‘Complete mess’ as drinks could rise by 50p under new bottle return plan, experts say

Picture this: you’re at your local supermarket, reaching for a can of fizzy pop or a bottle of juice. The price tag now shows an extra 50p — not because of inflation or supply chain hiccups, but because of a new scheme meant to make recycling easier. That’s the scenario industry leaders are warning could become reality under the UK’s proposed deposit return scheme (DRS). And they’re not holding back.

“It’s a complete mess,” says Mark Turner, chief executive of the British Soft Drinks Association. “Consumers will end up paying more and having fewer options. This scheme isn’t ready for prime time.”

The DRS, which the government aims to launch across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland in 2027 (Scotland already has its own separate plan), would add a deposit of between 20p and 50p per container – cans and plastic bottles mainly – to encourage people to bring them back for recycling. The idea sounds good in theory: boost recycling rates, cut litter, and move toward a circular economy. But the reality? Industry bodies, retailers, and even some environmental groups say the current blueprint is a logistical nightmare that will hit shoppers’ wallets hard.

As we explored earlier in our article on your morning coffee could cost 50p more under bottle deposit scheme, the impact extends far beyond soft drinks. Hot drinks in disposable cups, dairy cartons, and even glass bottles could all fall under the deposit net, depending on how the final regulations are written.

The Proposed Scheme: How It Works

Under the plan, every single-use drink container between 150ml and 3 litres in size would carry a refundable deposit. When you buy a drink, you pay the deposit on top of the purchase price. You get it back only when you return the empty container to a designated collection point – typically a reverse vending machine at a supermarket or a local recycling centre. Sounds simple, right?

But here’s where it gets knotty. The scheme would require thousands of new machines, a whole new logistics network to handle returned containers, and a centralised system to manage deposits electronically. Reuters reported last year that the cost of implementing the DRS in the UK alone could top £1 billion, with industry warning that most of that would be passed straight to consumers.

“The deposit is intended to be fully refundable, so in theory it shouldn’t be a cost,” explains Dr Helen Carter, senior policy analyst at the Institute for Environmental Policy. “But in practice, many people won’t bother returning containers, or they’ll lose them. That means they lose the deposit. And for those who do return every can, the overheads get baked into the price anyway. It’s a regressive tax on convenience.”

The government counters that similar schemes in Scandinavia and Germany have dramatically increased recycling rates – up to 97% for bottles in Norway. But those countries built their systems gradually and tailored them to local retail landscapes. The UK, critics argue, is trying to bolt a one-size-fits-all solution onto a fragmented market.

Why Experts Call It a ‘Complete Mess’

So why the harsh language? Start with logistics. The scheme would require retailers – from corner shops to big supermarkets – to accept returned containers. But many small shops simply don’t have the floor space for reverse vending machines. They’d either have to refuse to sell drinks covered by the DRS (reducing choice) or manually collect containers and store them, adding costs.

“A corner shop that sells 20 cans a day would have to register as a collection point, handle smelly plastic and aluminium, and then get them collected by a logistics provider – that might only happen once a week,” says James Low, director of a retail consultancy who has advised on DRS pilots. “The economics just don’t work. Many will stop selling certain products altogether.”

That’s the choice reduction risk. Consumers in rural areas or with limited mobility could lose access to popular brands if local shops opt out. And even in big supermarkets, the sheer variety of containers – different sizes, shapes, materials – creates sorting headaches. A PET bottle can’t be crushed the same way as an aluminium can in the same machine.

Then there’s the issue of cross-border chaos. Scotland launched its own DRS in August 2024, but England’s scheme isn’t due until 2027. The two systems have different rules – Scotland’s includes glass, England’s currently doesn’t. That means a bottle bought in Carlisle (England) could be returned in Gretna (Scotland) and vice versa, creating financial reconciliation nightmares. The BBC reported earlier this year that major drinks firms have already warned of price increases upwards of 30-50% to cover these complexities.

“It’s a complete mess,” repeats Turner. “We’re not against recycling – we’ve been pushing for a circular economy for years. But this plan was written without practical input from the people who actually sell and transport drinks. It’s being rushed.”

What This Means for Shoppers

For the average consumer, the headline figure is the extra 50p per purchase. But it’s not just a one-off; it’s an ongoing cost if you don’t return bottles. Research from the University of Leeds estimates that even with high return rates (around 80%), a family of four could pay an additional £150–£200 per year in lost deposits and hidden higher shelf prices.

And choice could shrink. If small retailers drop fizzy drinks hot-selling lines to avoid hassle, you might need to travel further to find your favourite brand. “We could see a reduction in the number of pack sizes and product varieties, because each variant needs to be registered separately in the deposit database,” notes Carter. “Innovation in packaging and flavours could slow down.”

The scheme also creates odd incentives. Drinks that are cheaper per litre – say, a 2-litre bottle of cola – carry a low deposit (20p), while a small can of premium tonic water might carry the same 20p deposit but cost more relative to its price. That could distort purchasing behaviour in ways no one has fully modelled.

Meanwhile, environmental groups are split. Green Alliance and WWF back the DRS as essential for meeting recycling targets. Others, like the Campaign for Real Recycling, argue that a deposit system mainly captures containers that already have high recycling rates (like aluminium cans), while doing little for the harder-to-recycle plastics that end up in landfills.

Looking Ahead: Can It Be Fixed?

So what’s next? The government consultation on the final design closed in March 2024. Responses are now being analysed, with a decision expected by the end of this year. The Treasury is under pressure to ensure the scheme doesn’t add to inflation, while the environment department wants to meet the UK’s 2030 waste reduction targets.

Some compromise ideas are floating around: Start with a lower deposit (say 10p) and phase in higher fees; exempt smaller containers; require only large retailers to host reverse vending machines; or create a single unified system across all UK nations before launching. Industry groups are lobbying hard for a delay to 2028 at the earliest.

“If they go full steam ahead with the current plan, we will see prices jump and choice collapse,” warns Low. “But if they take another two years to pilot and tweak, they could make it work. The deposit scheme isn’t a bad idea – it’s the rush that’s dangerous.”

Carter agrees, but adds a note of caution: “The longer you delay, the more difficult the transition becomes. Other countries have shown it’s possible. But the UK needs to stop treating this as a standalone policy and start integrating it with broader waste strategies.”

For now, shoppers should brace for some price stickers to look different. Whether the scheme ultimately boosts recycling rates or becomes yet another consumer tax will depend on the fine print – and on whether the government listens to the voices calling it a mess before the mess becomes reality.