Coca-Cola only wants deposit return scheme expansion in the United Kingdom

On 17 October, Coca-Cola declared in the Parliament of the United Kingdom that it wants a deposit return scheme across the entire United Kingdom, not just in Scotland.

Nick Brown, head of sustainability for Coca-Cola in Europe, made the announcement on Tuesday afternoon during the Commons Environmental Audit Committee hearing on deposit return schemes and plastic pollution.

That hearing came after the British Environment Secretary Michael Gove (Conservatives) called for a system where people get money back when they return empty beverage packaging. In early September, Scottish Prime Minister Nicola Sturgeon (SNP, the social-democratic independence party) decided to introduce a deposit return scheme in Scotland. This question is now also relevant for the entire United Kingdom.

In the hearing in the British Parliament, Nick Brown, head of sustainability for Coca-Cola in Europe, made several notable statements (source: Commons Environmental Audit Committee, Disposable Packaging: Coffee Cups and Plastic Bottles inquiry):

For instance, he agreed that a deposit return scheme leads to higher return rates and a higher rate of recycling: “we think a well designed deposit return scheme can work in that context with those other policies. We see from other countries you get higher recovery rates and less littering (…) we see, from those other schemes in other countries, that you can get high 80% and low 90% recovery rates on plastic packaging. There is no reason why in the UK we should not be striving for a scheme that achieves those kinds of outcomes.” (p. 25).  

Nick Brown also confirms that deposit return schemes in other countries contribute favourably to the fight against litter: “they do make a contribution towards littering, which is something we feel very passionately and very strongly about” (p. 25).  

Brown also advocates for the deposit scheme to be introduced across the entire United Kingdom and not just in Scotland: “We think it is very important to do something on a UK-wide basis” (p. 26).

Based on the recycling successes in Germany and Scandinavia, the Coca-Cola executive seems convinced that a deposit scheme can be successful in the UK: “If we look at a European comparison as to deposit schemes in other countries, they are measured in slightly different ways in different countries, but high 80%, low 90% is a reasonable expectation for where the UK could get to over a period of time” (p. 34).  

Brown also shares internal research from Coca-Cola confirming that approximately 63 percent of people would welcome a deposit return scheme: “It is very important how you communicate any scheme because our own research says that around 63% of people will welcome a deposit scheme (p. 36).

Finally, Nick Brown emphasised that a deposit return scheme is not a tax but a kind of small deposit.

U-turn by Coca-Cola

The fact that Coca-Cola is abandoning its opposition to deposit return schemes, first in Scotland and now also in the United Kingdom, is a 180-degree U-turn for the American multinational.

During the hearing in the British Parliament, the chair asked Nick Brown what exactly was the reason for the turnaround. In his answer, Brown emphasizes products consumed away from home, which are therefore also found much more frequently in litter. An effective approach is lacking to recycle these products and prevent them from ending up in litter.

Brown: “how do we encourage better design for recyclability; how do we encourage better use of recyclable materials; how does industry contribute funds better to local authority collection systems and to on-the-go collection systems? I think all those things can be delivered through a producer responsibility reform. A DRS (deposit return scheme, ed.) could complement that further by specifically targeting the on-the-go elements.”

During the hearing, the chair reminded Coca-Cola of its own goals. By 2015, Coca-Cola UK's bottles were supposed to consist of 25% recycled or renewable material (and according to Brown, that goal is being met), but the new goal is for the bottles of all twenty Coca-Cola brands to consist of 50% rPET. Without some form of deposit system, it is unlikely that this goal will be achieved.

This goal is higher than the goal of Coca-Cola Belgium, which aims for a combined share of 40% rPET and renewable material by 2020.

Coca-Cola Netherlands has not yet formulated a goal for 2020, but it is presenting its new sustainability plans in a private meeting on 8 November 2017.

Furthermore, in the sustainability plan for the entire Dutch Water, Juices and Soft Drinks sector, it has been agreed that large PET bottles in 2018 will consist of an average of 37% rPET and small bottles of an average of 32%. This is formulated as the 'highest achievable goal'. With deposit schemes on all plastic

On 17 October, Coca-Cola declared in the Parliament of the United Kingdom that it wants a deposit return scheme across the entire United Kingdom, not just in Scotland.

Nick Brown, head of sustainability of Coca-Cola in Europe, made the announcement on Tuesday afternoon during the Commons Environmental Audit Committee hearing on deposit return schemes and plastic pollution.

