beyond pet: an extended deposit- return system …1331032/fulltext01.pdfpackaging in sweden. master...
TRANSCRIPT
IN DEGREE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING,SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS
, STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2019
Beyond PET: An extended Deposit-Return System for plastic packaging in Sweden
A qualitative investigation of challenges and lessons from future and earlier Deposit-Return Systems
MARCO SUTER
KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYSCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
Beyond PET: an extended
Deposit-Return System for
plastic packaging in Sweden
A qualitative investigation of challenges and lessons from future and earlier Deposit-Return Systems
MARCO SUTER
Supervisor NILS JOHANSSON
Examiner MIGUEL MENDONCA REIS BRANDÃO Supervisor at Anthesis Group
LINUS HASSELSTRÖM
Degree Project in Sustainable Technology KTH Royal Institute of Technology School of Architecture and Built Environment Department of Sustainable Development, Environmental Science and Engineering SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
Imprint
Keywords Deposit-Return System (DRS); plastic packaging; Citation: Suter (2019) Beyond PET: an extended Deposit-Return System for plastic packaging in Sweden. Master Thesis KTH, ABS, SEED, (Stockholm) Marco Suter Degree Project in Sustainable Technology [email protected] June 2019 KTH Royal Institute of Technology School of Architecture and Built Environment Department of Sustainable Development, Environmental Science and Engineering SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
Abstract
Collection rates and recycling rates of plastic packaging are considerably lower
than for other packaging materials in Sweden. In the context of a circular
economy, higher plastic packaging recycling rates could contribute to increased
resource efficiency and lowered greenhouse gas emissions. A deposit-return
system (DRS) for plastic packaging could be an appropriate economic policy
instrument to increase recycling rates. This thesis investigates if and how the
scope of the DRS in Sweden could be extended to post-consumer plastic
packaging. Potential challenges for an extended DRS are identified through
semi-structured qualitative research interviews and a literature review. Solutions
to overcome the challenges are identified with lessons from earlier DRSs and are
complemented with other possible solutions.
The results show that the DRS scope could potentially be extended to small
hollow bodies. This product group could be implemented gradually in existing
infrastructure, is easy to grasp for consumers and its share of the plastic
packaging waste is sufficiently high. The focus should be on non-food packaging
to avoid hygienic issues. Higher consumer awareness concerning plastic issues
and policies, which incentivize plastic packaging recycling, were identified as
important drivers for an extended DRS.
Sammanfattning
Insamlings- och återvinningsgraden av plastförpackningar är betydligt lägre i
Sverige än för andra förpackningsmaterial. Genom att öka återvinningen av
plastförpackningar kan högre resurseffektivitet och lägre utsläpp av
växthusgaser uppnås. Ett pant-system för plastförpackningar kan således vara
ett lämpligt styrmedel för att öka mängden återvunnet material. Detta
examensarbete undersöker möjligheterna för ett utökat pantsystem i Sverige där
plastförpackningar är inkluderade. Potentiella utmaningar för ett utökat system
identifierades genom semi-strukturerade kvalitativa forskningsintervjuer och
tillhörande litteraturstudie. Inspiration och lärdomar av liknande fall användes
för att minska effekten av dessa i synergi med andra alternativa lösningar.
Resultaten visar att användningen av ett pantsystem kan potentiellt utökas för
att inkludera små ihåliga produkter. Denna produktgrupp kan implementeras
med relativt små medel, inkorporeras i den befintliga infrastrukturen, förstås av
konsumenter och står för en tillräckligt hög andel av avfallet för en mätbar effekt.
Fokus bör vara på icke-livsmedelsförpackningar för att undvika risk för
kontaminering. Ökad medvetenhet hos konsumenter rörande plastfrågor i
kombination med tydligare riktlinjer och styrmedel för att motivera återvinning
av plastförpackningar identifierades som viktiga drivkrafter för ett utökat
pantsystem.
Acknowledgments
With this thesis I am concluding my Master's programme in Sustainable
Technology at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm.
First, I would like to thank my supervisors, Nils Johansson at KTH and Linus
Hasselström at Anthesis Group, for the professional guidance and support as
well as the Anthesis office in Stockholm for letting me write my thesis at their
office and encouraging me to work on my Swedish small talk skills.
Second, I would like to thank the people that participated in this thesis as
interviewees. This thesis would not have been possible without their interesting
knowledge, reflections and thoughts from the recycling sector.
Lastly, I would like to thank Lucas and Simon for the proofreading and my
girlfriend, family, and friends for being supportive throughout the whole thesis.
Marco Suter
Stockholm, June 2019
List of Abbreviations
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
DRS Deposit-Return System
EPR Extended Producer Responsibility
PET Polyethylene Terephthalate
RVM Reverse Vending Machine
WFD Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC)
MCDA Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis
LCA Life Cycle Assessment
GHG Greenhouse Gas
CO2-eq CO2-equivalents
MFA Material-Flow Analysis
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Aim ............................................................................................................ 3
1.2 Objectives .................................................................................................. 3
1.3 Disposition ................................................................................................ 3
1.4 Delimitations ............................................................................................ 3
2 Background ...................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Theoretical background ............................................................................ 5
2.1.1 Definition Deposit-Return System .................................................... 5
2.1.2 Drivers for a DRS ............................................................................... 5
2.1.3 Dimensions of a DRS ......................................................................... 7
2.2 Impacts ................................................................................................... 14
2.2.1 Environmental impact of DRS ......................................................... 14
2.2.2 Economic impact of a DRS .............................................................. 16
2.3 Current conditions in Sweden ................................................................ 18
2.3.1 Plastic packaging policy in the EU ................................................... 18
2.3.2 Plastic packaging in Sweden ............................................................ 19
3 Methodology................................................................................................... 25
3.1 Semi-structured qualitative research interviews ................................... 25
3.1.1 The interview procedure .................................................................. 25
3.1.2 Selection of Interviewees ................................................................. 26
3.2 Literature review..................................................................................... 26
3.3 Analysis of empirical material ................................................................ 27
3.4 Methodology discussion ......................................................................... 28
4 Challenges to make a DRS extension feasible ............................................... 29
4.1 Economic challenges .............................................................................. 29
4.2 Behavioral challenges ............................................................................. 32
4.3 Technological challenges ........................................................................ 35
4.4 Organizational challenges ...................................................................... 37
4.5 Material challenges ................................................................................ 40
5 Possible solutions to identified challenges .................................................... 41
5.1 Solutions to economic challenges ........................................................... 41
5.2 Solutions to behavioral challenges ......................................................... 44
5.3 Solutions to technological challenges .................................................... 47
5.4 Solutions to organizational challenges ................................................... 49
5.5 Solutions to material challenges ............................................................ 52
6 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 54
6.1 Roadmap for an extended DRS .............................................................. 55
6.2 List of recommendations to actors ......................................................... 56
6.3 Further research ..................................................................................... 57
References ............................................................................................................ 59
List of Figures and Tables .................................................................................... 66
Appendix 1: Interview guide .................................................................................. I
Appendix 2: Interview requests ...........................................................................III
Introduction | 1
1 Introduction
After its introduction in the early 20th century, plastic consumption experienced
huge growth rates and has rapidly entered every aspect of our lives thanks to its
versatility and durability (OECD, 2018). But in recent years the general public
became aware of the downsides of our plastic consumption. Especially the
increasing use of single-use plastic has been heavily criticized due to the issues
that arise when plastic waste ends up in ecosystems (OECD, 2018). Moreover,
global plastic production consumes approximately eight percent of the annual
global oil production. Four percent is used for plastic itself and four percent is
converted into energy that is needed for plastic production (Fråne et al., 2012).
In the EU, 38 % of all plastic is used for plastic packaging (Worrell and Reuter,
2014). Due to the short life cycle of packaging, plastic packaging is responsible
for 76 % of all plastic waste in the EU (Worrell and Reuter, 2014). In 2016, the
emissions from production and end-of-life treatment of plastic packaging were
responsible for just 1 % of EU's total CO2 emissions. With business-as-usual -
increased demand and incineration - this share could increase up to 30 % of the
EU's 2050 CO2 targets (Material Economics, 2018).
The Swedish plastic packaging collection system, which is a result of the
extended producer responsibility (EPR), achieved a collection rate of 44 % in
2017 (SCB, 2018). Hence, at least 56 % was incinerated (SCB, 2018). The EPR
scope for plastic packaging encompasses “packaging waste made from plastic
that is not for beverages” (Riksdagsförvaltningen, 2018). The collection rate
exceeded the national target of 30 %, which is defined by legislation (SCB, 2017).
However, the actual rate of material recycling is probably lower than 44 % due to
rejects in the sorting process and losses in the recycling processes (Anderberg
and Thisted, 2015; Svensk Dagligvaruhandel, 2018a). The rejects cannot be used
for material recycling and are therefore incinerated.
Van Eygen et al. (2018a) performed a material flow analysis of plastic packaging
in Austria in 2013. They concluded that the recycling rate is significantly lower
than the collection rate due to low quality of the collected goods. Hence, the
actual recycling rate in Sweden as well as in Austria cannot be stated with
certainty.
In 2020 the government-mandated plastic packaging collection rate is increased
to 50 % in Sweden (SCB, 2017). It can be expected that the goal for plastic
packaging collection will be further increased in the coming decades. Therefore,
an increase in the collection is necessary. As mentioned before, the actual
recycling rate is considerably lower than the collection rate. Too much plastic
packaging is incinerated instead of recycled, especially with regard to the EU CO2
Introduction | 2
targets for 2050 and the vision of plastic packaging in a circular economy
(European Commission, 2018a; 2018b).
Increasing plastic recycling rates to create a circular economy can be desirable to
increase resource efficiency, improve economic competitiveness, and lower
resource dependency (European Commission, 2015). From a life-cycle
perspective, however, recycling of plastic is not in every case the most desirable
treatment option to achieve lower environmental impacts (Lazarevic et al.,
2010). Lazarevic et al. (2010) suggest that greater environmental benefits from
recycling can be achieved when plastic waste of high quality is recycled, which
has low levels of organic residues and can substitute virgin plastic with a high
ratio. Plastic recycling might also not be the most cost-effective treatment option
in every case (Gradus et al., 2017).
It can be concluded that the collection rates, as well as the purity of the collected
plastic packaging, has to increase in the following years in order to increase
recycling rates. Reasons for the low collection and even lower recycling rates
arise on several points throughout the value chain. In households, too much
plastic packaging is not collected in the EPR system but rather as normal
household waste which is then incinerated (Fråne et al., 2012). If the plastic
packaging is collected in the EPR system, it might still be incinerated. This is a
result of issues with sorting and the low economic value of recycled plastic
(Svensk Dagligvaruhandel, 2018b).
To achieve both higher collection rates and better quality of collected plastic
packaging a deposit-return system (DRS) for plastic packaging could be
implemented. In a DRS, consumers pay a deposit upon purchased goods which
will be refunded if the empty packaging of the good is returned. The high return
rates of aluminium cans and PET bottles in the Scandinavian countries show that
a DRS can result in high collection rates (Jordbruksverket, 2015). The DRS for
PET bottles and aluminium cans was introduced in the Scandinavian countries
to prevent littering (Jørgensen, 2011). Nowadays, in the context of plastics in a
circular economy and resource efficiency, a DRS could be a valuable policy to
achieve higher recycling rates. The Swedish DRS with high collections rates and
a good public acceptance provides interesting circumstances to investigate, if the
scope of the DRS could be extended to include plastic packaging.
There is a large body of existing literature about DRS for beverage containers and
its benefits and drawbacks, especially from an economic perspective. Several
countries discuss implementing a DRS for single-use beverage containers or
implemented one in recent years (CM Consulting Inc. and Reloop Platform,
2016). For wider DRS scopes, however, there is little information to be found.
Introduction | 3
1.1 Aim
The aim of this thesis is to investigate if and how the scope of the deposit-return
system in Sweden could be extended to plastic packaging and further identify
challenges for the implementation.
1.2 Objectives
• Identify key challenges that have to be overcome to make an extension of
the deposit-return system to plastic packaging feasible.
• Assess how these identified challenges could be addressed, with
inspiration from the existing deposit-return system.
1.3 Disposition
This chapter gave a problem description, the aim, objectives, and delimitations
of the thesis. The background for the investigated field of study in this thesis is
given in chapter 2. Chapter 2.1 gives the theoretical background of DRSs in
general, chapter 2.2 the environmental and economic impacts of DRSs, and
chapter 2.3 an overview of current conditions in Sweden concerning plastic
packaging and DRS. In chapter 3 the methodology, which was used in this thesis,
is introduced. Chapter 4 and 5 present and discuss results from the empirical
material regarding the two objectives. In chapter 6 the conclusions are shown,
including a roadmap and a list of recommendations for different actors.
1.4 Delimitations
As mentioned in the introduction, there is only sparse research literature about
DRSs for post-consumer packaging waste with a scope that goes beyond beverage
containers. Consequently, the aim of this thesis is to explore if and how a DRS
extension is feasible. As a result of this, an exploratory research approach is
adopted for this thesis. A qualitative method, semi-structured interviews
combined with a literature review, is in this case the preferable strategy since it
allows the formulation of new hypotheses and a “relatively unstructured
approach to the research process” (Bryman, 2012: p. 41) which would not be
possible with a quantitative method.
This thesis investigates the DRS within the geographical boundaries of Sweden.
Sweden has a long tradition of DRS with high collection rates and acceptance in
the public. These aspects provide good circumstances to investigate a scope
extension of the DRS. Plastic packaging waste is investigated in a household
context and not in an industrial context, where the quantity and composition of
plastic packaging differ considerably (Stenmarck et al., 2018) . Plastic packaging
waste is defined according to the Swedish EPR regulation: “packaging waste
made from plastic that is not for beverages” (regulation 2018:1462
(Riksdagsförvaltningen, 2018)).
Introduction | 4
When discussing recycling in this thesis, it is generally referred to as mechanical
recycling. With mechanical recycling, the plastic waste is separated, washed,
ground and then pelletized (Ragaert et al. 2017). This differs fundamentally from
the process of chemical recycling where plastic waste is chemically separated into
its fundamental structures (Shen and Worrell, 2014). Regarding the feasibility of
chemical recycling, Shen and Worrell (2014: p. 188) note that it “is technically
possible, but the economic feasibility of large-scale operation is still to be
proven”.
Background | 5
2 Background
The previous chapter showed that recycling rates of plastic packaging are too low
to achieve a circular economy. Too much plastic packaging is incinerated instead
of recycled. In this chapter, the general literature about DRSs, the impacts of
DRSs, and the current DRS implementation in Sweden are discussed.
2.1 Theoretical background
In this chapter, the drivers for a deposit-return system (DRS) and its dimensions
are introduced.
2.1.1 Definition Deposit-Return System
A DRS is an economic policy instrument, that combines a tax for consumption
with a subsidy for returning the used good after consumption (Hennlock et al.,
2015). The combination of an upstream tax with a downstream subsidy creates
an economic incentive for consumers to return empty goods (Deprez, 2016).
Hence, higher collection rates can be achieved. A DRS is a commonly used policy
instrument for waste treatment and is often used for homogenous products
(Hennlock et al., 2015). In literature, DRSs are often also referred to as deposit-
refund system, deposit-refund program, deposit return scheme. Lindhqvist
(2000) categorizes DRS as a part of the extended producer responsibility (EPR)
principle.
2.1.2 Drivers for a DRS
Based on earlier experiences, there are several drivers that can lead to an
implementation of a DRS (Jørgensen, 2011; Tojo, 2011). In most cases, these
drivers do not have an isolated effect but rather influence and amplify each other.
The most important drivers are listed as follows.
Policy
Policy frameworks are an important driver for the implementation of a DRS.
Policy frameworks can also influence decision-making in businesses. When the
first nationwide DRS for aluminium cans in Sweden was implemented, the
mitigation of littering was an important long-term goal (Jørgensen, 2011).
However, in recent years sustainable development and circular economy became
ubiquitous topics and are important long-term goals in many policy frameworks
such as the EU action plan for the Circular Economy (European Commission,
2015).
Background | 6
There are two possible types of legal requirements which can be used to
implement a DRS (McCloughan, 2017):
• There is a direct legal requirement in the legislation which forces a certain
industry to implement a DRS. This system is in place in Denmark, Estonia,
Germany, Lithuania, and Sweden.
• The alternative option is to impose an indirect legal requirement. An
example of this is Norway, where the taxes on beverages are lowered with
increasing return rates (Sutton, 2018). This mechanism provides an
incentive for the beverage producers to achieve high return rates since
higher taxes adversely affects their sales. If the collection rate is above a
certain threshold (95 % in the Norwegian case) the tax is omitted (Sutton,
2018). The industry can then decide on the policy instrument to achieve
this threshold. In the Norwegian case, a DRS was chosen.
Consumers
Consumers can be a strong driver to improve waste management systems
(Mwanza and Mbohwa, 2017). The littering issue, that initiated the DRS efforts
in Sweden, was an important public issue and pushed decision-makers to act
(Jørgensen, 2011). Viscusi et al. (2011) note that individuals can increase
personal contentment from performing a pro-environmental action – recycling
in this case.
