6. DRS vs EPR: Complementary tools for a circular economy

Deposit Return Schemes (DRS) are designed to incentivise recycling and reduce litter by assigning monetary value to drinks containers. Hailing from an era when soft drinks, milk and beer companies collected, washed and refilled glass bottles, DRS are now tackling modern waste issues. However, DRS alone don’t address the key issues: overproduction of single-use plastics.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policies assign producers legal and financial responsibility for the environmental impacts of products and packaging. This includes meeting recycling targets and investing in waste reduction. However, current global EPR schemes have failed to drive large-scale change.

EPR obligations can be fulfilled individually or through Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs). These systems can go beyond recycling, promoting elimination of unnecessary packaging and shifting to reusable/refillable formats. When paired with a DRS that supports reuse, EPR has great potential to reduce single-use plastic production and pollution.

To build a circular economy, both DRS and EPR are essential, with an emphasis on reuse and reduction. This requires not only behavioral change but infrastructure development, supply chain redesign and rethinking packaging as a service, not a product.

But which should come first?

History has shown that implementing DRS before EPR is more effective. DRS builds infrastructure and consumer habits that EPR can expand. DRS systems often involve return-to-store collection, while EPR focuses on improving at-home recycling.

Together, they form the foundations of a reuse economy:

• DRS helps establish reuse/refill systems, reduce litter and improve recycling.

• EPR builds on DRS, funding and regulating reuse and enhancing recycling networks.

• Both policies must embed reuse into their design to drive long-term impact.

In combination, DRS and EPR can move us beyond recycling, towards a circular system grounded in reduction and reuse.