How is it going now with deposits on bottles and cans in the Netherlands?

A lot is happening around deposits on bottles and cans. IenW is evaluating the scheme, an increase is being considered, and together with the Consumentenbond we are calling for an extra 5 cents premium. What is the state of affairs and how does Fair Resource Foundation view this?

Maarten van Heuven

11 Feb 2025

With regard to deposit return systems on plastic bottles and cans, a lot has happened recently. In November 2024, there was a hearing on the substandard collection of plastic bottles, the Ministry of I&W has started evaluating the deposit scheme, the FD reports that an increase in deposits is an option, and together with the Consumers' Association, we are advocating for an extra 5-cent premium. What is the state of play, and what is our view as Fair Resource Foundation? It is beyond dispute: deposits ensure that more packaging is returned. However, the deposit system has many flaws, and due to the industry 'dragging its feet' (saying they will cooperate, but delaying and weakening the process in the meantime), it is not always easy for consumers to return packaging. The legally mandated collection target of 90%, as established in the Packaging Management Decree, was not met in 2023 for bottles—both large and small—reaching only 74%. The figures for 2024 are still to come, and for the first time, these will also include cans, but the suspicion is that the 90% has once again not been achieved. This also means that many bottles and cans end up pointlessly in the environment or elsewhere and are therefore not properly recycled. The fact that the target has not been met so far is widely known and is a cause for concern. Commissioned by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, CE Delft is currently evaluating the deposit return scheme, as State Secretary Jansen indicated during the Circular Economy committee debate on 19 December 2024. He also indicated that this evaluation, along with his initial policy response, will be sent to the House of Representatives in the spring of 2025. We spoke with the researchers and shared our recommendations for improvement. The Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT) is also highly critical of the substandard performance of the Verpact foundation and imposed five Orders Subject to Penalty (LoD). Fair Resource Foundation played an active role in this, as we primarily want the 90% collection standard to be met as quickly as possible. We wanted to tighten the Orders Subject to Penalty and therefore submitted an objection. We were invited to explain this on 22 November at the ILT office, in the presence of Verpact, which tried to escape the penalties. The collection of bottles and cans is not going well. Targets are not being met, and consumers experience a lot of inconvenience when returning them. And this is due to flaws in the regulations. What do we believe needs to happen in the area of deposits? 1. Impose a take-back obligation on points of sale The responsibility for deposits has been placed on those who first place drinks on the market in the Netherlands: the producers and importers. As Fair Resource Foundation, we have always said that this responsibility should lie with the points of sale. By this, we mean: where you buy bottles, small bottles, and cans, you should also be able to return them and get your deposit back. Currently, the consumer almost always has to go to the supermarket, and not everyone feels like taking their packaging from a cinema or a petrol station with them to bring it to the supermarket. In responses to new deposit legislation, municipalities, trade associations, and environmental organisations expressed support for this take-back obligation. Yet, it was not introduced, highly likely because the packaging industry and retailers did not want it. How they managed to keep the take-back obligation out of the law remains unclear, as shown in this article by the NOS. Through a WOO request (Freedom of Information), the broadcaster did receive views from organisations in favour of a take-back obligation, but no emails or positions from the industry, except for a joint response from Verpact and supermarkets. They actually talked mostly about weakening policy, said nothing about 'no take-back obligation', but managed to achieve it anyway. It is therefore highly unlikely that no lobbying took place. ‘The less you see, the further the lobby has already developed’, the NOS outlines convincingly. The good news in the first article is that the Dutch Food Industry Federation, the supermarkets, and Verpact now claim to support the take-back obligation. And this is logical, as it makes it much easier to achieve the target. For batteries, the campaign slogan is ‘Where you buy them, you can leave them’. So why not also for drinks? 2. Increase the deposit In mid-December 2024, the FD wrote about research by Ipsos, commissioned by Verpact, which shows that increasing the deposit would lead to higher collection. An increase in the deposit can, according to Ipsos based on research among consumers, lead to 4% more collection: "That means 82% of plastic bottles would then be collected, instead of the current 78%". While the Ipsos research was about the expectations of

It is beyond dispute: deposits ensure that more packaging is returned. However, the deposit system has many flaws, and due to the industry 'dragging its feet' (saying they will cooperate, but delaying and weakening the process in the meantime), it is not always easy for consumers to return packaging. The legally mandated collection target of 90%, as established in the Packaging Management Decree, was not met in 2023 for bottles—both large and small—reaching only 74%. The figures for 2024 are still to come, and for the first time, these will also include cans, but the suspicion is that the 90% has once again not been achieved. This also means that many bottles and cans end up pointlessly in the environment or elsewhere and are therefore not properly recycled.