Industry
McCloughan (2017) states that a DRS can only be successful if the affected
producers, suppliers, and retailers support it. The role of the industry as a driver
can be perceived as contradictory. On one hand, Numata states (2009) that it is
hard to gain the support of private companies for a DRS. Reasons for this are
extra administrative efforts, investments in infrastructure and ultimately higher
prices on products (Numata, 2009). Examples for this opposition can be found
in Germany before the implementation of the container deposit legislation in
2003 (Cantner et al., 2010). Can manufacturer, beverage producers, and retailers
proposed a voluntary collection in order to avoid a DRS in Sweden. However, the
voluntary approach did not meet the required recycling rate (Jørgensen, 2011;
Tojo, 2011). On the other hand, producers of juice and syrup products can include
their products since 2015 voluntarily in the DRS (Olofsson, 2017). According to
Returpack Svenska AB (2018a), 2 % of their deposit products in 2017 were part
of the system on a voluntary basis. This shows that the industry can support a
DRS when the infrastructure already exists and a DRS is viewed as a good way to
allow pro-environmentally actions for consumers.
In 1981 an environmental tax on aluminium cans replaced a fee on disposable
containers in Sweden (Jørgensen, 2011). The tax was lowered when higher
Background | 7
collection rates were achieved. This created an economic incentive for producers
and retail stores to achieve higher collection rates. As a result, the industry
implemented a DRS (Jørgensen, 2011). This type of legislation turned the
industry from an opponent to a driver for a DRS. It allowed to find a solution that
achieves the set goal but on the industry’s terms.
2.1.3 Dimensions of a DRS
As seen in literature, one can define five dimensions for a DRS: economy,
behavior, technology, organization, and material (Jørgensen, 2011; Simon et al.,
2016; McCloughan, 2017). Therefore, they are used here as a framework to give
a theoretical background on the DRS dimensions. These dimensions are
interconnected, hence a clear distinction for many aspects is difficult.
Environmental aspects are not relevant as a DRS dimension but are an important
result of a DRS (Simon et al., 2016). Therefore, they are discussed in the section
about the impacts of a DRS, chapter 2.2. On the contrary, economic aspects are
included as a dimension but also as an impact. On one hand, economic aspects,
such as the economic incentive of a deposit, are vital as a dimension of a DRS
(Deprez, 2016). On the other hand, the economic impacts are important too, to
guarantee cost-effective policies (Deprez, 2016).
Figure 1: The five dimensions of a DRS, which are used as a framework in this report. The drivers
and the impacts of a DRS are discussed in the background.
Economy
As explained above, a DRS is basically a combination of a consumption tax and
a subsidy on the correct disposal of a used good. From an economic perspective,
this mechanism attempts to internalize an externality which is generated
through the wrong disposal of a used good. In regard to plastic packaging, the
externality is caused by littering or incineration. This can be translated into an
external cost: for example, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due to
incineration or the decreased recreational value due to littering can be expressed
Background | 8
in monetary values. This external cost is one that society has to bear and not the
individual who disposed the used good (Deprez, 2016). The internalization of
external costs should lead to a better outcome for society (McCloughan, 2017).
Concerning plastic packaging, the optimal outcome for society would be less
littering, less incineration and more recycling (DEFRA, 2019).
Aalbers and Volleberg (2008) concluded that with a DRS optimal incentives are
implemented for improving collection rates and decreasing illegal dumping,
incineration, and landfilling. Several other studies show that a DRS can create
optimal fee structures to achieve policy targets such as less illegal dumping or
more recycling (Atri and Schellberg, 1995; Fullerton and Kinnaman, 1995;
Palmer and Walls, 1997; Walls and Palmer, 2001).
There are several alternative economic policy instruments that attempt to correct
this externality. One instrument is a consumption tax on a product - a Pigouvian
tax - which increases the price of a good to a socially efficient level (Aalbers and
Vollebergh, 2008). However, a consumption tax does not incentivize the right
disposal of a used good and is therefore not applicable to increase recycling rates
(Deprez, 2016). There is also the possibility of introducing prohibitive regulation
on unwanted disposal methods but the monitoring and enforcement costs would
be very high (Deprez, 2016).
Behavior
If households pay for their waste management with a flat rate tax, an individual
has no financial incentive to put effort into separating and returning household
waste to separated fractions. 80 % of all Swedish municipalities have a flat rate
tax on household waste in place (McCloughan, 2017). The implementation of a
DRS creates an incentive for consumers to return their goods and redeem the
deposit. Low (2012) notes that a DRS exploits people’s loss aversion and people
are therefore willing to spend some of their time to redeem the deposits, even if
it is an insignificant share of their income. This loss aversion further minimizes
the occurrence of alternative disposal options such as burning or illegal dumping
(Walls, 2011).
Thörnelöf (2016) notes that low-income groups generally recycle less than
wealthier individuals. Therefore, the introduction of a DRS affects the recycling
rates of low-income groups to a greater extent than high-income groups.
However, recycling behavior is also influenced by other factors than financial
incentives. Abbott et al. (2013) showed that social norms can have a strong effect
on household recycling behavior. Therefore, in a non-DRS context, social norms
might be used to take on monitoring and enforcement functions. This can be
taken advantage of with collection schemes such as kerbside collection, which
Background | 9
make recycling efforts visible and signal pro-environmental attitude towards the
social surroundings (Vining and Ebreo, 1990; Oskamp et al., 1991).
Viscusi et al. (2011, 2013) investigated how recycling laws such as a DRS for water
bottles influence recycling behavior and how these changes correspond with
social norms and private values. Their results show that internal private values
toward recycling have a significant influence on recycling rates. Contrary to the
research mentioned above, social norms seem to have an insignificant influence
on recycling behavior (Viscusi et al., 2011, 2013). Therefore, bottle deposits and
stringent laws are less effective on individuals which already have positive values
regarding recycling and recycle diligently. Viscusi et al. (2013) further state that
individuals who were only recycling a few of their bottles without a DRS turn into
thorough recyclers with a DRS in place.
A DRS can facilitate recycling for consumers since only deposit packaging is
accepted at the reverse vending machine (RVM). However, it is still crucial that
consumers can intuitively understand which packaging is part of the scope
(McCloughan, 2017).
According to Miliute-Plepiene et al. (2016), convenience is the most significant
factor for high household recycling rates. As a waste management system
matures and its convenience increases, the effect of moral norms become less
important. It is further noted that the effect of economic incentives as an
important influence on recycling behavior could not be proven “with sufficient
certainty” (Miliute-Plepiene et al., 2016: p. 49). However, Hage and Söderholm
(2008) showed that the economic incentive of weight-based fees on household
waste led to increased plastic packaging collection rates.
Producers might be opposed to a DRS since it causes additional administrative
and labelling efforts (Gandy et al., 2008). McCloughan (2017) notes that
producers could theoretically avoid a DRS by changing the type of packaging or
reformulating their drinks.
Technology
As illustrated by Jørgensen (2011), technological progress in the form of RVMs
was a major pillar of the success of DRS in Scandinavian countries. RVMs are
automated devices which verify the returned good as part of the DRS (Jørgensen,
2011). They crush and sort the returned good and pay out the refund, which in
most cases is a voucher. Throughout the years, the RVMs progressed also
technologically with laser scanners for barcode identification and more efficient
sorting (Jørgensen, 2011). The most recent technological developments are
express-RVMs. The current RVM models are able to process only one returned
good at a time, while the express-RVMs are capable of receiving larger quantities
of goods at once and process more in a shorter time (Pantamera, 2019).
Background | 10
Technology is an important aspect to increase efficiency of a DRS. Moreover, it
is also an important aid to prevent fraudulent behavior (McCloughan, 2017). In
the beginning, the bottle shape was the distinctive feature, which had to be
distinguished either manually or by RVMs (Jørgensen, 2011). For almost 25
years, barcode readers are used now to verify that a deposit was paid on the
returned good and thereby prevent fraud with for example imported beverage
containers (Jørgensen, 2011).
The application of RVMs in a DRS prevents misthrows, which keeps the fractions
pure. This aspect combined with the economic incentive of refunds makes a DRS
an instrument which can achieve high collection rates with a high material
purity. In order to utilize these benefits from the DRS, well-developed sorting
and recycling technology is necessary. Sorting and recycling technology for
aluminium and glass is already quite sophisticated (OECD, 2018). This can be
attributed to the fact that these fractions have been collected and recycled for
decades but also to the relatively low complexity within these two waste streams
(OECD, 2018). Plastic waste, however, is a more complex waste fraction which
does not have such a long collection history and is often of low economic value
(OECD, 2018). The increased awareness in plastic led and will lead to
advancements in sorting and recycling technology (Garcia and Robertson, 2017;
OECD, 2018).
Organization
When a DRS is implemented, an organizational entity is needed to operate the
system (McCloughan, 2017). Moreover, a common convention between all
actors, which secures a certain degree of standardization of the involved
products, has to be put in place (Gandy et al., 2008). The organizations that
manage a DRS either emerge out of purely economic reasons (natural systems)
or because there is a societal objective that is translated into a regulation
(artificial systems) (Lindhqvist, 2000). For example, up until the end of the 20th
century, it was more cost-effective for breweries to have a local DRS on reusable
glass bottles in place than using single-use bottles (Jørgensen, 2011). These local
DRS set up by the breweries would only have a relatively small geographic scope
and consumers could often only buy new drinks after the empty bottles were
returned.
Lower prices on single-use glass bottles, larger breweries that went beyond the
local or national scale, and the emergence of cheap single-use plastic bottles
made this system obsolete by the end of the 20th century (Jørgensen, 2011). For
a very small-scale DRS, the administrative tasks might be relatively few due to
the small number of actors involved. For a national or international DRS this can
become quite complex and requires agreements and contracts (Gandy et al.,
2008).
Background | 11
Concerning the actual implementation of a DRS, there are several important
aspects that need to be considered since these can influence how the actual DRS
works in practice. In artificial DRSs, these aspects are in most cases regulated by
a governmental legal entity or a company. The following list provides an overview
of the most important organizational aspects in existing DRS (McCloughan,
2017):
• The management system: A DRS can be managed centrally where a
system operator is responsible for paying and refunding the deposit.
Consumers can get their refund at any store which is part of the system
(McCloughan, 2017). A system can also be managed decentralized and
thereby avoid a system operator. As a result, expenses are lower but
consumers cannot get their refund at any store (McCloughan, 2017). This
system is in operation in some states in the USA - New York, Michigan,
Massachusetts, Maine, Iowa (McCloughan, 2017).
• The scope of the deposit: Most of the DRSs that are in place have glass,
aluminium and/or tinplate, and PET bottles or one or two of the materials
within the scope of their DRS (CM Consulting Inc. and Reloop Platform,
2016). Since the consumer is an important actor in a DRS, it is necessary
that the scope of a deposit is easy to understand for consumers in order to
achieve good return rates (McCloughan, 2017).
• The Level of the deposit: In theory, the level of the deposit could be
calculated with economic models (Deprez, 2016). In reality, however,
many of the variables are hard to evaluate in monetary terms. Therefore,
it is difficult to calculate the most optimal deposit precisely. The deposit
should be high enough to incentivize high return rates but not so high that
it provides an incentive for fraudulent behavior (McCloughan, 2017).
Thörnelöf (2016) investigated the effect of the deposit increase in Sweden
on metal cans in 2010. The results show that the increase had a low
positive effect on collection rates in Sweden.
• The sales channels: When setting up a DRS, it is important to clarify
which sales channels are included in the scope of the DRS. In the context
of beverage containers, possible variations are that only products sold
through retailers bear deposit or that all sales channels (e.g. bars,
restaurant, takeaway food stalls) must have a deposit on their sold goods.
A further issue regarding sales channels is if imported and exported goods
are also part of the DRS.
• The collection options: According to McCloughan (2017), it is
common in North American DRSs to have designated return depots. In
the Scandinavian countries, the retail stores are most often the place
where consumers can get their deposit refunded
Background | 12
Material
In many countries, DRSs are applied to beverage containers to decrease littering
and increase recycling rates (McCloughan, 2017). But DRSs can also be applied
to materials such as batteries, used cars, and motor oil (Fullerton and Wolverton,
2000). In theory, DRSs could be applied to every material which could be a
hazard after its use-phase. In this report, the focus lies on plastic packaging
which has a large variety concerning polymer material(s), form, size, additives,
and use cases. The OECD (2015) notes that it is impossible to operate a DRS in a
satisfactory way with products that do not have clear definitions regarding
material content, form, size, use case. Hence, a clear characterization of the
product group or the definition of a more detailed fraction of the whole waste
stream should be prioritized.
In the case of plastic packaging, one way to characterize the plastic packaging
stream is according to the used polymers. However, the same polymers are used
in a variety of products (Van Eygen et al., 2018b). This would result in a
complicated system since it is not very transparent and comprehensible for
consumers which polymers are used in a given plastic packaging item. On the
contrary, a product-centered approach might be easier to grasp for consumers.
Van Eygen et al. (2018a) assessed the plastic packaging flows with a material-
flow analysis (MFA) in Austria in 2013. The following product groups were used
to assess the material flows:
• PET bottles
• hollow bodies small (e.g. liquid soap containers, ketchup bottles)
• hollow bodies large (e.g. laundry detergent containers)
• films small (e.g. potato chips packaging, bottle labels)
• films large (e.g. grocery bags)
• large EPS (expanded polystyrene, e.g. seafood transport boxes,
electronics)
• other products within the plastic packaging waste flow
This classification could provide a good basis to assess the suitability of different
plastic packaging for an extended DRS. There is no detailed information about
plastic packaging flows in Sweden. However, it can be assumed that there are
only marginal differences in Swedish and Austrian plastic packaging
composition. Therefore, the data from the Austrian case by Van Eygen et al.
(2018a) can be used as a proxy. The following aspects are often discussed in
literature and should be considered when assessing how to extend the DRS scope
(Hennlock et al., 2015; McCloughan, 2017; Van Eygen et al., 2018b):
The volume of the DRS fraction is important. The larger the collected fraction,
the more plastic can be diverted from incineration to material recycling.
Background | 13
Additionally, larger fractions benefit from economies of scale, in collection but
also in the further steps downstream. If a DRS includes materials with more
hazardous effect on the environment than plastic such as batteries or motor oil
then the volume of the waste stream could become less important since the
avoidance of any polluting emission has a much higher priority than an
economically profitable collection system.
Besides the volume, the diversity within a fraction should also be incorporated.
In general, the material diversity within a DRS fraction should be kept as low as
possible (Hennlock et al., 2015). Hennlock (2015: p. 98) notes that the extension
of the DRS scope is “likely dependent on the possibilities of standardizing and
homogenizing products”. More heterogeneous fractions lead to higher
administrative costs (Hennlock et al., 2015). Having as few polymers as possible
in a waste fraction is one way to homogenize the waste stream. This results in a
streamlined system and further sorting and recycling processes are facilitated.
Potential hygienic issues are another aspect that should be considered. In the
existing Swedish DRS, this is not an issue since there are almost no food remains
present in the returned goods (Returpack Svenska AB, 2017). Any extension of
the DRS should pose no hygienic issues due to bacteria growth for the consumers
and the retail stores (Gandy et al., 2008).
In earlier DRSs, the focus was on mitigating littering (Jørgensen, 2011).
Nowadays, the increased collection and recycling rates are seen as further
benefits of a DRS (McCloughan, 2017). The shift in focus from mitigating
littering to recycling has consequences on the further processing of the collected
goods. If the DRS’s main priority is prevention of littering, the subsequent waste
treatment is irrelevant as long as the waste does not end up in the environment.
However, if the DRS is implemented to increase recycling rates, it is important
that the returned goods have the correct material properties to be recycled
(Garcia and Robertson, 2017). Otherwise, the effort to operate a DRS is nullified.
LDPE, PP, and HDPE are polymers for which sorting and processing technology
is available and demand for these recycled polymers is high enough already (FTI
AB, 2018). In contrary to PET trays, colored PET bottles, PP films, and PVC.
Sorting and recycling technology for these polymers is developed enough but the
market is currently too limited for profitable recycling (FTI AB, 2018). PS and
EPS are possible to sort but the volume of PS is too low for economic recycling
and the technology to recycle EPS is not yet available (FTI AB, 2018).
Background | 14
2.2 Impacts
In the following chapter, existing literature on the environmental and economic
impacts of planned or already implemented DRS’s are presented, analyzed and
discussed. As stated in the introduction, there is almost no literature on DRSs
with a wider scope than single-use beverage containers. When analyzing new
implementations in a system, it is important that the environmental and
economic impacts are investigated. This should help to avoid a shift of burden
and allows to see if the policy achieves its environmental and economic goals.
