Sale or return - 16th March 2011

This week's motto is 'Drink Aware', as soft drinks giant Pepsi unveils the world's first plastic bottle made entirely from plant-based resources and the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) reports that a UK drinks container deposit scheme could generate £432 million a year for community projects. But how do deposits stack up against the traditional genie in the bottle bank?

According to the CPRE's report – based on a survey produced by Ipsos MORI – a deposit of up to 15p per container would see a 90 per cent return rate, resulting in 24 billion containers available for recycling, and at least 12 per cent of consumers donating their 15p to charity or community initiatives. It would cost ￡84 million to set up, with possible running costs of ￡700 million per year.

Those of us who remember the 70s harbour fond memories of chasing after the ice cream van or down to the corner shop to hand over lemonade and Tizer bottles, then cashing in the deposit for a handful of penny sweets, and when recycling comes up down the pub, it's a top contender on the list of 'Why don't they just..?' environmental fixes. But why, if it was so successful, did the original deposit scheme grind to a halt? Could it be perhaps that, despite its alleged popularity, we just stopped using it? And would a deposit scheme represent a realistic solution for the twenty-first century?

The first thing to consider is whether we're talking about refillable bottles, or containers like aluminium or steel cans that can be recycled for re-manufacture. If it's non-refillable containers, as implemented in Germany, deposit schemes may not be the most effective way forward. In 2008, Defra commissioned a report – Review of Packaging Deposits System for the UK' – which found that although recycling would undoubtedly increase, alternative systems would produce similar, or better, results for less money.

With the advent of the Household Waste Recycling Act (which calls on local authorities to collect at least two materials for recycling from the kerbside); and EU recycling targets for member states which are transposed onto individual councils, recycling has risen encouragingly over the last 10 years. England has even hit a provisional rate of over 40 per cent for 2010, and a number of organisations, like Alupro and Coca Cola have been instrumental in setting up 'On the go' recycling schemes in public places. It's true that there is still more material out there for capture – in 2009, for example, the recycling rate for aluminium packaging was 42 per cent –  but should we be trying to encourage participation in existing routes to recycling, like household collections or bring banks at supermarkets instead of implementing a whole new system?

In 2003, Germany introduced a standard deposit for all single use containers –  cans, single-use glass and plastic bottles. Lauded for its entrenched environmental policy, it may come as a surprise that, according to a Prognos study commissioned by a number of European packaging industry representatives, Germany's scheme not only saw relatively low improvements in carbon reduction, but was also rated “among the most expensive measures for carbon dioxide abatement”, at around ￡1,127 per tonne.

As the largest soft drinks market in Europe, what happens in Germany is worth watching. Although the scheme continues to this day, it caused serious ructions throughout the drinks manufacturing industry. The European Commission deemed that it placed unfair barriers on importers, and retailers actually delisted many carbonated drinks, causing sales to plummet. In part, this was due to one major error – the scheme was launched before recycling points were put in place, causing a massive burden on retailers that they were unable to bear.

These days, the industry has developed state of the art reverse vending systems that could be placed into supermarkets or hosted at other sites. Assuming that a widespread PR exercise would accompany the launch, it might even have a knock on effect on recycling across the board. But in a time of austerity, we need to consider whether the  outlay would really justify the return?