New Eunomia Study: Digital deposit return is a dead end

Why the digital system will not work

In its assessment of digital deposit return schemes, Eunomia indicates that, in the best-case scenario, digital deposit return is still years away. This is partly due to several problems that are far from being resolved:

For can manufacturers, it is currently not possible to print unique codes on cans at the speed at which production lines operate. This entails costs that the industry is not prepared to bear (see page 33).

At present, there is no guaranteed solution that rules out large-scale fraud (e.g. people taking photos of unique codes and collecting the deposit without properly returning the packaging).

There is no way to verify whether the packaging is effectively collected, which is necessary to ensure the system's success.

These are just three examples of the many obstacles identified. The study also highlights risks of misunderstandings, privacy risks, and the risks of jeopardising the European internal market that the proposed digital system cannot prevent.

Digital deposit return excludes people

[Press release]

In 2025, Belgium will also introduce a deposit return scheme for cans and plastic bottles. Packaging organisation Fost Plus is particularly in favour of a digital system where citizens have to scan packaging with their smartphone to get their deposit back. Environmental organisation Fair Resource Foundation commissioned Eunomia to investigate the feasibility of this system. “This plan should be put on ice: the system excludes many people and will be far from ready for implementation in 2025”.

The report is critical of the introduction of a digital deposit return scheme in Belgium. It draws three main conclusions:

It is very unlikely that the system can be implemented technically,

Digital deposit return excludes people, such as those without a smartphone or disadvantaged individuals,

The positive impact on the environment is uncertain, whereas the impact of traditional deposit return is proven to be strong.

Chloé Schwizgebel (FRF): “Many unfounded promises are being made about digital deposit return, but the system does not work at all and will not work for the foreseeable future. The Flemish government, which is investigating digital deposit return, must not be misled by this yet another attempt by the industry to stall the introduction of traditional deposit return.“

Eunomia is an international consultancy that also supports the European Commission and possesses expertise in the circular economy and deposit return schemes. For this study, they spoke with stakeholders from the beverage sector, packaging sector, waste sector, consumer and environmental organisations, and local authorities.

Eunomia also raises the question of whether this system, in which people have to scan QR codes with a smartphone to reclaim their deposit, is actually acceptable to consumers. This is because:

A proportion of consumers cannot or do not want to use smartphones to reclaim the deposit.

The proposed solutions to bridge the digital divide, such as home scanners, would continue to exclude tourists or people living in poverty, such as the homeless. They would also fail to solve the “on-the-go” issue.

Some people do not want to register because they do not wish to share personal data or because it is not worth the effort (e.g. tourists).

These risks jeopardise the effectiveness and public support for the system, whereas the traditional deposit return system works well and is widely accepted in many countries.

Are we going to solve the litter problem with a QR code?

Eunomia also warns that this deposit return system may not be as effective as a traditional system. The report shows that traditional deposit return ensures at least 85% less deposit packaging in litter. In addition, the report states that traditional deposit return helps improve recycling quality and is also compatible with reverse logistics for reusable packaging.

For digital deposit return, none of these effects have been proven. Furthermore, its success depends heavily on public support.

Digital deposit return would have a significantly lower impact on litter because the system excludes people (lower participation), and because packaging found in litter may no longer hold any 'clean-up value' due to the possibility that the QR code has already been deactivated and the deposit claimed. Digital deposit return also leads to fewer collected containers and poorer recycling, partly due to the same exclusion of people, as well as the inevitable contamination of collected packaging, not least because collection would partly have to take place via public bins.

Chloé Schwizgebel (FRF): “The study has identified numerous problems that make it clear digital deposit return is a dead end. Wallonia and Brussels have already opted for traditional deposit return. It is now important to work together with Flanders to ensure a single, well-functioning national system where points of sale simply return consumers their money.

Which deposit return system we get in 2025 remains a political decision. 55 cities and municipalities recently voiced their concerns about a digital system. We hope that politicians and policymakers take a close look at Eunomia's study and make a well-informed choice.

[End of press release]

Press contact: Chloé Schwizgebel, +31 643288231 chloe@fairresourcefoundation.org

Photo credit: Shutterstock