2.2.1 Environmental impact of DRS
As explained in chapter 2.1.2, DRSs were historically used to ensure a closed loop
of reusable bottles and to avert littering. However, the characteristics of a DRS
make it an ideal policy tool to collect fractions which can be easily used for
material recycling afterwards. The environmental benefits are therefore not
coming from the DRS directly but rather from the increased recycling rates which
are made possible through high collection rates and the pure fractions. In the
Swedish context, the environmental impacts from a DRS for plastic packaging
and increased recycling rates have to be compared to the present main
processing method, which is incineration (Fråne et al., 2012).
In a comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Sevigné et al. (2017) investigated
the environmental impact of an EPR system and a discussed DRS on single-use
beverage containers in Spain. The studied impact categories were: abiotic
depletion, acidification, eutrophication, global warming, ozone layer depletion,
human toxicity, and photochemical oxidation. The functional unit is defined as
one “ton of PET bottles, cans and beverage cartons ready to enter a recycling
process” (Sevigné et al., 2017). The results of the LCA show that compared to the
EPR system, the DRS results in an environmental impact reduction of 30 - 40 %
for the impact categories abiotic depletion, acidification, eutrophication, global
warming, ozone layer depletion, human toxicity. For the impact category
photochemical oxidation, the environmental impact reduction of the DRS is
63 %. The lower environmental impact is a result of the lower share of rejects and
the higher quality of the collected fraction which results in higher recycling rates.
It has to be noted, that the model used in the study assumes that almost all of the
rejects from the sorting facility are landfilled.
In Sweden, the amount of municipal solid waste (MSW) ending up on a landfill
is marginal while most of it is incinerated (Avfall Sverige, 2018). Depending on
the polymer and its application, incineration is in some cases better than
landfilling regarding global warming potential and in most cases better with
regards to total energy use (Bernardo et al., 2016). This aspect decreases the
transferability of Sevigné et al. (2017) results to the Swedish case.
Background | 15
Simon et al. (2016) performed an LCA of different beverage packaging materials
with a focus on post-consumer bottle collection. The functional is defined as
packaging material that is needed for providing packaging for 1000 l of drinks.
Their results show, that the collection of aluminium cans and PET bottles have
the second-lowest emissions of GHG in a DRS, after kerbside bag collection.
Aluminium cans have GHG emissions of 1.1 kg CO2-equivalents (CO2-eq) for the
functional unit of 0.33 l cans and 0.9 kg CO2-eq for the larger 0.5 l cans.
Collection with kerbside bags results in 0.5 kg CO2-eq for both sizes of aluminium
cans. The collection of PET bottles with a DRS results in GHG emissions of 1.5 kg
CO2-eq for 0.5 l bottles, 1.1 kg CO2-eq for 1 l bottles and 0.7 kg CO2-eq for 2 l
bottles. With a kerbside bag collection for PET bottles, GHG emissions of 1.1-
1.2 kg CO2-eq are caused. Over the whole life cycle, the GHG emissions of
aluminium cans were about 7 times lower with recycling than with incineration.
For PET bottles, the life-cycle with recycling caused about 4 to 6 times lower
GHG emissions than with incineration. For glass bottles, however, a DRS is the
collection system with the highest GHG emissions: 19.2 kg CO2-eq for 0.33 l glass
bottles and 21.7 kg CO2-eq for 0.5 l glass bottles.
Lazarevic et al. (2010) reviewed several LCAs which compared mechanical
plastic recycling to MSW incineration. The studied LCAs show that mechanical
recycling is a favorable alternative, especially if the treated plastic waste stream
has little organic contamination and consists of single polymer fractions.
Rigamonti et al. (2014) concludes that incineration of PET and HDPE is the
worst-performing option for all investigated impact categories (global warming,
acidification, eutrophication, photo-chemical ozone formation, ecotoxicity and
human toxicity). A system with mechanical sorting and recycling achieves the
lowest environmental impact in the most impact categories compared to other
scenarios which include source separation and lower collection efficiencies.
Arena et al. (2003) note that the production of 1 kg recycled PET requires 42-
55 MJ of gross energy, while 1 kg of virgin PET requires 77 MJ. For PE, 40-49 MJ
are required for recycling 1 kg and 80 MJ for the same amount of virgin PE.
As pointed out by Dinkel et al. (2017), plastic packaging collection schemes
should achieve high purity levels in order to replace as much virgin material as
possible.
In general, plastic packaging can help to reduce food waste (denkstatt GmbH,
2017). The additional GHG emissions from plastic packaging are in most cases
significantly lower than the emissions from food waste packed in more
traditional packaging such as paper bags (denkstatt GmbH, 2017). The net
benefits are highest in high-value food products. The increased impact for the
plastic packaging of a 330 g steak is 5 g CO2-eq. As a result of the longer shelf life,
Background | 16
730 g CO2-eq can be avoided. However, in some cases, especially vegetables, the
additional GHG emissions from the plastic packaging outweigh the avoided
emissions from food waste (denkstatt GmbH, 2017).
2.2.2 Economic impact of a DRS
In this chapter, the existing literature about the economic impacts of already
implemented or discussed DRSs is presented. For a more convenient
comparison, all the costs are also listed in Euro (€), the exchange rates of April
23rd 2019 were used.
Implemented DRSs
There is little information of the economic impact of the Swedish DRS for PET
bottles and aluminium cans. One estimate by Hedelin et al. (2003) assessed the
costs at around SEK 300-400 million per year with no estimates for the benefits.
The report mentions the cost for handling a single aluminium can of SEK 0.22
and for a PET bottle of SEK 0.82. With the return rates from 2016 (Returpack
Svenska AB, 2017) an annual cost of SEK 909 million can be estimated (€ 86.4
million, SEK 1 = € 0.095). However, it can be assumed that the actual cost is
lower than this sum. The cost is not expected to rise linearly with more returned
goods. Rather should the handling cost per unit of returned good decrease with
scaling effects.
In Germany, the DRS for PET bottles, aluminium cans, and glass bottles was
introduced in 2003. The direct monetary costs - expenditures for personnel and
infrastructure - were estimated at € 640 million with additional € 340 million in
up- and downstream costs (Thörner et al. 2007). The report pointed out the high
costs per reduced unit of CO2 emissions, however, achieving a significant CO2
emissions reduction was not the main reason for implementing a DRS. Apart
from the avoided CO2 emissions, no statements were made about the magnitude
of benefits as a result of the DRS.
Lavee (2010) performed a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of the Israeli DRS for
beverage containers and concluded that the DRS benefits are about 35 % higher
than the costs. However, the fact that landfilling is the preferred option for waste
treatment in Israel makes it difficult to compare these results to the Swedish case.
Moreover, Deprez (2016) points out that the benefits might not be as high as
stated, due to the fact that some minor costs are not accounted for in the CBA.
A CBA was also performed by Vigsø (2004) for the Danish DRS. The major share
of the costs in the DRS is from direct social costs such as handling costs,
collection, transport, sorting, processing for reuse. Compared to incineration, the
DRS and the subsequent recycling causes additional costs of € 6.7 to € 8.1 million
per year that are borne by the consumers. The author notes that the study was
Background | 17
done shortly after the implementation of the DRS and therefore a future decrease
in costs can be expected as a result of the system becoming more efficient.
Planned DRSs
Regarding DRSs that are not yet implemented but are discussed or planned,
there are three noteworthy studies on the economic impacts of a DRS. The most
recent is the one by the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(DEFRA) (2019). Two possible options were assessed for the public consultation;
an all-in option and an on-the-go option (includes only containers up to 750 ml).
The all-in option causes estimated discounted costs of £ 7’211 million (€ 8’365
million, £ 1 = € 1.16) for the first ten years. The benefits are estimated at £ 9,400
million (€ 10’905 million,), resulting in a net present value of £ 2,189 million
(€ 2’539 million). For the on-the-go DRS, the discounted costs are estimated at
£ 2,764 million (€ 3’206 million) over the first ten years with benefits of £ 3,012
million (€ 3’493 million), resulting in a net present value of £ 249 million (€ 288
million) (DEFRA, 2019).
The costs of the discussed DRS alongside an EPR system for beverage containers
in Spain was assessed by Fullana i Palmer et al. (2017). The following types of
materials should be included in the DRS: PET, HDPE, steel, aluminium, carton
for drinks, and glass. The estimated costs for just the DRS were estimated at
€ 1’800 million per year while handling the materials in the EPR would cost only
€ 165 million. The broad range of materials is assumed to be handled manually
for the most and not with RVMs. The manual handling of the returned goods is
responsible for 80 % of the costs of the DRS.
Dráb and Slučiaková (2018) investigated the costs of a possible DRS for single-
use beverage container in Slovakia, which would be inspired by the Scandinavian
systems. The investment costs are estimated to be approximately € 80 million,
with € 62 million for the RVMs. The annual operation costs amount to
€ 33.3 million, while the revenues from unclaimed deposits and raw materials
amount to € 28.3 million. The deficit of € 5.1 million will be paid by the
producers via the administrative fee but in the end, probably carried over to the
consumer. Dráb and Slučiaková (2018) point out two important aspects that the
implementation of this type of DRS brings with: first, the operational revenue is
dependent on the unclaimed deposits and if more deposits are refunded, the
administrative fee must be increased. Second, the DRS will lead to a decrease in
quantity but also in the quality of raw material in the already existing EPR system
which will result in higher costs for the EPR system.
As the presented literature show, there is no coherent result of the costs and
benefits of a DRS. One reason for the different results in the literature are the
differences in waste management systems and possible system transitions in
Background | 18
different countries. Moreover, certain studies include costs and benefits which
are not included in other studies and, as a result, end up with different
conclusions. In general, the magnitude of costs is in most cases approximately
the same when the size of the respective country is taken into account. Many
studies include only the direct costs and benefits since there is relatively good
information available. Indirect costs and benefits, such as reduced littering, GHG
emissions, and time spent separating, are harder to assess and, therefore, in most
cases not included. In general, it must be kept in mind that most of the (modeled)
impacts are on the basis of present economic conditions. Stricter regulation in
the future to curb GHG emissions and facilitate circular economy efforts could
lead to a drastic change in the economic conditions. This would also impact the
costs and benefits of DRSs.
2.3 Current conditions in Sweden
In this chapter, the waste management system in Sweden is presented. First, on
the EU level and then on the national level from a policy perspective and then
how these policies are put into practice.
2.3.1 Plastic packaging policy in the EU
Sweden is a member of the European Union (EU) and, therefore, has to adopt
EU legislation in the form of regulations and directive. Up until now, there is no
legislation that directly addresses plastic packaging and plastic packaging waste.
Plastic packaging is addressed indirectly through municipal solid waste (Waste
Framework Directive 2008/98/EC) and packaging waste (Directive 94/62/EC
and Directive 2004/12/EC) (Milios et al. 2018). The Waste Framework Directive
introduced the European waste hierarchy which sets the prioritization of waste
treatment: prevention, minimization, reuse, recycling, energy recovery, disposal.
Directive 2004/12/EC states that member states must introduce a collection
scheme to increase collection rates (Ragaert et al., 2017).
However, plastic packaging waste is becoming a more important waste stream in
the European Union. As a result, it is more directly addressed. The Green Paper
on a European Strategy on Plastic Waste in the Environment (European
Commission, 2013) investigated possible challenges for public policy that are
caused by plastic waste. In 2015 the EU Action Plan for a Circular Economy was
published (European Commission, 2015). The Action Plan focuses on
introducing measures to facilitate a more circular economy in the EU and plastic
packaging recycling plays an important role in that. The “European Strategy for
Plastic in a Circular Economy” (European Commission, 2018b) further focuses
on the key role that plastic has on the road to a circular economy within the EU.
The directive on single-use plastics bans certain single-use plastic items such as
cotton buds, cutlery, plates, straws and wants to reduce the consumption of food
containers, beverage cups, and containers (European Commission, 2018c).
Background | 19
The Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive set a minimum recycling target of
22.5 % for plastic packaging that must be achieved by the end of 2008 (European
Commission, 2004). The target is specifically defined as “counting exclusively
material that is recycled back into plastics” (European Commission, 2004: p. 28).
The revised directive increases the recycling targets to 50 % by 2025 and 55 % by
2030. Moreover, a clearer definition of the measurement point of recycling was
introduced: “should be at the point where packaging waste enters the recycling
operation” (European Commission, 2018d). These political decisions show a
strong political will at the EU level to address the issues originating from plastic.
Moreover, they can create pressure on Swedish policy makers and industry to
take additional actions.
2.3.2 Plastic packaging in Sweden
As explained above, Sweden must implement the EU Waste Framework Directive
(WFD), which is done in the Swedish Environmental Code (Anderberg and
Thisted, 2015). In the Environmental Code, it is stated that the municipalities are
responsible for collection and treatment of MSW (Fråne et al., 2014) but since
1994 producers and importers of packaging are responsible for collection and
treatment of their packaging waste.
Policy on EPR for Packaging
In 1994 the extended producer responsibility (EPR) for packaging was
introduced on the basis of regulation 1994:1235 (Lilienberg et al. 2006). The EPR
shifts the responsibility for packaging end-of-life treatment to the producer.
Therefore, the producer should have an incentive to include aspects of better
recyclability and resource efficiency into their product design (Walls, 2006).
With an EPR in place, the producers are forced to introduce a collection system
for their packaging waste and have to achieve set collection or recycling goals –
depending on the legislative formulation (Riksdagsförvaltningen, 1994). As
mentioned above, this regulation led to a shift in responsibilities for packaging
waste from the municipalities to the producers. The scope of this EPR system
encompasses paper, cardboard, plastic, glass, and metal (Riksdagsförvaltningen,
2018). However, packaging that is not sorted out by consumers but disposed in
the normal MSW falls under the responsibility of municipalities and is
incinerated (Hage and Söderholm, 2008).
Policy on DRS
As mentioned in chapter 2.1.2, the DRS for aluminium cans was not government-
mandated (Jørgensen, 2011). The industry implemented the DRS as a means to
achieve higher can collection rates. The incentive of a lowered environmental tax
with higher collections rates was high enough for the industry to implement a
DRS. Later on, the DRS became government-mandated (Riksdagsförvaltningen,
2005). All professionally bottled beverages need to be part of a government-
Background | 20
approved deposit-return system (Riksdagsförvaltningen, 2005). The definition
of plastic bottles in 1994 included only beverage bottles made of polyethylene
terephthalate (PET). Subsequent regulation changed this to bottles from
polymeric materials (Riksdagsförvaltningen, 1994, 2005). Dairy products,
vegetable, fruit or berry juices were exempt from this regulation due to hygienic
concerns (Gandy et al., 2008). Since 2015 the Swedish DRS is open for vegetable,
fruit and berry juices on an optional basis (regulation 2014:1073) (Axfood, 2015).
The collection target for the mandatory scope is set to 90 %
(Riksdagsförvaltningen, 2006). Packaging that is in the DRS on a voluntary basis
has to have a collection rate of 30 %, similar to the EPR goal
(Riksdagsförvaltningen, 2018).
The EPR system in practice
In order to comply with aforementioned regulations, the private-owned business
FTI AB was founded (McCloughan, 2017). It is affiliated with and owned by most
EPR-affected producers (FTI AB, n.d.). TMR is another company that is
managing a system to comply with EPR regulation (Konkurrensverket, 2019).
For plastic packaging in Sweden, the recycling goal is at 30 % of the sold
packaging that have to be recovered or rather collected through the system
(Riksdagsförvaltningen, 2018). Since the implementation of this regulation, the
goal has never been revised. However, in 2020 this goal is increased to 50 % and
is, as a result, more ambitious than the goals set by the EU (Anderberg and
Thisted, 2015). In Figure 2, the amount of plastic packaging produced and
collected per year, and the collection rate can be seen.
According to SCB (2018), 215’600 tons of plastic packaging was put on the
Swedish market in 2017 and 95'500 tons were recovered through the collection
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
-
50'000
100'000
150'000
200'000
250'000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Plastic Packaging, produced [t] Plastic Packaging, collected [t]
Collection Plastic packaging
Figure 2: The collection rates of plastic packaging in the years 2012-2017 (SCB, 2018). The left
axis shows the produced and collected amount of plastic packaging, the right axis shows the
collection rate.
Background | 21
system that is administrated by the packaging producers. With a collection rate
of 44 % the goal was achieved. However, to achieve a 50 % collection rate and
probably even higher rates in subsequent years, some significant adjustments to
the system are needed. Moreover, according to the industry organization of
Swedish retailers (Svensk Dagligvaruhandel, 2018b) there is a significant gap
between the reported rate and the actual rate of plastic that is recycled into new
plastic products. It is estimated that about half of the collected plastic packaging
is incinerated and used for energy recovery which results in an effective material
recycling rate of around 25 % (Svensk Dagligvaruhandel, 2018b).
The industry organization of Swedish retailers published a road map to make all
plastic packaging recyclable by 2022 and only use plastic packaging from
renewable or recycled materials by 2030 (Svensk Dagligvaruhandel, 2018b). The
roadmap includes an analysis of the current situation, investments in a new
sorting plant, and introduction of fees based on the packaging’s recyclability to
incentivize using more recyclable packaging materials. A DRS could be an
integral tool to increase recycling which is needed to provide enough recycled
material by 2030.