The fact that the target has not been met so far is widely known and is a cause for concern. Commissioned by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, CE Delft is currently evaluating the deposit return scheme, as State Secretary Jansen indicated during the Circular Economy committee debate on 19 December 2024. He also indicated that this evaluation, along with his initial policy response, will be sent to the House of Representatives in the spring of 2025. We spoke with the researchers and shared our recommendations for improvement.

The Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT) is also highly critical of the substandard performance of the Verpact foundation and imposed five Orders Subject to Penalty (LoD). Fair Resource Foundation played an active role in this, as we primarily want the 90% collection standard to be met as quickly as possible. We wanted to tighten the Orders Subject to Penalty and therefore submitted an objection. We were invited to explain this on 22 November at the ILT office, in the presence of Verpact, which tried to escape the penalties.

The collection of bottles and cans is not going well. Targets are not being met, and consumers experience a lot of inconvenience when returning them. And this is due to flaws in the regulations. What do we believe needs to happen in the area of deposits?

1. Impose a take-back obligation on points of sale

The responsibility for deposits has been placed on those who first place drinks on the market in the Netherlands: the producers and importers. As Fair Resource Foundation, we have always said that this responsibility should lie with the points of sale. By this, we mean: where you buy bottles, small bottles, and cans, you should also be able to return them and get your deposit back. Currently, the consumer almost always has to go to the supermarket, and not everyone feels like taking their packaging from a cinema or a petrol station with them to bring it to the supermarket.

In responses to new deposit legislation, municipalities, trade associations, and environmental organisations expressed support for this take-back obligation. Yet, it was not introduced, highly likely because the packaging industry and retailers did not want it. How they managed to keep the take-back obligation out of the law remains unclear, as shown in this article by the NOS. The broadcaster did receive views from organisations in favour of a take-back obligation through a WOO request, but no emails or positions from the industry, except for a joint response from Verpact and supermarkets. They actually talked mostly about weakening policy, said nothing about 'no take-back obligation', but managed to achieve it anyway. It is therefore highly unlikely that no lobbying took place. ‘The less you see, the further the lobby has already developed’, the NOS outlines convincingly. The good news in the first article is that the Dutch Food Industry Federation, the supermarkets, and Verpact now claim to support the take-back obligation. And this is logical, as it makes it much easier to achieve the target. For batteries, the campaign slogan is ‘Where you buy them, you can leave them’. So why not also for drinks?

2. Increase the deposit

In mid-December 2024, the FD writes about research by Ipsos, commissioned by Verpact, which shows that increasing the deposit would lead to higher collection. An increase in the deposit can, according to Ipsos based on research among consumers, lead to 4% more collection: "That means 82% of plastic bottles would then be collected, instead of the current 78%".

While the Ipsos research was about the expectations of Dutch consumers if the deposit were to be increased, we have long seen evidence abroad that higher deposits lead to more collection. This is evident from a synthesis study by Reloop. Norway, for example, boosted the return rate of cans from 84.3% to 93% by increasing the deposit amount in 2018 by the equivalent of 10 euro cents. The US state of Oregon saw the return rate of all beverage containers rise from 73% to 86% in two years by increasing the deposit by 5 US cents. An increase in deposits in the Canadian province of Alberta resulted in a 12% increase in returns over a three-year period.

An increase in deposits will therefore also lead to higher returns in the Netherlands and is a good idea in our view. As far as we are concerned, the rate of 15 cents on plastic bottles and cans could be raised to 25 cents. The rate on large bottles, set at 25 cents since the introduction of deposits in 2001, should finally be adjusted for inflation and increased to 50 cents. However, it is essential that it becomes easier for consumers to return deposit packaging.

3. Reduce the exceptions

The deposit system is burdened by exceptions. In 2020, deposits only became mandatory for plastic bottles containing soft drinks and water. Through our efforts, juices and nectars were (partially) added. However, there are differences between bottles and cans, and there are no deposits on ciders and dairy. Recyclers now indicate they can easily process plastic containing dairy. This already happens for plastic dairy bottles that are not collected via deposit schemes. Excluding packaging from deposits means they are usually thrown away, making them harder to collect, even though they still count towards the 90% target. There are also no deposits on alternative packaging such as beverage cartons and drink pouches, resulting in these pouches becoming an increasingly large part of litter. According to Zwerfinator, the number of drink pouches in litter in the Netherlands has increased by more than 50% in recent years, with two-thirds of those pouches being Capri-Sun. As far as we are concerned, deposits should also be placed on these, and preferably on beverage cartons as well. If deposits present a challenge for collection due to the packaging itself, then these packaging types should not be on the market.

