Deposit Return Systems

Factsheets

Below is a series of factsheets we have developed to provide an overview of some of the various aspects of deposit return systems (DRS), including their reported performance, handling fees, levels of public support, impact on jobs, as well as the economic impacts to municipalities of introducing or expanding a DRS.

Historical Return Rates

Disclaimer: Reloop presents the statistics below in good faith, and every attempt has been made to ensure their accuracy. Data contained in these tables and figures are taken primarily from external sources, including publicly accessible annual reports released by DRS system operators; stewardship agencies; or other involved entities. Other data was obtained through personal communication and e-mail correspondence. Details on the sources of all data are available in this PDF. We welcome any comments or clarifications for improvement to hello@reloopplatform.org.

In terms of system results, it is also important to point out that the way in which program performance is measured or reported on can vary between jurisdictions. While some system operators may report out a ‘collection rate’, others report a ‘recycling rate’ or ‘redemption rate.’ For the purpose of consistency and because it is not possible to know for certain how performance is measured in each jurisdiction, these tables and figures use ‘return rate’ as a catch-all term. It is understood that the return rate represents the amount of beverage container material that is collected (by weight or unit) expressed as a percentage of the amount of beverage container material placed on the market, excluding exports.

Europe

Sweden (1995-2019) (Figure, Table)
Finland (1996-2019) (Figure, Table)
Norway (1999-2019) (Figure, Table)
Denmark (2004-2019) (Figure, Table)
Iceland (1989-2019) (Figure, Table)
Estonia (2009-2019) (Figure, Table)
Germany (2014-2018) (Figure, Table)
Netherlands (2014-2018) (Figure, Table)
Croatia (2006-2019) (Figure, Table)
Lithuania (2016-2019) (Figure, Table)

Australia

South Australia (2005-2020) (Figure, Table)
Northern Territory (2012-2020) (Figure, Table)
Australian Capital Territory (2018/19-2019/20) (Figure, Table)
New South Wales (2017-2020) (Table)
Queensland (2019-2020) (Table)

Canada

British Columbia (2003-2019) (Figure, Table)
Alberta (2003-2019) (Figure, Table)
Saskatchewan (2003-2020) (Figure, Table)
Manitoba (2003-2016) (Figure, Table)
Ontario (2008-2019) (Figure, Table)
Quebec (2003-2019) (Figure, Table)
New Brunswick (2003-2018) (Figure, Table)
Nova Scotia (2003-2018) (Figure, Table)
Prince Edward Island (2008-2019) (Figure, Table)
Newfoundland and Labrador (2003-2019) (Figure, Table)
Northwest Territories (2008-2019) (Figure, Table)
Yukon (2008-2016) (Table)

United States

Connecticut (2009-2019) (Figure, Table)
Oregon (2012-2019) (Figure, Table)
Vermont (2013-2019) (Table)
Michigan (1990-2019) (Figure, Table)
Maine (2013-2019) (Figure, Table)
Iowa (2012-2019) (Table)
Massachusetts (2013-2019) (Figure, Table)
New York (2013-2019) (Figure, Table)
California (2009-2019) (Figure, Table)
Hawaii (2006-2019) (Figure, Table)

Others

Palau (2013-2018) (Figure, Table)
Kosrae (2008-2017) (Figure, Table)

Deposit Return Systems

Factsheets

Economic Impacts on Municipalities

Handling Fees

System Performance

Public Support for DRS

Policy Instruments to Support Refillable Beveage Containers

DRS Creates More Jobs

DRS Reduces Litter