A major share of the post-consumer plastic packaging is not sorted and therefore
incinerated as MSW. If the plastic packaging is sorted, the fractions of
homogeneous waste are rather small and often contaminated with other types of
plastics and separation can be too costly (Felix, 2015).
As mentioned before, there is no detailed data on the plastic packaging flows in
Sweden. The information provided by Van Eygen et al. (2018a) is used instead to
give an approximation of the plastic packaging flows. Figure 3 shows the
percentage of the total plastic packaging waste stream for each product group. It
can be seen that Films small and Films large have shares of over 20 % of the
plastic packaging stream. PET bottles and Hollow bodies small have both have
shares over 15 %.
Figure 3: Share of the plastic packaging product groups according to Van Eygen et al. (2018).
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%PET bottles
Hollow bodies small
Hollow bodies large
Films small
Films large
Large EPS
Other Products
Background | 22
The aforementioned Austrian MFA also contains information about which
polymers are present in which product groups (see Table 1) (Van Eygen et al.,
2018a). Apart from other products, all product groups have a relatively low
polymer variability. However, the share of each polymer in a product group can
differ drastically.
Table 1: The product groups and the polymers that are present in this product group according
to Van Eygen et al. (2018). Note that the polymer LLDPE is a variation of LDPE.
Product group Polymers in product groups
PET bottles PET
Hollow bodies small HDPE, PP, PS
Hollow bodies large HDPE, PP
Films small LDPE, LLDPE
Films large LDPE, LLDPE
Large EPS EPS
Other Products LDPE, HDPE, PP, PS, EPS, PET
The DRS in practice
In 1984 the aluminium can DRS was implemented and in 1994 the PET bottle
DRS was approved by Jordbruksverket and introduced nation-wide (Pantamera,
n.d.). Consumers in Sweden had been taught with information campaigns how
to use the DRS when it was first introduced for aluminium cans (Jørgensen,
2011). Later then, when PET was added to the DRS, consumers were already used
to it (Pantamera, n.d.). For the administrative tasks, such as finances, organizing
transport, and information campaigns, the company Returpack Svenska AB with
its two subsidiaries - Returpack-Burk Svenska AB and Returpack-Pet Svenska
AB - was founded (McCloughan, 2017). The company ownership is shared with
50 % to Sveriges Bryggerier – the Swedish Brewery industry organization, 25 %
to Svensk Dagligvaruhandel – the Association of large retail chains, and 25 % to
Livsmedelshandlarna – the Association of small & individual retailers (Tojo,
2011). In theory, multiple different DRS could co-exist with independent
collection systems (Jordbruksverket, 2015).
Returpack Svenska AB is not profit-oriented and has its own facility for sorting
in Norrköping (Tojo, 2011). The expenditures are paid by unpaid deposit, interest
that arises from the deposit, administrative fees, and the income from selling the
raw materials (Pantamera, n.d.; Tojo, 2011).
Background | 23
Figure 4: A money/material flow chart of the Swedish PET Pantamera System. Adapted from CM
Consulting Inc. and Reloop Platform (2016).
In Figure 4 the money and material flow in the Swedish DRS for PET (Returpack)
can be seen, which is identical to the aluminium can DRS. The collected cans are
mostly recycled into new aluminium products since aluminium has no quality
loss when recycled (Haupt et al., 2017). The collected PET bottles, on the
contrary, are in the best case recycled into new bottles (Haupt et al., 2017). If the
quality of the returned bottles is inferior, they are used for other plastic products
with lower material requirements or are incinerated (Haupt et al., 2017). Besides
Sweden, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, and Norway have exactly the same
model implemented (CM Consulting Inc. and Reloop Platform, 2016).
Background | 24
In the Technical Specification and Marking Manual, the required specifications,
such as dimensions, polymer, material thickness, and barcode marking, for the
bottles are stated (Returpack Svenska AB, 2018b). Besides PET, HDPE and PP
bottles are in theory permitted but according to Bergendorff (2019a), no other
polymers than PET are in the DRS at the moment.
In 2017 approximately 4’100 different cans and plastic bottles were part of the
Swedish DRS and another 80 products were part of the deposit-return system on
a voluntary basis (Returpack Svenska AB, 2018a). Figure 5 shows that the
mandatory products of the DRS never achieved the collection goal in the years
2012-2017. In 2017, 21’300 tons of PET bottles and 16’600 tons of aluminium
cans were collected with the DRS.
As shown in Figure 4, retailers are the point of collection for the used bottles. In
most cases, this is done at one of the 4’000 automated RVMs, while only a small
percentage of retailers handles the deposit without RVMs (Returpack Svenska
AB, 2018a). The retailers receive a handling fee for every returned bottle or can.
Moreover, the RVM is viewed by most retailers as a way to bring customers into
their store which should lead to higher sales. (Pantamera, n.d.).
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
-
5'000
10'000
15'000
20'000
25'000
30'000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
PET bottles, produced [tons] PET bottles, collected [tons]
Collection rate PET bottles
Figure 5: The collection rates of PET bottles in Sweden from 2012-2017 (SCB, 2018).
Methodology | 25
3 Methodology
In order to investigate how the DRS could be extended to other post-consumer
plastic packaging in Sweden, several steps and methodologies are needed. As
mentioned before, the explorative nature of the aim requires a qualitative
research method to develop new insights and hypotheses within a topic for which
only sparse research literature exists (Bryman, 2012). By conducting interviews
with actors from the recycling industry, new knowledge about challenges for
plastic packaging and lessons from the existing DRS is gathered. This knowledge
is then compared and linked to existing knowledge from literature. This
approach allows to investigate if and how an extended DRS can be implemented.
3.1 Semi-structured qualitative research interviews
The interviews have been conducted as semi-structured qualitative research
interviews. The character of semi-structured interviews allows to compare
answers from different interviewees but also to deepen a specific topic that the
interviewee brings up, but was not thought of by the interviewer (O’Leary, 2014).
By interviewing key actors from different sectors, it is possible to collect
information about different aspects and from different perspectives.
3.1.1 The interview procedure
An interview guide was prepared prior to the interview (see Appendix 1). An
interview guide provides a common frame of questions and topics that should be
discussed. Moreover, it ensures comparability between the interviews while at
the same time leaving room for further probing by the interviewer (Patton,
2002). The interview guide was structured into the following parts: introductory
questions, general questions about recycling, questions regarding the present
DRS, questions regarding an extended DRS, and questions about lessons from
the PET DRS implementation. To gain further insight into interesting aspects,
follow-up questions and probing questions were asked. Before beginning with
the interviews, the interviewees were informed about the purpose and structure
of the interview. The participants had the opportunity to remain anonymous but
all interviewees agreed to their name being published.
The interviews were all performed over the telephone, except for one which was
done by e-mail (see further below). E-mail interviews were the least preferred
option since they do not allow for further probing (Rowley, 2012). All the
interviews were recorded in agreement with the interviewees. The audio
recording allowed transcription of the interview and further analysis. The
interviews took between 25 and 50 minutes, were done in English and were all
performed between March 14th 2019 and May 8th of 2019. After the interview, the
recording was listened to again and compared to the notes taken during the
interview.
Methodology | 26
3.1.2 Selection of Interviewees
The interviewees were selected in accordance with the first - challenges for
extending the DRS to plastic packaging - and second objective - how to address
challenges, with lessons from the PET DRS. Actors from the present DRS for PET
bottles and aluminium cans, industry and trade organizations, private
companies from the recycling sector, (former) political actors, and consumer
organizations were contacted for an interview. A list of all contacted actors can
be found in Appendix 2. The following actors agreed to an interview:
• Sara Bergendorff, producer and import manager at Returpack Svenska
AB, which manages the DRS for PET bottles and aluminium cans in
Sweden.
• Patrik Eklöf, responsible for controlling and approving of deposit-return
systems at Jordbruksverket, the Swedish Agriculture Department.
• Lennart Daléus, a former member of the Swedish parliament and former
chair of the Kretsloppsdelegationen, the eco-cycle delegation, which
investigated the EPR and DRS.
• Weine Wiqvist, CEO of Avfall Sverige, the Swedish Waste Management
and Recycling Association.
• Magnus Nikkarinen, Director of Sustainability at Svensk Handel, the
Swedish Trade Federation.
FTI AB, the company which manages the largest EPR system in Sweden, was also
contacted and Jenny Brolin from FTI AB replied to the interview guide per e-
mail. This response can therefore not be counted as an interview due to the small
extent. Nonetheless, parts of their response are used for the analysis.
3.2 Literature review
The databases of Science Direct and KTH Library were used for searching
relevant scientific articles for the literature review. Google Scholar was used for
searching articles in further databases. The following search terms were used to
find the majority of the used scientific articles: deposit-refund system, deposit-
return system, plastic packaging recycling, extended producer responsibility,
recycling behavior, LCA plastic packaging. Relevant articles in the references of
found articles were also used. Since the scope of the thesis encompasses
environmental, economic, behavioral, and general information about deposit-
return systems a wide range of scientific articles was chosen to be included for
the literature review.
For articles on economic models, scientific articles published between 1981 and
2017 were used. Concerning environmental and economic impacts, behavioral
aspects, and implementation of DRSs, only articles that were published between
2000 and 2019 were considered for the literature review. Plastic packaging and
Methodology | 27
DRS for beverage containers are much-discussed topics at the moment.
Therefore, there are many recently published articles concerning environmental
and economic impacts. The majority of the considered articles were in English,
several in Swedish. Since the geographic area of research is Sweden, publications
by Swedish research institutes, news webpages or governmental authorities were
further important information sources. For the environmental impacts, one
German source was included (Dinkel et al., 2017).
3.3 Analysis of empirical material
After conducting each interview, the recording was listened to again, to
determine important aspects from the interview and to identify results in a first
step. The interview was then transcribed, which further facilitated the
familiarization of themes that became apparent in the interview (Rowley, 2012).
If unclarities occurred during the transcription or certain aspects were not
discussed thoroughly enough in the interview, the interviewee was contacted
again, either via telephone or e-mail, to sort out any unclarities or gaps. These
cases can be identified by a letter after the year in the reference (e.g. Bergendorff
(2019b)). A draft version of the report was sent to each interviewee to verify the
chosen statements prior to finalizing the report to avoid misunderstandings and
the publication of unwanted statements.
The gathered empirical material from the interviews and literature was
qualitatively analysed. For the analysis, the five DRS dimensions introduced in
chapter 2.1.2 were used as a framework to analyse the results. The information
gathered from the reviewed literature was used to complement the semi-
structured qualitative interviews. For the first objective - challenges for a DRS
extension -, literature was only used sparsely. The semi-structured interviews
provided enough empirical material to assess the challenges in the Swedish
context and there is relatively little information published so far concerning
DRSs with a broader scope. However, for the second objective - how to address
challenges with inspiration from PET DRS lessons - more data from the literature
review was included. Reasons for this are the sparse information that could be
gathered from the interviews and the wide-ranging, already published
information on existing DRSs.
Empirical material from the interviews is always presented with an indented,
italic quote in chapter 4 and 5. Empirical material from the literature is either
presented as a paraphrased reference or with a direct quote in the same style as
the rest of the text.
Methodology | 28
3.4 Methodology discussion
It must be noted that the sample size is relatively small and includes only some
key actors, which limits the possibilities to generalize the results. It was more
difficult for the second objective - lessons from the PET DRS implementation -
to gather detailed knowledge due to the time that elapsed since the DRS
implementation and the complex structure of policy implementation.
No private company that is involved in the recycling sector was willing to conduct
an interview. All of the contacted private companies referred to Returpack for an
interview. Possible reasons are limited capacity -time-wise or knowledge - or not
being willing to make public statements that could be used against the company.
However, trade federations and industry associations were more willing to
conduct interviews. This could be connected to their role as representatives of
private companies and therefore having more knowledge and resources to agree
to an interview.
The outcome of the interviews could be different if the study were conducted with
different interviewees and at a later point in time. A further aspect which could
influence the reliability of these results is the constant change that organizations,
businesses, and the political will undergo. According to Kvale (2007), the
transcription and the analysis of the interviews could further influence the
reliability of the results. Different approaches to transcribing could theoretically
result in different analyses. The validity of the study is strengthened with
thorough literature research that supports the findings of the interviews.
Challenges to make a DRS extension feasible | 29
4 Challenges to make a DRS extension feasible
In the following chapter, the results for objective 1 – challenges for a DRS
extension to plastic packaging – are presented and discussed. At the end of each
subchapter, all the named challenges are summarized.
4.1 Economic challenges
Concerning the economic challenges of a DRS scope extension, Eklöf (2019)
highlighted the large investments needed:
I think you have to have a huge investment […] when you are going to
expand the system. You have to have some sort of new machines that
collects the material or you have a person standing in the station giving
you premium refund money.
In this case, it is assumed that plastic packaging is added to Returpacks system.
The interviewee points out that the investments are large because the RVMs
would have to be adapted to the newly added plastic packaging. If a new system
according to Returpacks model is created, it can be assumed that the investments
would be even larger since a totally new infrastructure has to be implemented.
Further, the option of using personnel instead of automatic machines is depicted
which would be costly for retailers due to high wage levels. Eklöf (2019) also
emphasized the need to show the affected industries that a DRS could be
economically positive for them since the raw material might be of value :
because they [the industry] are also earning money on the plastics,
[…] you have to allow the industry to invest and make them invest, if
they see they can make more money on it.
In a very succinct answer, the respondent representing FTI AB mentioned “the
costs” as an economic challenge for a DRS expansion (Brolin, 2019). Bergendorff
(2019a), the respondent from Returpack, pointed out the following aspect as an
economic challenge:
We should be careful to expand [the system] because it is very
effective and successful as it is. One of the reasons is that we have
these uniform products that we’re collecting. So, I think if we are going
to start to take other things like PET trays then we have big
adjustments to make in the system and we would lose some of the
effectiveness.
The additional costs are not mentioned directly. However, “big adjustments” and
a loss of effectiveness in the system are pointed out. The increased inefficiency
and complexity throughout all further processes can lead to increased system
maintenance costs.
Challenges to make a DRS extension feasible | 30
One respondent pointed out, what the overarching goal should be for a DRS
extension and that the economic side of an extension is an important criterion
for that:
if you're extending the deposit system, there really needs to be an
added value of why you should do it [and] the cost is one criterion that
we need to take into account. (Nikkarinen, 2019)
Nikkarinen (2019) also identified the costs, especially from having more
separated fractions, of an extended DRS as a significant challenge:
As it looks like today where there is no economic incentive trying to
differentiate, I think it's quite difficult to do it in an economical
reasonable way. […] As soon as you try to be more and more
fragmented in the collection, it will cost more to having the system and
you need to consider that in comparison with having everything
collected and then trying to separate it in the next step.
However, he sees that at present the low demand for recycled (and renewable)
plastic could be an economic barrier to justify an extended DRS:
when […] looking at the higher demand on renewable and recycled
plastic, maybe there can be in the future economic incentives to
differentiate in that kind of way or for that reason.
The EU has clear plans for a circular economy (European Commission, 2015,
2018b).In order to achieve this, a transformation in manufacturing has to
happen. The currently linear manufacturing processes of material extraction,
processing, consumption, and incineration have to become more circular.
Currently, the demand for recycled plastic is too low for many polymers.
Therefore, it is important that the demand for recycled plastic increases, which
in turn stimulates more recycling. At the moment, the majority of plastic
packaging is fossil-based. Recycling as much fossil-based plastic as possible
should be the immediate goal. A higher share of plastic from renewable sources
should then be the long-term goal to decrease the dependence from fossil fuels.
However, there are further policy instruments or financial incentives needed,
than a DRS, to stimulate increased use of renewable materials for plastic
packaging.
The needed investments for adapting the infrastructure were a recurrent theme
throughout the interviews. If plastic packaging is added to Returpacks system,
the existing RVMs have to be adapted or new ones have to be acquired which can
handle plastic packaging. A different option is to create a totally new system
which leads to a duplication of the Returpack system. Furthermore, there were
Challenges to make a DRS extension feasible | 31
also some reflections about the possible benefits such as the value of raw
material.
The transfer of certain product groups from the EPR scope to the DRS scope will
probably result in an efficiency loss in the EPR system (Gandy et al., 2008).
Removing product groups with good recyclability properties and higher
economic value from the EPR scope will lead to a smaller EPR volume with a
lower economic value. Any additional costs in either collection system will to
some degree be passed on to the consumers if the system operators do not
manage to streamline their system sufficiently.
As the results from the interviews show, the interviewee’s perception
corresponds to the results of the literature; there are quite good estimates for the
costs to implement a DRS (Vigsø, 2004; Thörner et al., 2007; Lavee, 2010) but it
is hard to assess the net benefits or costs that a DRS causes from a socio-
economic perspective. As mentioned in the introduction, there is almost no
information to be found about DRS with a scope that goes beyond beverage
containers.
