while municipal systems are basically universal in this respect. Another issue is that setting up a DRS involves significant initial outlays in infrastructure, logistics, and administration, which is often a barrier to its implementation. Neither DRS nor municipal systems (without the EPR component) motivate producers to prevent waste generation. Consistent evidence supporting the widespread use of DRS, both in terms of effectiveness and cost. In the EU, there is also the potential for the coexistence of DRS with the systems for the collection of other waste. The effects of implementing new regulations in the EU should be the subject of further research in all aspects discussed in the literature. In the future, the issues of adapting DRS to new packaging, technological possibilities, and consumer behavior and expectations will also be important research field.

The paper content valuable data but it could be published after minor revision as below.

 

General Remarks

 

Abstract

Please do not use abbreviation in abstract or provide the full name.       

Introduction are too long and should be decreased at minimum 50%.

Conclusions are too long and should be decreased at minimum 50%.

 

Detailed remarks

 

1. Point 2. Some references should be added (practically there’s no references)
2. There’s no units in Figures 1 and 2.

Figures 3,4,5   should be self-explaining. Please add proper information

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an important and timely issue: the effectiveness of deposit-return schemes (DRS) for beverage containers in the EU under the new Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR). It provides a broad review of technical, economic, environmental, and regulatory aspects, but its contribution is weakened by insufficient methodological transparency, underdeveloped novelty, a largely descriptive discussion, and several language issues. With significant revisions, the paper could offer a valuable addition to sustainability and circular economy literature. Therefore, the authors should address the following comments meticulously:

1. The abstract outlines the regulatory background and the research aim, but it does not provide specific findings or quantified evidence (e.g., recycling rates achieved under DRS, comparative performance against alternative systems). The authors should revise this section to briefly state their principal conclusions and include at least one or two quantified outcomes to strengthen its impact.
2. The introduction fails to emphasise the novelty of this review. The authors should clearly state whether this is the first EU-focused evidence review that integrates technical, economic, environmental, and regulatory dimensions of DRS.
3. At present, the methodology is unclear, and the review reads more as a narrative overview than as an evidence-based analysis.
4. The results section covers different aspects of DRS in isolation. The authors should provide stronger cross-links between technical performance, economic efficiency, environmental impacts, and regulatory frameworks. For instance, how do deposit levels (economic design) influence return rates (environmental outcomes)? How do regulatory requirements affect cost-effectiveness?
5. Figures 1 and 2 on waste generation and recycling rates are informative, but their relevance to the core argument on DRS is not fully drawn out. The authors should explicitly discuss how these trends justify the need for stronger DRS implementation.
6. Statements such as “DRS is the most effective method” (line 285) are too general and need stronger referencing. In addition, the authors should critically compare DRS with alternative systems (e.g., kerbside collection, extended producer responsibility schemes), highlighting both advantages and limitations.
7. The conclusion restates results but does not sufficiently emphasise the unique contribution of this review. Authors should: (a) Restate the novelty clearly; (b) Provide policy recommendations (e.g., container types best suited, deposit levels, or policy integration with PPWR); and (c) Highlight gaps in knowledge for future research.
8. The authors should consistently use a single form of English throughout the manuscript. Currently, both British and American spellings appear in different sections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please find my suggestions in the separate file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article may be accepted in present form based on the authors' statements.

Author Response

Dear Madam or Sir,

thank you for your work on reviewing our text,

Sincerely,

Anna Larsson, Edyta Sidorczuk-Pietraszko, Wojciech Piontek

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Most of my comments have been addressed.

Author Response

Dear Madam or Sir,

thank you for your work on reviewing our text,

Sincerely,

Anna Larsson, Edyta Sidorczuk-Pietraszko, Wojciech Piontek

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for implementing the suggestions and comments to the article.

Author Response

Dear Madam or Sir,

thank you for your work on reviewing our text,

Sincerely,

Anna Larsson, Edyta Sidorczuk-Pietraszko, Wojciech Piontek