That hearing came after the British Environment Secretary Michael Gove (Conservatives) called for a system where people get money back when they return empty beverage packaging. In early September, Scottish prime minister Nicola Sturgeon (SNP, the social-democratic independence party) decided to introduce a deposit scheme in Scotland. This question is now also relevant for the entire United Kingdom.

In the hearing in the British Parliament, Nick Brown, head of sustainability of Coca-Cola in Europe, made several notable statements (source: Commons Environmental Audit Committee, Disposable Packaging: Coffee Cups and Plastic Bottles inquiry):

For instance, he agreed that a deposit return scheme leads to higher return rates and a higher rate of recycling: “we think a well designed deposit return scheme can work in that context with those other policies. We see from other countries you get higher recovery rates and less littering (…) we see, from those other schemes in other countries, that you can get high 80% and low 90% recovery rates on plastic packaging. There is no reason why in the UK we should not be striving for a scheme that achieves those kinds of outcomes.” (p. 25).

Nick Brown also confirms that deposit return schemes in other countries contribute favourably to the fight against litter: “they do make a contribution towards littering, which is something we feel very passionately and very strongly about” (p. 25).

Brown also advocates for the deposit scheme to be introduced across the entire United Kingdom and not just in Scotland: “We think it is very important to do something on a UK-wide basis” (p. 26).

Based on the recycling successes in Germany and Scandinavia, the Coca-Cola executive seems convinced that a deposit scheme can be successful in the UK: “If we look at a European comparison as to deposit schemes in other countries, they are measured in slightly different ways in different countries, but high 80%, low 90% is a reasonable expectation for where the UK could get to over a period of time” (p. 34).

Brown also shares internal research from Coca-Cola confirming that approximately 63 percent of people would welcome a deposit return scheme: “It is very important how you communicate any scheme because our own research says that around 63% of people will welcome a deposit scheme (p. 36).

Finally, Nick Brown emphasised that a deposit return scheme is not a tax but a kind of small deposit.

U-turn by Coca-Cola

The fact that Coca-Cola is abandoning its opposition to deposit return schemes, first in Scotland and now also in the United Kingdom, is a 180-degree U-turn for the American multinational.

During the hearing in the British Parliament, the chair asked Nick Brown what exactly was the reason for the turnaround. In his answer, Brown emphasizes products consumed away from home, which are therefore also found much more frequently in litter. An effective approach is lacking to recycle these products and prevent them from ending up in litter.

Brown: “how do we encourage better design for recyclability; how do we encourage better use of recyclable materials; how does industry contribute funds better to local authority collection systems and to on-the-go collection systems? I think all those things can be delivered through a producer responsibility reform. A DRS (deposit return scheme, ed.) could complement that further by specifically targeting the on-the-go elements.”

During the hearing, the chair reminded Coca-Cola of its own goals. By 2015, Coca-Cola UK's bottles were supposed to consist of 25% recycled or renewable material (and according to Brown, that goal is being met), but the new goal is for the bottles of all twenty Coca-Cola brands to consist of 50% rPET. Without some form of deposit system, it is unlikely that this goal will be achieved.

This goal is higher than the goal of Coca-Cola Belgium, which aims for a combined share of 40% rPET and renewable material by 2020.

Coca-Cola Netherlands has not yet formulated a goal for 2020, but it is presenting its new sustainability plans in a private meeting on 8 November 2017.

Furthermore, in the sustainability plan for the entire Dutch Water, Juices and Soft Drinks sector, it has been agreed that large PET bottles in 2018 will consist of an average of 37% rPET and small bottles of an average of 32%. This is formulated as the 'highest achievable goal'. However, with deposit systems on all plastic drink bottles, rates of 70 to 80% are achievable.

In the Netherlands, the deposit system on large bottles yields high-quality material, but collection of small bottles through the Dutch waste system Plastic Heroes results in relatively high losses. Furthermore, that material is not suitable for coming into contact with food products.

In Belgium too, the volume of bottles collected through the Fost Plus system is lower than would be the case with a deposit system, and that material is also not allowed to come into contact with food. This relates to the requirement that no more than 5% of rPET may come from non-food sources. With rPET from a deposit system, this is guaranteed.

Increasing the share of rPET is an important way for producers to reduce the footprint of their packaging. By replacing virgin PET with rPET, the overall CO2 footprint of the packaging can be significantly reduced. According to the Ecoinvent dataset (v3.4 for IPCC 2013 GWP 100a), the footprint of rPET is only 0.472 CO2 eq/kg. The footprint of virgin PET is five times larger: 2.92 CO2 eq/kg.

Rob Buurman

Director Recycling Network