Economic challenges
• Additional costs for infrastructure - especially RVMs - either with a new system or
with integration in existing Returpack system.
• Adding plastic packaging to the existing Returpack DRS will lead to a loss of
efficiency. This can lead to higher costs.
• Current demand for recycled plastic is low which hinders investments in recycling
infrastructure.
• Transfer from plastic packaging from EPR system to DRS could lower the
economic efficiency of the EPR system.
Challenges to make a DRS extension feasible | 32
4.2 Behavioral challenges
Bergendorff (2019b) notes the following challenge connected to consumer
behavior:
An addition of pant on more types of products might make the food
prices look more expensive.
Due to the added deposit on more products, consumers could get the impression
that products became more expensive. If the DRS scope is only on a small range
of products, this might be insignificant. Depending on the extent of the DRS
scope extension, the deposit could become a more significant part of the grocery
expenses, especially for individuals with a low income. Moreover, the income
that is paid for the deposit cannot be used for other expenses until the empty
goods are returned. This issue would primarily affect low-income households.
“More packaging has to be returned in a machine, maybe that is an
obstacle […] if they live in small apartments and do not have room to
store more pant-products” (Bergendorff, 2019b).
This is another possible behavioral challenge that was brought up during the
interviews. In particular, individuals that live in small inner-city apartments
would be affected by this. However, it must be kept in mind that the whole plastic
packaging waste stream is already a part of the EPR system. Therefore, diligent
recyclers have theoretically no need to use more space for waste collection. For
individuals that start recycling as a result of the economic incentive of the DRS,
this might be an actual issue without enough storage possibilities.
A third issue that was pointed out by Bergendorff (2019b):
other bottles for food as ketchup or oil may contain more food remains
than beverage bottles and are maybe more dirty and smelly to store at
home, and to return in a machine.
Depending on the product group that is included in the DRS, the food remains
in the plastic packaging could become an issue for consumers. The beverage
containers in the present DRS are relatively clean. Other types of plastic
packaging such as oil bottles and ketchup bottles contain more food remains. As
a result, this could prevent people from returning their plastic packaging or it
could become an issue at the RVM due to odor emissions. However, the same
issue could already be present in the EPR and is very related to which product
groups are included in the DRS scope. McKinnon et al. (2018) note that the
Swedish population is already used to separating glass and paper and bringing it
to the recycling station but is not yet used to doing this to the same extent with
plastic packaging. The increased contamination with organic material and the
large volume of plastic packaging are mentioned as possible barriers.
Challenges to make a DRS extension feasible | 33
The same issue was already discussed in Lilienberg et al. (2006), where the
implementation of dairy and juice products in the Swedish DRS was investigated
in 2006. Due to hygiene concerns, no additional packaging was added to the
DRS. Since 2015, producers have the optional possibility to include juice and
smoothie products in the DRS and so far, no concerns regarding hygiene are
known (Bergendorff, 2019b). Bergendorff (2019a) stated the following when
asked about the issues raised in Lilienberg et al. (2006):
I think that was a very overcareful thing. No, I don’t believe that there
are any hygiene risks with juice bottles. It might be some more smell
from dairy, milk, yogurt and it’s very hard to measure.
The issues with food remains and its inconvenience were also noted by Hennlock
et al. (2015: p. 13): “recycling these containers is combined with larger
inconveniences (due to washing or the smell while storing it at home) for
households”.
Concerning how hard it would be for consumers to adapt to an extended system,
Wiqvist (2019) argued that
people are very used to the [reverse] vending machines or the deposit-
fee system for aluminium cans and PET bottles. I think it would be easy
to learn them as long as the system works.
As mentioned earlier, convenience is the most important factor for the recycling
behavior of consumers in a matured waste management system (Miliute-
Plepiene et al., 2016). A smooth returning process without long queues would
certainly be an important aspect of a convenient DRS. Nikkarinen (2019), on the
other hand, is more critical concerning the consumer's adaptability to an
extended DRS:
The traditional deposit on PET and aluminium bottles that has been for
a long time and for a very specific bottle type, [makes] it quite easy to
identify, which kind of packaging and bottle is included in the deposit
system. What is happening now with the extension is, that it's getting
more unclear. You can't just look at the bottle and conclude if it's a part
of the deposit system or not.
Wiqvist (2019) sees also a limit of how far the DRS could be extended with regard
to consumer behavior:
The deposit-fee system is basically building on the concept that people
are supposed to bring their materials with them and have that deposit
at the stores. So, I think there is a restriction if we expand the system
to become too large. I think there is a little risk that the consumer's
behavior or attitude will become a little bit too negative.
Challenges to make a DRS extension feasible | 34
This aspect is also connected to the challenges that are discussed under material
challenges (chapter 4.5). The consumers’ positive attitude towards the system is
important for acceptance. Maintaining this attitude is important.
Behavioral challenges
• Perception that products are more expensive with added deposit.
• Additional storage is needed for consumers to collect DRS fraction.
• Potential hygienic issues when consumers have to store packaging with food
remains.
• More difficult for consumers to identify DRS scope products.
• Scope extension is limited by consumers attitude and willingness to cooperate.
Challenges to make a DRS extension feasible | 35
4.3 Technological challenges
The system adjustments which are caused by the increased complexity were
already touched upon as an economic challenge. However, this challenge can also
be viewed from a technological perspective:
if we are going to start to take other things like PET trays then we have
big adjustments to make in the system. (Bergendorff, 2019a)
The present system is quite effective since it is relatively simple with only two
product groups and two materials. Any further extension of the DRS would lead
to a more complex system with more polymers. Further, it was also brought up
that collecting non-food packaging might create complexity:
we have this problem with the non-food that should be in a separate
stream to not contaminate the food packaging. (Bergendorff, 2019a)
If non-food packaging and food packaging become part of the DRS, they must be
collected separately. This guarantees that food packaging can be recycled into
new food packaging since it contains no toxic substances. Even if only food
packaging is collected, certain products cannot be processed together due to
different chemical compositions. For example, PET trays cannot be processed
with PET bottles despite having the same base polymer (Whitworth, 2013). All
existing or planned DRSs only have beverage containers within their scope (CM
Consulting Inc. and Reloop Platform, 2016). Therefore, no claims can be made
about the efficiency of a system that separates food and non-food packaging.
Another challenge that was pointed out by Eklöf (2019) is the standardization for
the added product group that would have to occur:
they might have some problems with the design of the bottles.
The standardization for the existing products is relatively simple since it only
includes beverage containers. This could be challenging when a broader product
group is included in the DRS since the boundaries between the products are more
blurred. Further, the Swedish market is a relatively small market. This aspect
significantly reduces the leverage that the Swedish DRS could have over
international producers to adopt very strict product packaging specifications,
apart from the labelling. Another technological challenge, that is connected to
the standardization, could be regarding safety:
this is also about […] food safety […] regarding the chemicals as we
are talking about food products first of all. (Nikkarinen, 2019)
Compared to PET bottles, almost any extension of the DRS will include a higher
variety of polymers which could have a more complicated composition and
chemical additives. Therefore, it is important that there is a strict standardization
Challenges to make a DRS extension feasible | 36
that regulates the composition and additives to comply with safety regulations,
especially regarding packaging that is in contact with food. It is hard to convince
business customers to buy recycled plastic since there is some uncertainty about
the properties and content of the recycled material (Felix, 2015). Moreover,
virgin plastic is still quite inexpensive (Felix, 2015). Wiqvist (2019) pointed out
a big advantage of having RVMs in retail stores:
it is handled in the stores and this means that you have a total overview of the system,
you can control it and you can repair it the whole time when it goes down.
RVMs as a complex technological artifact should therefore only be placed in
places where enough personnel are present to maintain the system. Alternatives
that offer that condition and are convenient for consumers are difficult to find on
a large scale.
Gandy et al. (2008) note that a DRS requires labeling on all products within the
scope. Labelling is needed to inform the consumer about the product being part
of the DRS and to verify that deposit was paid on the product. To limit fraud and
facilitate control of the returned goods, bar codes are used. Depending on the
product group, the required labeling could affect a wide range of products.
The RVMs take in a key role in the DRS. The current DRS’s efficiency and
convenience would not be possible without RVMs. The importance of
infrastructure emerged again in the interviews. RVMs were named as the most
significant cost factor but also as the technological artifact that is determining
the success of an extended DRS:
You have to have some sort of new machines that collects the material
(Eklöf, 2019).
As pointed out by Eklöf, further technological development is needed to process
the returned goods with RVMs. Again, this is very dependent on which products
are added to the DRS scope.
Technological challenges
• Higher complexity in the system makes the system less efficient, multiple
polymers in one packaging item complicate subsequent recycling.
• Possible presence of food and non-food packaging in the collection. Fractions
should be separated.
• Standardization for products is more complex with more polymers and potential
toxic chemical additives.
• Every item within the DRS scope has to be labelled specifically
• High technological dependence on RVMs. Further technological advancements are
needed.
Challenges to make a DRS extension feasible | 37
4.4 Organizational challenges
In the present system, the retail stores are the place where the beverage
containers can be returned and the refund is paid. Bergendorff (2019a) remarked
that an extended DRS might be challenging for retailers:
They already now think that the volume of the pant [the DRS] is too
much. They have really small spaces for this kind of thing. They want
to have as much selling space as possible in the stores. Especially in
the big cities, like central locations.
For some retailers at central locations, the volume of returned goods is already
now relatively high. With more products in the DRS, the volume could become
even higher. The retailers are compensated for each handled aluminium can and
PET bottle but need to reserve valuable selling and storage space for handling
the returned bottles. Wiqvist (2019) also pointed out that the DRS extension
could cause problems for retailers:
What I think could be the most critical thing will be how to handle the
large volume that will occur in the stores because all of a sudden if you
expand the system, especially if you expand it many items, there will
be a flow from the existing recycling container to the deposit-fee
system and therefore it is important that the logistics is prepared for
such an expansion.
Up until now, the largest share of products with deposit is sold in food retail
stores and Systembolaget, the government-owned stores that sell alcoholic
beverages. Depending on how the scope of the DRS is extended, some general
retailers would probably sell products, such as cosmetics, on which a deposit
must be paid. Nikkarinen (2019) highlights that this could pose a challenge:
it's a little bit more difficult to see in which kind of way it would be
reasonable in general retail sector.
This can also be connected to the issue with the volume that food retailers would
have to handle and could lead to general retailers also having to provide RVMs
for their customers.
Wiqvist (2019) highlighted the following:
it’s also important to strengthen that […] it is really the responsibility of
the producers to also put up the infrastructure and the logistics
This is in line with Lindhqvists (2000) classification of a DRS as part of the EPR
principle. Such a strict interpretation of the EPR principle would put more
pressure on producers to design the packaging in such a way that the retail stores
can handle the volume that would enter their stores with a DRS.
Challenges to make a DRS extension feasible | 38
Brolin (2019) stated clearly that they would not manage any deposit system:
FTI will not manage any deposit system.
While the Returpack respondent stated that:
it could be a new stream in our system. (Bergendorff, 2019a)
From a legislative perspective, it should not be a big challenge to extend the
existing legislation:
I don’t think it’s too much of a problem for us to expand existing
legislation. (Eklöf, 2019)
However, Eklöf (2019) pointed further out that the involved industry needs some
time beforehand. This allows the industry to figure out how they want to organize
the DRS and to invest properly in the system to handle the material flows:
we have to expand it in such a way that the industry is prepared to
handle this new material because they have to invest.[…] If the
politicians would like to expand the system to other plastic packaging,
they could easily do so but politicians will not do that if they know that
the industry cannot handle the new material without a massive
investment. I think that is the bottleneck.
Moreover, Eklöf (2019) pointed out how the affected companies should organize
to create an efficient and convenient system:
The best thing would be if the recycling system would have contact
with all the shops then, so not every shop has its own recycling system.
(Eklöf, 2019).
This allows making processes such as transportation, separation, and
transactions more efficient by taking advantage of economies of scale. It is also
more convenient for the consumer since there are no differences between the
shops. This challenge is very connected to economic and behavioral challenges.
When looking beyond the DRS and at the entire recycling value chain, Felix
(2015) notes that in the Swedish context a closer collaboration between actors is
needed. Moreover, some actors are missing to close loops and increase plastic
recycling. Besides that, energy recovery through incineration is an established
procedure with a large existing infrastructure. As a result, further efforts to
increase plastic packaging recycling could be inhibited (Felix, 2015).
Challenges to make a DRS extension feasible | 39
Organizational challenges
• The additional volume at the RVMs could make the retail stores an opposing actor.
• Sudden increase in volume could be difficult to handle for logistics.
• More products from the DRS scope could be sold at general retail stores. This
could put pressure on these stores to also provide RVMs.
• A management entity has to be chosen. Returpack, FTI, or a new organization are
possible alternatives.
• The industry needs time to organize and adapt before the system is integrated.
• The system should include as many actors as possible; actors are more numerous
than just the beverage sector.
• Missing actors in recycling value chain.
Challenges to make a DRS extension feasible | 40
4.5 Material challenges
Wiqvist (2019) pointed out an important aspect of plastic characteristics:
For plastic packaging, I would say, it’s probably more complicated
because if you mix the system with many different kinds of plastic, it
will create a lot of problems downstream when you are trying to sort
out different kind of plastic. So, you have to be careful when you add
new plastic materials into the deposit-fee system [DRS].
The variety of plastics - that makes all the versatile use cases of plastic possible –
becomes a challenge when the plastic packaging waste needs to be sorted. This
entails that plastic packaging collection in a DRS should be done with caution. In
order to keep the scope of the DRS transparent and easily identifiable for the
consumers, it is vital that the DRS is only applied to “tightly defined categories
of products” (OECD, 2015: p. 61).
Moreover, there are many plastic products which are a mixture of different
polymer materials and therefore difficult to process for material recycling.
Around 40 % of plastic packaging can be recycled, 35 % cannot be recycled, and
a quarter of all plastic packaging could technologically be recycled but the low
demand for recycled plastic makes it economically infeasible (Svensk
Dagligvaruhandel, 2018b).
Looking at the data from the Austrian MFA (Van Eygen et al., 2018a), it becomes
clear that several product groups have almost equal market shares. Hence, no
product group is favorable over the others.
As discussed under behavioral challenges, there might be hygienic issues due to
food remains with certain product groups of the plastic packaging waste stream.
Again, this is dependent on whether only non-food or food packaging is collected,
or both together. Especially hollow bodies are probably more prone to food
remains due to their closed structure while films are less prone to having food
remains left in them. Hennlock et al. (2015) note that plastic packaging can
create inconveniences for consumers due to washing or smelling during storage.
Material challenges
• Defining a suitable product group for an extended DRS that can be adequately
standardized, homogenized, and understood by consumers.
• Making the collected fraction too heterogeneous with too many polymers.
• Avoid hygienic issues.
Possible solutions to identified challenges | 41
5 Possible solutions to identified challenges
In this chapter, possible solutions to the previously identified challenges are
presented. Lessons from earlier DRSs are used as a starting point and are
complemented with other possible solutions. The proposed solutions are
presented below and are categorized according to the five dimensions of a DRS.
At the end of each subchapter, all mentioned solutions are summarized.
5.1 Solutions to economic challenges
Nikkarinen (2019) pointed out that the economic incentive of the DRS and the
achieved high collection rates are a lesson in itself that could provide support for
further DRS extensions:
That [the economic incentive of the DRS] may be the most important
one, cause you need look at why you have this deposit system as well
and a part of it is because you’re trying to make sure that it does not
end up in nature.
Daléus (2019) highlighted that the industry was supportive to the
implementation of a DRS and consequently also the EPR:
they [the industry] said, ok we can do it, […] if you let it have financial
implications.
Conditions for the support were, that the industry does not have to fulfill strict
legislation but prefers to have a set goal. Having the freedom to figure out the
most efficient way combined with financial implications such as environmental
taxes is appealing to the industry. The appeal of this model of environmental
legislation was also pointed out by Jørgensen (2011) in the context of Sweden
setting a environmental tax for cans before the DRS for aluminium cans was
implemented.
Furthermore, having this freedom allows the involved actors within the system
to react to shifts in the market and consumer behavior. As mentioned by
Bergendorff (2019a), the volume of the returned goods is already overwhelming
for some retailers in the present system. With Returpack as the management
entity of the system, adaptations to this could be made faster than with strict
legislation that must be modified in a lengthy process. Pantamera (n.d.)
emphasized that all involved actors in the DRS were aware of the benefits for
them and their responsibilities. As a result, there were no issues to be resolved at
the implementation of the DRS. Therefore, any DRS scope extension should
maintain the degree of freedom that the industry has. The existing DRS shows,
that this approach is appropriate and could be a way to figure out more efficient
system configurations.