By either levying deposits on all beverage packaging or removing packaging without deposits from the market, we also make the market fairer for producers. Everyone participates in deposits, avoidance is no longer possible, and the consumer knows where they stand.

4. Allow dented packaging as well

Beverage packaging must currently be returned intact, otherwise the machine will reject it. The reason given is that it must be recognisable that a deposit has been paid in the Netherlands. However, a readable barcode on a dented container already proves this, and an employee can easily recognise Dutch packaging. Why make a fuss about dented packaging (especially considering some supermarkets themselves crush the packaging prior to transport)? The consumer is not interested in the limitations of a machine. If a deposit has been paid, it must be returned. Accepting dented packaging means collecting more packaging and resolves consumer inconvenience. And since every percentage point counts to reach the 90% target, collecting dented packaging seems like common sense to us.

5. Introduce an extra 5-cent reward

Because packaging is not being returned while deposits have been paid, the enormous sum of 374 million euros remained uncollected by consumers as of April 2024. This amount, which may have risen to half a billion by now, is sitting in Verpact's bank account. Just imagine what Verpact could do with the interest alone. The fact remains that this money was paid by consumers and should not stay with Verpact. Therefore, the money must go back to the consumer.

Together with the Consumers' Association, we are calling for a temporary increase in the refund amount for bottles and cans: pay 15 cents at purchase, and receive 20 cents upon return. We want this extra reward to remain in place until all the hoarded millions are back with the consumer or until Verpact has actually met the statutory 90% target for both bottles and cans. This removes the perverse incentive from the regulations, where the sector profits from unreturned plastic bottles and cans and finds a mediocre collection rate financially beneficial. We are primarily addressing this call for an extra 5-cent refund to Verpact, for whom this is (relatively) simple to arrange.

We also propose amending the regulations so that a maximum of 5% of unreturned deposits may be used to support the system. Furthermore, these funds may only be used to support the deposit system and not, for example, to finance the collection of other packaging. We call on the government to find a destination for unreturned deposits that supports the sustainable transition of packaging.

6. Improve enforcement

Introducing a take-back obligation makes points of sale responsible for collecting packaging and returning deposits. If people can return their products where they buy them, they will do so more quickly. And if the retailers themselves, rather than a remote producer or importer, become responsible for packaging without deposits, non-compliance can be identified more directly. These measures will ensure that the 90% collection rate is reached faster.

Achieving the standard, in our view, also requires more effective enforcement. This currently lies with the Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT), which has good intentions but also a complicated position. This also relates to the choice to make producers and importers, rather than the points of sale, responsible for deposits. The ILT must now hold Verpact and importers to account. In the case of an imported product, this can involve a lot of work: the ILT has to trace exactly who the importer is. The Inspectorate can then only impose Orders Subject to Penalty (LoDs), which it has done, but it takes the ILT a lot of time and energy to impose and monitor an LoD. An Order Subject to Penalty is a sanction, often in the form of a monetary amount, issued for the future if a violation continues to be detected, and this by definition spans a longer period.

This raises the question of whether LoDs could be issued more quickly. It also raises the question of the extent to which LoDs are an effective tool to force businesses to meet targets. In our view, it would be better to look at fines for violations that are sufficiently deterrent and are issued immediately without requiring a protracted and expensive process with the ILT. Fining immediately is an effective financial incentive. Meanwhile, Verpact has now been given until the end of 2026 by the ILT to meet the 90% standard. This means it will have been in violation for a period of 5 years, given that deposits on plastic bottles were introduced in 2021.

Finally, the hearing at the ILT

For those wondering: what decisions did the ILT actually make after the hearing with Fair Resource Foundation and Verpact? Well, after we first had to urge the ILT to publish the decisions, we received them on 31 December. Our plea to tighten the Orders Subject to Penalty was rejected, with one argument being that the ILT believes substantive tightening is a political matter. The ILT found that Verpact had complied with most of the LoDs (in our view, Verpact could easily achieve this because those LoDs were weakened during the process; for example, the demand for a higher deposit was watered down to a study on a higher deposit). One LoD remains, namely that Verpact must realise 5,400 paying return points by the end of 2026. With this, the ILT is giving Verpact until the end of 2026 to meet the statutory 90% standard. Meanwhile, we look forward to CE Delft's evaluation of deposits and the initial policy response from the Ministry of I&W this spring.