Possible solutions to identified challenges | 42
The high additional expenditures for infrastructure, especially the RVMs, and the
loss of efficiency when the extension happens in the existing DRS were named as
two significant economic challenges for a DRS extension. One approach to keep
the investments to a minimum is to extend the scope in a way that no significant
modifications are needed within Returpacks DRS. This means, that as much use
of the existing RVMs should be made which could be achieved with including
bottle-like products in the scope. These products are the most similar to the
existing DRS products and entail therefore no major modifications in the
infrastructure. This approach would also address the issues of a possible
efficiency loss resulting from a broadened DRS scope. On the contrary, by
creating a new system the opportunity arises to figure out a more efficient system
configuration and include a wider scope.
Despite causing considerably high investment costs, the application of RVMs
reduces the maintenance costs of a DRS. The expected high cost of handling the
returned goods manually, with personnel, shows the importance of
implementing RVMs in a DRS to achieve maximum efficiency (Fullana i Palmer
et al., 2017).
Creating a higher demand for recycled plastic with policy measures could
alleviate the economic issue of the large investments as well. A higher demand
could make the investments in new infrastructure more profitable. Possible
instruments to facilitate this could be among other things: required minimal
share of renewable materials in plastic items, tax on the use of fossil-based
plastic, or lowered value-added tax for packaging with renewable materials
(Hasselström et al., 2018).
The material transfer from the EPR to the DRS will probably lead to a lowered
economic value of the collected EPR fraction. However, the producers that are
affected by the DRS regulation are also part of the EPR system. Moreover, if the
fraction that is added to the DRS is purer, an increased value could be achieved
for this fraction. As a result, the losses in the EPR system could be compensated.
All the expressed concerns regarding the significant costs of an extended DRS
are in relation to the present economic circumstances. As mentioned before,
other instruments could change these circumstances. A tax on incineration or
increased CO2 emission taxes could be more extensive instruments that would
increase the incentives to collect for recycling drastically.
The results in this report highlight that setting up an extended DRS might make
use of existing infrastructure and thereby keep the investments to a low level. In
order to achieve this, the scope extension has to take into account the possibilities
of the existing infrastructure. As soon as any scope extension requires significant
investments in new infrastructure, the system should be planned in a way to
Possible solutions to identified challenges | 43
include as many product groups as possible in future scope extensions without
further investments.
Economic challenges Solutions
• Additional costs for infrastructure
(especially RVMs) either with a new
system or with integration in existing
Returpack system
Define extended scope to keep infrastructure
modifications to a minimum; policies to
increase demand for recycled plastic; show
potential for financial benefits to the
industry.
• Adding plastic packaging to existing
Returpack DRS will lead to a loss of
efficiency. This can lead to higher costs.
Define extended scope to keep infrastructure
modifications to a minimum; policies to
increase demand for recycled plastic; show
potential for financial benefits to the
industry; keep degree of freedom for the
industry the same as in the existing DRS.
• Current demand for recycled plastic is
low, which hinders investments in
recycling infrastructure.
Introduce policies to increase demand such
as minimal share of recycled plastic, tax on
use of fossil-based plastic.
• Transfer from plastic packaging from
EPR system to DRS could lower the
economic efficiency of the EPR system.
Higher economic value of DRS fraction could
compensate for losses in EPR system.
Possible solutions to identified challenges | 44
5.2 Solutions to behavioral challenges
Regarding behavior challenges with an extended DRS, the following issues were
identified: perception of increased product prices, additional storage needed,
hygienic issues for consumers and retailers, increased difficulty to identify DRS
products, and limitations for scope extension. To avoid the perception that
products become more expensive, several approaches are conceivable. As it is
done now, the product price in the store should not include the deposit but the
paid deposit should be noted on the receipt. Moreover, not all plastic packaging
items should be included but only a part of the whole waste stream. This avoids
that deposit must be paid on every item. Further, the level of the deposit has an
influence on the perception of product prices. The deposit is in many cases an
insignificant share of people’s income but rather targets people’s loss aversion
(Low, 2012). Therefore, the deposit level could be kept relatively low when more
products are included in the DRS scope. Hence, the perception of more expensive
products can be avoided.
The issue that consumers need additional storage to collect the DRS fractions is
relatively hard to solve with general solutions. One part of the solution is to
provide a convenient network of return points so that returning goods can be
done conveniently and regularly. However, only plastic packaging that is now
within the EPR scope would be considered for a DRS extension. Therefore, no
additional storage for individuals that are recycling already would be needed.
Only individuals that did not recycle so far and have limited storage possibilities
would be affected by this.
Regarding possible hygienic issues, it could be appropriate to extend the DRS at
first with non-food products that are in bottle-like containers, such as soap
containers or shampoo bottles. These could be implemented in the existing
infrastructure and pose a low risk for hygienic issues.
With a broader DRS scope, it will probably become more difficult for consumers
to quickly identify if a plastic product is within the scope of the DRS. This could
be counteracted with a well-defined scope extension that is easy to understand
and good labeling. Considering Van Eygens et al. (2018a) categorization, small
hollow bodies seems like a product group that could be communicated with the
consumers in an effective way. Large EPS and other products are definitely
harder to understand for consumers. Films - both large and small - are easy to
understand on first sight but might create some confusion due to the metallic
look of, for example, potato chips packaging. Further measures include
information campaigns to raise awareness and making use of the high acceptance
of the existing system. The issue that public acceptance might become more
negative if the DRS becomes too broad and too complex could be counteracted
with a tightly defined scope.
Possible solutions to identified challenges | 45
Eklöf (2019) stated that the consumers and producers are more aware of
sustainability issues regarding plastic and its recycling compared to some years
ago:
it became a good thing for companies to say, look my product is within
the refund recycling system, I’m thinking about the environment.
Bergendorff (2019a) pointed out the same aspect:
I think, right now the consumers are ready to have and pay the deposit
for the products.
As a result, pressure is generated on the producers to deliver more sustainable
solutions. While this aspect is not directly a solution, could it be of importance
since it lessens some of the identified challenges. According to Bergendorff
(2019a), there are many cases where producers want to enter non-beverage
containers in Returpacks DRS and are asking how to make their packaging more
sustainable than the technical specifications require:
3 or 4 years ago most producers looked at us as an obstacle to launch
new packaging […] but nowadays, the producers are fulfilling our
requirements and then they ask how can we make it even more
sustainable […] and how can we enter more products and other
product groups.
Up until now, the industry was always perceived as an opponent to a DRS since
it causes additional administrative tasks and costs (Numata, 2009). The cited
statement, however, shows that the sentiment within the industry seems to have
changed. Nikkarinen (2019) also highlights that Swedish consumers are used to
having a DRS:
In Sweden, there is this general kind of understanding and acceptance
of the deposit-system and recycling and so on. So, that [extending the
DRS] of course is easier in Sweden compared to quite a lot of other
European countries.
This already existing high acceptance of DRSs could be an important foundation
which could facilitate a scope extension. As mentioned before, the high
awareness that is present in the general population about plastic and
sustainability is a new aspect in the discussion about DRS. This could be of
importance since the consumers can act as a driver not only on a political level
but also regarding corporate social responsibility.
Pantamera, which is a Returpack trademark used for communications, is very
active in communicating the DRS with the public. The success of their marketing
strategy is reflected in the high acceptance and good reputation that the DRS has
Possible solutions to identified challenges | 46
in the public (Pantamera, n.d.). Communications and good information can
improve the quality of sorted household waste while convenience is the most
important factor in bringing more households to recycle (Miliute-Plepiene et al.,
2016). Convenience for consumers in the Swedish DRS is mainly optimized by
making it clear which products are within the DRS scope and having a high
number of return points with RVMs. The DRS implementation of PET bottles
after the aluminium can implementation showed that the consumers were
already used to the DRS (Pantamera, n.d.; Jørgensen, 2011). Hence, this effect
could also occur for further scope extensions.
Behavioral challenges Solutions
• Perception that products are more
expensive with added deposit.
Only show product price in shop and state
deposit amount clearly on the receipt; keep
deposit level low; do not make scope too
broad.
• Additional storage is needed for
consumers to collect DRS fraction.
A tight network of return points to allow
regular returning.
• Potential hygienic issues when
consumers have to store packaging with
food remains.
Include only non-food packaging.
• More difficult for consumers to identify
DRS scope products.
Keep scope very tightly defined; labeling;
information campaigns.
• Scope extension is limited by consumers
attitude and willingness to cooperate.
Tightly defined scope extension. Utilize the
high acceptance of the DRS.
Possible solutions to identified challenges | 47
5.3 Solutions to technological challenges
The higher complexity in an extended DRS could be counteracted with having
one designated RVM for the traditional fractions, aluminium cans and PET
bottles, and an additional RVM for the new fractions. Moreover, technological
progress could make it feasible to process the returned goods faster, as with the
express-RVMs, and process both fractions within the same RVM. Further
technological improvements and cost reductions could also lower the inhibitive
effect of the investments needed for RVMs.
Another mentioned technological challenge is the mixing of food and non-food
packaging which would have an impact on further recycling processes. Therefore,
it should be the goal to keep these two fractions separate. This can be achieved
by extending the DRS to only non-food or food packaging. Including only non-
food packaging avoids any issues with chemical additives. Another approach
might be to collect food and non-food packaging together. Recycled material
from this collection could not be reprocessed into the more valuable food
packaging. However, a higher quantity of plastic packaging could be considered
for the extension.
Concerning technological lessons from the existing DRS, Pantamera (n.d.)
named two important aspects: first, there should be an agreed standardization
regarding the material properties - accepted polymers, labeling, form, and size -
between all involved actors. This standardization is important to keep the entire
system and the value chain efficient. Moreover, it can have the potential to
contribute to a high material quality which can translate to increased material
value. Second, the system was gradually extended, without any system
transitions. Having no system transitions was beneficial since no major
modifications to the system infrastructure had to be made but also with regard
to consumer behavior and acceptance.
Possible solutions to identified challenges | 48
Technological challenges Solutions
• Higher complexity in the system makes
the system less efficient and complicates
subsequent recycling.
Smart scope extension; assess technological
improvements - especially for RVMs.
• Possible presence of food and non-food
packaging in the collection. Fractions
should be separated.
Only food or non-food packaging collection;
common manual for technical specifications.
• Standardization for products is more
complex with more polymers and toxic
chemical additives.
Incorporate this as criteria in DRS extension
plans; common manual for technical
specifications.
• Every item within the DRS scope has to
be labelled specifically
Common manual for technical specifications.
• High technological dependence on
RVMs. Technological advancements are
needed.
Investigate technological improvements of
RVMs to increase efficiency and reduce costs.
Possible solutions to identified challenges | 49
5.4 Solutions to organizational challenges
As emphasized before, the additional volume could be an issue for the retail
stores. It is not mandatory for retailers to provide an RVM in every store.
Therefore, it is important that the retailers do not become opposed to an
extended DRS. A gradual extension of the DRS scope might be an appropriate
solution:
[extend] it gradually, so you can see how the volume will expand and
you can learn from that how to arrange for the logistics. (Wiqvist, 2019)
A gradual extension might be beneficial for the retailers since it allows to benefit
from learning effects. This approach would also fit in with Returpacks strategy of
including a steadily increasing number of juice and smoothie products beyond
the traditional DRS scope (Olofsson, 2017). On one hand, it might be easier with
this strategy to teach and inform the consumers constantly about newly added
products. On the other hand, it might also have an overwhelming factor for the
consumers if the scope is extended annually without a clear bigger picture. If the
DRS extensions happens in a new system, another option than the retail stores
could be chosen for the return points but this would probably not achieve the
same convenience for consumers.
A broadened DRS scope could lead to increased pressure towards general retail
stores from the food retail stores. With the result, that these stores also have to
provide RVMs since the existing RVMs cannot handle the increased volume or
are not willing to sacrifice more space. A gradual scope extension could help
alleviate this and give the industry time to figure out better options, if needed. A
possible alternative to RVMs in general retail stores might be to increase the
handling fee that the retail stores receive for each returned good.
Depending upon the extent to which the scope will be expanded, the industry
needs some time to adapt to the scope expansion. If the scope extension includes
plastic packaging that can make use of the existing infrastructure, for example
small hollow bodies, it can be expected that the extension can be put into practice
relatively quick. However, more time is required when significant modifications
in infrastructure and organizational structure become necessary due to a broader
scope extension. This is also connected to how the political process with the
industry is handled. Eklöf (2019) proposed:
they [the policy-makers] have a hearing with the industry, they talk
about the problem and the possibilities […] and with the information
from the industry they can decide that the new legal act is introduced
in three or five years.
Possible solutions to identified challenges | 50
With this approach, the industry can form the needed organizational structures
and infrastructure to be prepared for the regulatory changes.
As touched upon several times before, there does not seem to be a straight-
forward way to figure out the best organizational structure for a DRS extension.
Returpack would probably be the most appropriate choice since they do not seem
to be opposed to a scope extension. The high acceptance of the system and the
convenient network of RVMs throughout the country are clear advantages of the
Returpack DRS. However, the system is designed for two materials and any scope
modification would entail adaptions in infrastructure. Needed changes in
infrastructure would include either a second RVM at every retail store to handle
the plastic packaging or modifications of the existing ones to be able to handle
plastic packaging. Moreover, Returpacks’ facility can probably not process non-
PET plastic packaging and would therefore also need to be adapted or the
collected goods must be processed at another facility.
At the moment Returpack is owned by private companies of the beverage sector.
With a DRS extension within the Returpack system, the variety of involved
companies would increase significantly. A new system, established by all the
affected companies, would solve this issue but would entail accordingly high
initial investments. Another possible approach could be FTI since they are used
to handle mixed plastic packaging. However, FTI seemed to be very opposed to
the idea of taking on responsibility for a DRS and does not have the necessary
infrastructure. This decision must be taken by the industry after they figured out
the most cost-effective solution which in the best case includes as many affected
companies as possible.
In theory, multiple different DRS could co-exist with independent collection
systems (Jordbruksverket, 2015). However, having one large system is supposed
to be the most efficient and convenient for the consumers since all actors are
within the same system (Pantamera, n.d.). In 2017, 2 % of all deposit products in
Returpacks system were part of it on a voluntary basis (Returpack Svenska AB,
2018a). This shows that the industry is willing to extend the scope of the DRS
when the entry barriers are low and companies see benefits for their CSR work.
Daléus (2019) pointed out a lesson from the EPR implementation which can be
transferred to the DRS case:
you have to be very clear and very firm about how do you give the
information to the industry. […] I think the important idea was to give
them the information that this will be coming, no matter what.
This approach puts pressure on the affected industry to take responsibility and
shows that there is no resort to compromises. Another aspect that was pointed
Possible solutions to identified challenges | 51
out by Daléus (2019) from the EPR implementation is that the responsibility
should be put solely on the producer and should not be shared between the
producers and municipalities:
either it’s the producer or it’s the local authorities that are responsible
with what happens with the packaging. And I would go for the
producers.
The municipalities have at present no responsibility. Therefore, this is not a
solution to a challenge but rather a lesson from the existing system to keep in
mind. Moreover, a clear dialog from the beginning with the industry is key for
successful cooperation:
the important idea was to give them the information that this will be
coming, no matter what. And after that was done, they started to
cooperate. (Daléus, 2019).
Organizational challenges Solutions
• The additional volume at the RVMs could
make the retail stores an opposing actor.
Gradual scope extension to reap learning
effects.
• Sudden increase in volume could be
difficult to handle for logistics.
Gradual scope extension to reap learning
effects and let actors adapt to volume.
• More products from the DRS scope could
be sold at general retail stores. This could
put pressure on these stores to also
provide RVMs.
Gradual scope extension gives the industry
time to adapt; increase handling fee for food
retail stores to increase incentive for
providing an RVM.
• A management entity has to be chosen.
Returpack, FTI, or a new organization are
possible alternatives.
Returpack has good prerequisites; new
organization might be more cost-effective.
• The industry needs time to organize and
adapt before the system is integrated.
Keep scope narrow; conduct hearings with
industry and then decide on the appropriate
timeframe.
• The system should include as many
actors as possible; actors are more
numerous than just the beverage sector.
Attempt to unite producers in a management
entity like Returpack and create large-scale
system.
• Missing actors in recycling value chain. Give the industry time and opportunities to
adapt.
Possible solutions to identified challenges | 52
5.5 Solutions to material challenges
The DRS scope extension faces several challenges that are connected to the
material dimension of the DRS. Most of these challenges are interconnected to
either the technological or the behavioral dimension. The most significant
identified material challenges are that the scope should be extended with a
product group that can be adequately standardized, homogenized, and is easy to
grasp for consumers. Moreover, the scope extension should not lead to a
significant increase of polymers in the collected fraction.
Concerning the material aspects, Nikkarinen (2019) mentioned that the
advantages of uniform products are a lesson from the existing system:
the traditional deposit of PET and aluminium bottles that has been for
a long time and for a very specific bottle type is quite easy to identify,
which kind of packaging and bottle is included in the deposit system.
The same statement was used already to emphasize Nikkarinens concerns
regarding behavioral challenges. However, the above-cited first part of this
concern can also be interpreted as a lesson for future DRSs. Wiqvist (2019)
thinks that a possible way to extend the system could be:
Start with anything that reminds of a bottle. Because if we should use
the existing TOMRA system, they are using this identification bar code
placed on the bottle so it will be more complex if you should use it for
flat material.
Taking this into account, hollow bodies are more favourable than films, large
EPS, and other products. An extension to bottle-like containers seems a
reasonable way to extend the system while keep using the same infrastructure.
Contrary to plastic packaging without a fixed form, which will create more issues
to implement in the existing infrastructure. Further, Wiqvist (2019) proposed
the following regarding polymer variability of a DRS extension:
start to use it [the extended DRS] for PET materials and perhaps
expand it later on to other materials which could be separated from
PET downstream the collection point.
This would entail to first include PET packaging that is not in the system yet and
then at a later point start to include a product group with a polymer that is easy
to separate from PET. Table 1 in chapter 2.3.2 showed that PET can be found in
the product group PET bottles and other products. Colored PET bottles, which
are already in the DRS scope, and PET trays could be recycled but there is
insufficient demand. Hence, further flanking policy measures to increase
demand for recycled plastic could be supportive. Suitable polymers for the DRS
extension that are profitable to recycle could be: LDP, PP, and HDPE (FTI AB,
Possible solutions to identified challenges | 53
2018). LDPE can be found in the product groups small films and large films while
HDPE and PP can be found in small hollow bodies and large hollow bodies. All
three polymers occur also in the product group other products. However, due to
the large variety within this product group, this product group is not further
assessed. From a purely material standpoint, films - small and large - and hollow
bodies - small and large - seem to be suitable product groups for the scope
extension after the PET extension.
Taking previously discussed behavioral and technological aspects into account,
small hollow bodies seems to be the most suitable product group for a DRS scope
extension. However, as pointed out in the interviews, an inclusion of the entire
hollow bodies small product group in the DRS scope is unrealistic. More realistic
would be to include a part of this product group. An MFA of the Swedish plastic
packaging flows and a subsequent multi-criteria analysis (MCDA) would provide
a more thorough decision basis to decide which product groups to include in the
DRS scope.
Material challenges Solutions
• Defining a suitable product group for an
extended DRS that can be adequately
standardized, homogenized, and
understood by consumers.
Extend scope first with PET products, then
small hollow bodies; quantify plastic
packaging flows in Sweden with an MFA;
assess best option for scope extension with a
MCDA.
• Making the collected fraction too
heterogeneous with too many polymers.
Extend gradually to PET, then small hollow
bodies; quantify plastic packaging flows in
Sweden with an MFA; assess best option for
scope extension with a MCDA.
Conclusion | 54
6 Conclusion
This report investigated the challenges of extending the Swedish DRS to post-
consumer plastic packaging and how these challenges could be addressed, with
lessons from the PET DRS as a starting point. In this chapter, the conclusions are
presented. The results show that there are important challenges to be solved in
all five dimensions to make an extended DRS feasible. There are several lessons
from the PET DRS to address these identified challenges. However, some
challenges for a DRS extension need novel approaches.
In general, there is a potential for the existing DRS to be extended to plastic
packaging. The low-hanging fruits are small hollow bodies, which can with
relative ease be implemented in existing infrastructure and are easy to grasp for
consumers. Despite having a larger market share, other product groups are
probably less cost-effective to include in the DRS due to larger infrastructural
changes and behavioral issues. The focus should primarily be on non-food
packaging to avoid hygiene issues with consumers and retailers. In order to build
good consumers acceptance for the system and let the actors adapt, the extension
should happen gradually and the scope should not be made too broad.
This shows that the potential for including plastic packaging is limited by several
aspects. The most significant limiting aspects are rising investments in
infrastructure, low demand for recycled plastic, technological restrictions for
processing and recycling, and the consumer's acceptance of an extended DRS.
Many consumers are aware of issues concerning plastic packaging. This could be
an important driver to push for a DRS extension. Moreover, recent development
in the EU shows that there is a political will to improve current plastic waste
management. This influences national policy and could lead to policy measures
that favor a DRS extension by making plastic packaging recycling more
profitable.
The results of this report point out some important aspects that could support
the debate on what a more sustainable plastic packaging waste treatment could
look like in the future. There is a number of countries that have a very similar
DRS in place as Returpacks’ DRS. The findings from this report could to a limited
degree be applied to these cases when discussing plastic packaging waste
treatment.
There is also a number of other countries that are discussing a DRS
implementation for beverage containers. The findings from this study could help
to configure these planned DRSs in a way that circumvents possible limiting
aspects that are presented in this report. A gradual implementation of first
beverage containers and then subsequently plastic packaging is probably
Conclusion | 55
preferable in these cases since it allows the consumers and affected industries to
adapt to the new situation. However, the small sample size and the non-
probabilistic sample approach limit the extent to which findings can be
transferred to other cases. Moreover, the topic of the thesis has hardly been
researched before which gives the thesis an exploratory character. Therefore, the
results from this thesis should not be seen as definitive conclusions but rather as
first insights into a new topic and a foundation for further research.
6.1 Roadmap for an extended DRS
From the presented solutions a roadmap can be outlined (see Figure 6). The
present DRS scope includes only aluminium cans and PET bottles. As a result,
the infrastructure is only able to handle these two packaging shapes and
materials. To take partly advantage of this infrastructure, the first step of the DRS
scope extension should include PET packaging that is not yet in the scope. As
mentioned, these packages can often not be recycled with PET bottles due to
quality discrepancies (Whitworth, 2013). However, there are probably some
synergies throughout the recycling value chain which can be taken advantage of.
These PET packages are best collected in a separate RVM which should be
designed to handle packaging that is included in the DRS scope at a later point
in time. Therefore, the future product groups should already be known, to plan
ahead.
After the PET packages, the DRS should be extended to include non-food
packaging from the product group small hollow bodies. In that way, hygienic
issues are avoided, a graspable product group for consumers is included, and the
polymer variation can be kept low. The extension should happen gradually over
several years, in order to educate the consumers and let the retail stores adapt to
the increased volume. Thereafter, an inclusion of food-packaging or other
product groups could be assessed. Technological process regarding RVMs might
has made it possible to combine the traditional RVM with the RVM for the
extended DRS into one machine and thereby increase the economic efficiency of
the extended DRS.
Conclusion | 56
Figure 6: A schematic roadmap for an extended DRS.
Throughout this whole process, flanking policy measures that increase the
demand for recycled plastic should be implemented. These could increase the
incentive for producers to provide a DRS that results in high recycling rates.
6.2 List of recommendations to actors
Policy makers
• Extend the scope of the DRS for plastic packaging gradually over several
years, according to the roadmap outlined above: At first, PET packaging that
is not yet in the DRS should be added. Then, in subsequent years, the scope
should be extended to include small hollow bodies that are used for non-food
purposes, for example laundry detergent and cleaning products.
• Conduct hearings with the affected industries and decide on an appropriate
timeframe to implement the extensions of the DRS scope. Furthermore, let
the industry know what further extensions are planned, so they are prepared
and can invest and adapt accordingly.
• Introduce policies to increase demand for recycled plastic. This should
facilitate investments in infrastructure for the extended DRS and plastic
recycling. Possible policies are: minimum percentage of recycled plastic in
plastic packaging and taxes on plastic from fossil sources.
Industry
• In general, the affected industries, producers and retail stores, should either
merge with Returpack or form an independent management entity that
Conclusion | 57
includes as many affected companies as possible. This can be beneficial in
figuring out a system configuration that benefits all affected companies.
• Seek measures to facilitate recycling of plastic packaging. As a result, it
becomes more profitable to recycle. This would increase the collection and
processing efficiency.
Producers
o Create a common manual for technical specifications. Hence, all
producers use material in their products that have good properties for
recycling.
Retail stores
o Investigate to which degree RVMs could technologically be improved
concerning efficiency enhancements, hygiene measures, and
processing of non-bottle-like products.
o Assess if the increased volume from the plastic packaging is justifiable
to handle. An increased handling fee for returned goods or RVMs at
general retail stores might alleviate this issue.
Recycling industry
o Make it clear to the producers, which materials and additives are
detrimental for plastic recycling and which materials can be used.
Consumers and consumer organizations
• Keep issues that arise from plastic packaging high on the agenda
• Consumer organizations could help educating consumers about issues
with plastic packaging and advantages of recycling.
6.3 Further research
This report only focused on the challenges for the implementation of plastic
packaging into a DRS and lessons from the PET DRS. Thus, the focus in the
supply chain is only on the return of the post-consumer waste back to the
industry. However, many issues that are discussed in relation to plastic
packaging are also strongly connected to the production of plastic packaging and
what happens with the collected plastic packaging. These issues cannot be
further investigated in this report. However, they are an important part of
making the plastic packaging supply chain more sustainable and, therefore,
could be interesting topics for further research.
As mentioned before, there is little quantified information about the costs and
benefits of the Swedish DRS. In order to make supported statements about any
Conclusion | 58
additional investments and benefits of including plastic packaging in a DRS,
further research is needed about the cost-effectiveness of the existing system.
Besides that, an assessment of the present post-consumer plastic packaging
flows in Sweden in the form of an MFA could support further quantitative
research. A multi-criteria analysis which assesses the suitability of product
groups for the DRS more detailed could also benefit from a Swedish MFA. The
results of the MFA could further be used as a base for developing several different
scenarios of an extended DRS. These scenarios could then be used to perform an
LCA and to assess potential economic impacts.
References | 59
References
AALBERS, R.F.T. and VOLLEBERGH, H.R.J., 2008. An economic analysis of mixing wastes. Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 39, No. 3, p. 311–330.
ABBOTT, A., NANDEIBAM, S., and O’SHEA, L., 2013. Recycling: Social norms and warm-glow revisited. Ecological Economics, Vol. 90, p. 10–18.
ANDERBERG, M. and THISTED, S., 2015. Swedish Waste Streams in a Circular Economy, p. 131.
ARENA, U., MASTELLONE, M.L., and PERUGINI, F., 2003. Life Cycle assessment of a plastic packaging recycling system. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 92–98.
ATRI, S. and SCHELLBERG, T., 1995. Efficient Management of Household Solid Waste: a General Equilibrium Model. Public Finance Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 1, p. 3–39.
AVFALL SVERIGE, 2018. Avfallshantering 2018 [Waste Treatment 2018]. AXFOOD, 2015. Pant även på saftflaskor [Deposit now on juice bottles] [online]. Axfood.
Available: http://www.axfood.se/media-och-opinion/pressmeddelanden/2015/09/pant-aven-pa-saftflaskor/ [Accessed 2019-3-14].
BERGENDORFF, S., 2019a. Interview with Sara Bergendorff, responsible for producers and imports at Returpack AB. Phone.
BERGENDORFF, S., 2019b. E-Mail Bergendorff 12.04.2019. BERNARDO, C.A., SIMÕES, C.L., and PINTO, L.M.C., 2016. Environmental and economic
life cycle analysis of plastic waste management options. A review. Presented at Proceedings of the regional conference Graz 2015 - Polymer porcessing society PPS: Conference Papers, Graz, Austria, p. 140001.
BROLIN, J., 2019. Interview FTI AB (Förpacknings- och tidningsinsamlingen AB), responsible for the national collection system. E-Mail.
BRYMAN, A., 2012. Social research methods. 4th ed. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
CANTNER, DR.J., GERSTMAYR, B., PITSCHKE, T., TRONECKER, DR.D., HARTLEITNER, B., and KREIBE, DR.S., 2010. Bewertung der Verpackungsverordnung - Evaluierung der Pfandpflicht [Assessment of the packaging directive - evaluation of the mandatory deposit]. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit.
CM CONSULTING INC. and RELOOP PLATFORM, 2016. Deposit Systems for One-Way Beverage Containers: Global Overview - 2016.
DALÉUS, L., 2019. Interview with Lennart Daléus, former member of the Swedish parliament and Chair of the Ecocycle Commission. Phone.
DEFRA, (DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT FOOD & RURAL AFFAIRS, 2019. Introducing a Deposit Return Scheme in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
DENKSTATT GMBH, 2017. How Packaging Contributes to Food Waste Prevention - specific examples from Austrian stakeholder projects, including carbon footprint assessment.
DEPREZ, N., 2016. Deposit-refund schemes for one-way beverage packaging. Master Thesis. Universiteit Gent, Gent.
DINKEL, F., KÄGI, T., BUNGE, R., POHL, T., and STÄUBLI, A., 2017. KuRVe (Kunststoff Recycling und Verwertung) - Ökonomisch-ökologische Analyse von Sammel- und Verwertungssystemen von Kunststoffen aus Haushalten in der Schweiz [Plastic recycling and treatment - Economic-environmental analysis of collection and treatment systems for post-consumer plastics in Switzerland]. Basel.
References | 60
DRÁB, J. and SLUČIAKOVÁ, S., 2018. Real Price of Deposit - Analysis of the introduction of the deposit-refund system for single-use beverage packaging in the Slovak Republic. institute for environmental policy - Ministry of Environment of the SLovak Republic.
EKLÖF, P., 2019. Interview with Patrik Eklöf, Jordbruksverket (Department of Agriculture). Phone.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2004. European Union Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste (2004/12/EC). Official Journal of the Europen Union.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2013. Green Paper - On a European Strategy on Plastic Waste in the Environment.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2015. Closing the loop - An EU action plan fo the Circular Economy (COM(2015) 614 final).
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2018a. A Clean Planet for all - A European strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2018b. A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2018c. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2018d. Directive of the European Parliament and of the council amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste.
FELIX, J., 2015. Plastics and recycling - More work ahead of us to close the loops. Göteborg: Chalmers Industriteknik Ekocentrum, Powerpoint Presentation.
FRÅNE, A., STENMARCK, Å., GÍSLASON, S., LYNG, K.-A., LØKKE, S., ZU CASTELL-RÜDENHAUSEN, M., and WAHLSTRÖM, M., 2014. Collection & recycling of plastic waste: Improvements in existing collection and recycling systems in the Nordic countries.
FRÅNE, A., STENMARCK, Å., SÖRME, L., CARLSSON, A., and JENSEN, C., 2012. Kartläggning av plastavfallsströmmar i Sverige [Analysis of plastic waste streams in Sweden], p. 75.
FTI AB, n.d. About FTI - Förpacknings- och tidningsinsamlingen, FTI [online]. Available: https://www.ftiab.se/1492.html [Accessed 2019-3-15].
FTI AB, 2018. The right plastic packaging - a quick guide. FULLANA I PALMER, P., BALA GALA, A., COLOMÉ PERALES, R., AYUSO SIART, S., DÍAZ
SUCH, B., MUÑOZ ORTIZ, I., RETOLAZA ÁVALOS, J.L., RIBAS TUR, J., ROCA I PUIGVERT, M., and WEIDEMA, B., 2017. Sustainability study on the introduction of a mandatory DRS for packaging in Spain: comparative environmental, social and economic analysis versus current situation. UNESCO.
FULLERTON, D. and KINNAMAN, T.C., 1995. Garbage, Recycling, and Illicit Burning or Dumping. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 29, p. 78–91.
FULLERTON, D. and WOLVERTON, A., 2000. Two Generalizations of a Deposit–Refund System, Vol. 90, No. 2, p. 6.
GANDY, S., FRY, J., and DOWNES, J., 2008. Review of Packaging Deposits System for the UK - Final Report.
GARCIA, J.M. and ROBERTSON, M.L., 2017. The future of plastics recycling. Science, Vol. 358, No. 6365, p. 870–872.
GRADUS, R.H.J.M., NILLESEN, P.H.L., DIJKGRAAF, E., and VAN KOPPEN, R.J., 2017. A Cost-effectiveness Analysis for Incineration or Recycling of Dutch Household Plastic Waste. Ecological Economics, Vol. 135, p. 22–28.
References | 61
HAGE, O. and SÖDERHOLM, P., 2008. An econometric analysis of regional differences in household waste collection: The case of plastic packaging waste in Sweden. Waste Management, Vol. 28, No. 10, p. 1720–1731.
HASSELSTRÖM, L., JOHANSSON, S., and SCHARIN, H., 2018. Möjliga styrmedel för ökad materialåtervinning av plast, p. 46.
HAUPT, M., VADENBO, C., and HELLWEG, S., 2017. Do We Have the Right Performance Indicators for the Circular Economy?: Insight into the Swiss Waste Management System: Circular Economy: Do We Have the Right Indicators? Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 21, No. 3, p. 615–627.
HEDELIN, J., HANSSON, A.L., and NÄSLUND, H., 2003. Pant och retur - Konkurrenseffekter av pant- och retursystem för dryckesförpackningar [Deposit and refund - competitive effects a deposit-return systems for beverage containers]. Stockholm: Konkurrensverket.
HENNLOCK, M., ZU CASTELL-RÜDENHAUSEN, M., WAHLSTRÖM, M., KJÆR, B., MILIOS, L., VEA, E., WATSON, D., HANSSEN, O.J., FRÅNE, A., STENMARCK, Å., and TEKIE, H., 2015. Economic policy instruments for plastic waste: a review with Nordic perspectives. Copenhagen K: Nordic Council of Ministers.
JORDBRUKSVERKET, 2015. Retursystemet för dryckesförpackningar. JØRGENSEN, F.A., 2011. Making a green machine: the infrastructure of beverage
container recycling. New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press. KONKURRENSVERKET, 2019. Fortsatt konkurrens i återvinningen [Continued
competition in recycling] [online]. Available: http://www.konkurrensverket.se/nyheter/fortsatt-konkurrens-i-atervinningen/ [Accessed 2019-5-13].
KVALE, S., 2007. Doing Interviews. 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road, London England EC1Y 1SP United Kingdom: SAGE Publications, Ltd.
LAVEE, D., 2010. A cost-benefit analysis of a deposit–refund program for beverage containers in Israel. Waste Management, Vol. 30, No. 2, p. 338–345.
LAZAREVIC, D., AOUSTIN, E., BUCLET, N., and BRANDT, N., 2010. Plastic waste management in the context of a European recycling society: Comparing results and uncertainties in a life cycle perspective. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 55, No. 2, p. 246–259.
LILIENBERG, J., PURFÜRST, Y., and SKÖLD, O., 2006. Returförpackningsutredningen [Investigation of deposit on packaging]. Jordbruksverket, No. 2006:7.
LINDHQVIST, T., 2000. Extended Producer Responsibility in Cleaner Production: Policy Principle to Promote Environmental Improvements of Product Systems. Doctoral Dissertation. Lund University, Lund.
LOW, D., ed., 2012. Behavioural economics and policy design: examples from Singapore. Singapore ; Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific.
MATERIAL ECONOMICS, 2018. Sustainable Packaging - the role of materials substitution. Stockholm.
MCCLOUGHAN, DR.P., 2017. Report on the Proposed Deposit and Return System for Beverage Containers in Ireland.
MCKINNON, D., BAKAS, I., HERCZEG, M., VEA, E.B., BUSCH, N., CHRISTENSEN, L.H., CHRISTENSEN, C., DAMGAARD, C.K., MILIOS, L., PUNKKINEN, H., and WAHLSTRÖM, M., 2018. Plastic Waste Markets - Overcoming barriers to better resource utilisation. Nordic Council of Ministers.
MILIOS, L., ESMAILZADEH DAVANI, A., and YU, Y., 2018. Sustainability Impact Assessment of Increased Plastic Recycling and Future Pathways of Plastic Waste Management in Sweden. Recycling, Vol. 3, No. 3, p. 33.
MILIUTE-PLEPIENE, J., HAGE, O., PLEPYS, A., and REIPAS, A., 2016. What motivates households recycling behaviour in recycling schemes of different maturity?
References | 62
Lessons from Lithuania and Sweden. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 113, p. 40–52.
MWANZA, B.G. and MBOHWA, C., 2017. Drivers to Sustainable Plastic Solid Waste Recycling: A Review. Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 8, p. 649–656.
NIKKARINEN, M., 2019. Interview with Magnus Nikkarinen, business policy expert & responsible for sustainability at Svensk Handel [the Swedish Trade Federation]. Phone.
NUMATA, D., 2009. Economic analysis of deposit–refund systems with measures for mitigating negative impacts on suppliers. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 53, No. 4, p. 199–207.
OECD, 2015. Creating Incentives for Greener Products: A Policy Manual for Eastern Partnership Countries. OECD.
OECD, 2018. Improving markets for recycled plastics: trends, prospects and policy responses. Paris, France: OECD.
O’LEARY, Z., 2014. The essential guide to doing your research project. 2nd edition. Los Angeles: SAGE.
OLOFSSON, P., 2017. Nu kommer pant på juiceprodukter [Now comes the deposit on juice products] [online]. RecyclingNet.se. Available: https://www.recyclingnet.se/article/view/557612/nu_kommer_pant_pa_juiceprodukter [Accessed 2019-1-31].
OSKAMP, S., HARRINGTON, M.J., EDWARDS, T.C., SHERWOOD, D.L., OKUDA, S.M., and SWANSON, D.C., 1991. Factors Influencing Household Recycling Behavior. Environment and Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 4, p. 494–519.
PALMER, K. and WALLS, M., 1997. Optimal policies for solid waste disposal Taxes, subsidies, and standards. Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 65, No. 2, p. 193–205.
PANTAMERA, n.d. English summary on the deposit system. PANTAMERA, 2019. Nu kan du express-panta på Återbruket Enköping [Now you can
express-panta at the recycling station Enköping] [online]. Available: press.pantamera.nu/posts/pressreleases/nu-kan-du-express-panta-pa-aterbruket-enkopin [Accessed 2019-5-13].
PATTON, M.Q., 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3 ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
RAGAERT, K., DELVA, L., and VAN GEEM, K., 2017. Mechanical and chemical recycling of solid plastic waste. Waste Management, Vol. 69, p. 24–58.
RETURPACK SVENSKA AB, 2017. Fakta om Returpack [Facts about Returpack]. RETURPACK SVENSKA AB, 2018a. Hållbarhetsredovisning 2017 [Sustainability Report
2017], p. 29. RETURPACK SVENSKA AB, 2018b. Technical Specification and Marking Manual - Metal
and Plastic Packaging. RIGAMONTI, L., GROSSO, M., MØLLER, J., MARTINEZ SANCHEZ, V., MAGNANI, S., and
CHRISTENSEN, T.H., 2014. Environmental evaluation of plastic waste management scenarios. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 85, p. 42–53.
RIKSDAGSFÖRVALTNINGEN, 1994. Förordning (1994:1235) om producentansvar för förpackningar - Svensk författningssamling 1994:1994:1235 t.o.m. SFS 1996:1082 - Riksdagen [Ordinance (1994: 1235) on producer responsibility for packaging - Swedish constitution collection 1994:1994:1235 incl. SFS 1996:1082] [online]. Available: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/forordning-19941235-om-producentansvar-for_sfs-1994-1235 [Accessed 2019-3-14].
RIKSDAGSFÖRVALTNINGEN, 2005. Förordning (2005:220) om retursystem för plastflaskor och metallburkar Svensk författningssamling 2005:2005:220 t.o.m.
References | 63
SFS 2018:1465 - Riksdagen [Ordinance (2005: 220) on return systems for plastic bottles and metal cans - Swedish statutory collection 2005:220 through SFS 2018:1465 - Parliament] [online]. Available: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/forordning-2005220-om-retursystem-for_sfs-2005-220 [Accessed 2019-3-14].
RIKSDAGSFÖRVALTNINGEN, 2006. Förordning (2006:1273) om producentansvar för förpackningar Svensk författningssamling 2006:1273 t.o.m. SFS 2013:757 - Riksdagen [Ordinance (2006: 1273) on producer responsibility for packaging Swedish Constitution collection 2006:1273 even. SFS 2013: 757 - Parliament] [online]. Available: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/forordning-20061273-om-producentansvar-for_sfs-2006-1273 [Accessed 2019-3-14].
RIKSDAGSFÖRVALTNINGEN, 2018. Förordning (2018:1462) om producentansvar för förpackningar Svensk författningssamling 2018:2018:1462 t.o.m. SFS 2019:151 - Riksdagen [Ordinance (2018: 1462) on producer responsibility for packaging Swedish constitution collection 2018: 1462 through SFS 2019: 151 - Parliament] [online]. Available: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/forordning-20181462-om-producentansvar-for_sfs-2018-1462 [Accessed 2019-4-3].
ROWLEY, J., 2012. Conducting research interviews. Management Research Review, Vol. 35, No. 3/4, p. 260–271.
SCB, 2017. Sverige når inte alla mål för materialåtervinning [Sweden does not reach all its goals for material recycling] [online]. Statistiska Centralbyrån. Available: http://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/artiklar/2017/Sverige-nar-inte-alla-mal-for-materialatervinning/ [Accessed 2019-2-20].
SCB, 2018. Total tillförd och återvunnen mängd förpackningar uppdelat efter förpackningsslag, tabellinnehåll och år [Total supplied and recycled quantity of packaging divided by type of packaging, table content and year] [online]. Miljö - Avfall, förpackningar. Available: http://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/sv/ssd/START__MI__MI0307/MI0307T1/table/tableViewLayout1/?rxid=6f49f964-a042-4b6d-b149-4897c545dd6c [Accessed 2019-2-20].
SEVIGNÉ, E., GASOL, C.M., OLIVER-SOLA, J., MITJANS, V., GABARRELL, X., and RIERADEVALL, J., 2017. Comparative LCA of container deposit scheme and green dot system for PET bottles, cans and beverage carton waste in Spain, p. 10.
SHEN, L. and WORRELL, E., 2014. Plastic Recycling. Handbook of Recycling, p. 179–190.
SIMON, B., AMOR, M.B., and FÖLDÉNYI, R., 2016. Life cycle impact assessment of beverage packaging systems: focus on the collection of post-consumer bottles. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 112, p. 238–248.
STENMARCK, Å., BELLEZA, E.L., FRÅNE, A., JOHANNESSON, C., SANCTUARY, M., STRÖMBERG, E., and WELLING, S., 2018. Ökad plaståtervinning – potential för utvalda produktgrupper [Increased recycling of plastic - potential for selected product groups].
SUTTON, T., 2018. Exploring the Norwegian Model [online]. Packaging Europe. Available: https://packagingeurope.com/api/content/8b04d138-0cbb-11e8-8e53-121bebc5777e/ [Accessed 2019-3-8].
SVENSK DAGLIGVARUHANDEL, 2018a. Roadmap for fossil free competitiveness - Food Retailers.
SVENSK DAGLIGVARUHANDEL, 2018b. Färdplan för fossilfri konkurrenskraft - Dagligvaruhandeln - På väg mot fossilfria och materialåtervinningsbara
References | 64
plastförpackningar till [Roadmap for fossil free competitiveness - Food Retailers].
THÖRNELÖF, I., 2016. Increasing Recycling through Container Deposit. Uppsala University, Uppsala.
THÖRNER, T., SCHÜTZ, N., and MOTZ, G., 2007. Effects of deposits on beverage packaging in Germany.
TOJO, N., 2011. Deposit Refund Systems in Sweden - Case studies for four types of beverage containers. Lund: Lund University, No. IIIEE Report 2011:05.
VAN EYGEN, E., LANER, D., and FELLNER, J., 2018a. Circular economy of plastic packaging: Current practice and perspectives in Austria. Waste Management, Vol. 72, p. 55–64.
VAN EYGEN, E., LANER, D., and FELLNER, J., 2018b. Circularity of plastics packaging and environmental performance of their waste management.
VIGSØ, D., 2004. Deposits on single use containers - a social cost-benefit analysis of the Danish deposit system for single use drink containers. Waste Management & Research, Vol. 22, No. 6, p. 477–487.
VINING, J. and EBREO, A., 1990. What Makes a Recycler?: A Comparison of Recyclers and Nonrecyclers. Environment and Behavior, Vol. 22, No. 1, p. 55–73.
VISCUSI, W.K., HUBER, J., and BELL, J., 2011. Promoting Recycling: Private Values, Social Norms, and Economic Incentives. American Economic Review, Vol. 101, No. 3, p. 65–70.
VISCUSI, W.K., HUBER, J., BELL, J., and CECOT, C., 2013. Discontinuous Behavioral Responses to Recycling Laws and Plastic Water Bottle Deposits. American Law and Economics Review, Vol. 15, No. 1, p. 110–155.
WALLS, M., 2006. Extended Producer Responsibility and Product Design: Economic Theory and Selected Case Studies. SSRN Electronic Journal.
WALLS, M., 2011. Deposit-Refund Systems in Practice and Theory, p. 15. WALLS, M. and PALMER, K., 2001. Upstream Pollution, Downstream Waste Disposal,
and the Design of Comprehensive Environmental Policies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 41, No. 1, p. 94–108.
WHITWORTH, J.J., 2013. Plastic Recyclers Europe demands separate PET recycling streams [online]. beveragedaily.com. Available: https://www.beveragedaily.com/Article/2013/07/17/PET-trays-must-be-recycled-separately-warns-trade-group [Accessed 2019-5-27].
WIQVIST, W., 2019. Inteview with Weine Wiqvist, CEO of Avfall Sverige (the Swedish Waste Management Association). Phone.
WORRELL, E. and REUTER, M.A., eds., 2014. Handbook of recycling: state-of-the-art for practitioners, analysts, and scientists. Amsterdam ; Boston: Elsevier.
Interviews | 65
Interviews
BERGENDORFF, S., 2019a. Interview with Sara Bergendorff, responsible for producers and imports at Returpack AB. Phone.
BERGENDORFF, S., 2019b. E-Mail Bergendorff 12.04.2019. BROLIN, J., 2019. Interview FTI AB (Förpacknings- och tidningsinsamlingen AB),
responsible for the national collection system. E-Mail. DALÉUS, L., 2019. Interview with Lennart Daléus, former member of the Swedish
parliament and Chair of the Ecocycle Commission. Phone. EKLÖF, P., 2019. Interview with Patrik Eklöf, Jordbruksverket (Department of
Agriculture). Phone. NIKKARINEN, M., 2019. Interview with Magnus Nikkarinen, business policy expert &
responsible for sustainability at Svensk Handel [the Swedish Trade Federation]. Phone.
WIQVIST, W., 2019. Inteview with Weine Wiqvist, CEO of Avfall Sverige (the Swedish Waste Management Association). Phone.
List of Figures and Tables | 66
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1: The five dimensions of a DRS, which are used as a framework in this report.
The drivers and the impacts of a DRS are discussed in the background. ..................... 7
Figure 2: The collection rates of plastic packaging in the years 2012-2017 (SCB, 2018).
The left axis shows the produced and collected amount of plastic packaging, the right
axis shows the collection rate. ................................................................................... 20
Figure 3: Share of the plastic packaging product groups according to Van Eygen et al.
(2018). ....................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 4: A money/material flow chart of the Swedish PET Pantamera System. Adapted
from CM Consulting Inc. and Reloop Platform (2016). ............................................... 23
Figure 5: The collection rates of PET bottles in Sweden from 2012-2017 (SCB, 2018).
.................................................................................................................................. 24
Figure 6: A schematic roadmap for an extended DRS. ............................................... 56
Table 1: The product groups and the polymers that are present in this product group
according to Van Eygen et al. (2018). Note that the polymer LLDPE is a variation of
LDPE. ........................................................................................................................ 22
Appendix | I
Appendix 1: Interview guide
Date
Interviewee:
Background Interviewee
→What is your position at ___________?
______________________________________________________
→What are your responsibilities at ________________?
_____________________________________________________%
→How long have you been working for _____________?
______________________________________________________
Pantsystem
→What is your opinion on the existing Deposit-Return System (Pantsystem)?
______________________________________________________
→When it comes to plastic packaging (apart from PET bottles) do you think there
is sufficient recycling happening right now?
______________________________________________________
→If not, what could/should be changed to increase it and why?
______________________________________________________
→What do you think about an extension of the deposit-return system
(pantsystem) to plastic packaging?
______________________________________________________
→If positive: Which type of plastic packaging should be added to the deposit-
return system and why?
______________________________________________________
→If negative: Why not?
______________________________________________________
Appendix | II
→When it comes to an extension of the deposit-return system, what do you think
are possible challenges and difficulties that could be experienced?
→Economic challenges?
→Behavioral challenges?
→Technologic challenges?
→Organizational challenges?
→Material challenges?
______________________________________________________
→How would the industry react?
______________________________________________________
→What has to be done to overcome these named challenges in these five
dimensions?
______________________________________________________
→Do you see any lessons that could be learned from the existing DRS (with PET
bottles and aluminium cans)?
→Economic lessons?
→Behavioral lessons?
→Technologic lessons?
→Organizational lessons?
→Material lessons?
______________________________________________________
→Compared to the introduction of the aluminium and PET DRS, do you think
the consumer attitude has changed significantly?
______________________________________________________
→If so, how could that affect a DRS extension?
______________________________________________________
Appendix | III
Appendix 2: Interview requests
Name Organization Date of request Interview Reason for not conducting interview
Axfood 14.02.19 No Not clear
Patrik Eklöf Jordbruksverket 25.02.19 Yes -
Sara Bergendorff Returpack AB 28.02.19 Yes -
Jenny Brolin FTI AB 22.03.19 Only E-Mail Lack of time
Naturvårdsverket 01.04.19 No No answer
TOMRA 01.04.19 No Referred to Returpack
Weine Wiqvist Avfall Sverige 04.04.19 Yes -
Återvinningsindustrierna 04.04.19 No No answer
Stena Recycling 08.04.19 No Referred to FTI AB
Swerec 08.04.19 No No answer
Lennart Daléus Former member of the Swedish Parliament 09.04.19 Yes -
IVL 09.04.19 No Lack of time
Magnus Nikkarinen Svensk Handel 23.04.19 Yes -
Sveriges Konsumenter 30.04.19 No Not clear
TRITA TRITA-ABE-MBT-19544
www.kth.se