Putting a deposit on a pack appears to be a simple way to encourage it to be returned for reuse, refilling or recycling. But like many other things, it’s not as simple as it seems.

Deposits can work in the right circumstances. Unseen by most of us, deposits are often charged on reusable delivery crates and pallets used to ship goods to wholesale and retail outlets.

Companies are not opposed to deposits in principle. They are opposed to them being applied in circumstances where they will undermine existing recycling systems, increase environmental impact and increase costs to consumers.

In the 1950s, companies charged a deposit on refillable glass bottles to encourage people to return them because they were designed to be refilled. Improved technology in the 1960s enabled waste to be prevented at the design stage by producing bottles and other containers using far less material than refillable containers.

Other things have changed since the 1950s. In those days, household rubbish was predominantly ash from coal fires – where paper, cardboard and rags were burned – and empty food cans. Today, all councils routinely collect paper, cardboard, plastics, metals and glass for recycling. More than half of all household packaging is now recycled.

Putting a deposit on drinks containers would just divert them from the council’s kerbside collection system into a separate collection system. Given the widespread availability of kerbside and bring systems for recycling, it seems unlikely that deposits would increase recycling. In the 1970s, the 12p deposit on refillable bottles at best achieved a 33 per cent return rate.

And if removing the high-value items ruined the economics of local authority collections, there is a risk that lower-value non-deposit items like newspaper or textiles might cease to be recycled.

A proposal for a deposit system is currently being considered by the legislature in Maryland, USA. It is being opposed by the Maryland Association of Counties, which says that local authorities have made significant investments in kerbside collection and that a deposit would undermine the economic viability of their existing arrangements. The counties are also concerned about fraud, as neighbouring states do not have a deposit law.

Even worse, operating a parallel collection system for deposit-bearing containers would increase negative environmental impact by increasing the amount of transport.

The Swedish deposit system is often held up as an effective model. However, there are key factors that are not replicated elsewhere, and particularly not in the UK. Sweden has a low population density, and the structure of production and distribution is unique. Soft drinks and waters are produced by the brewers, the grocery retail sector is highly concentrated with few independent grocery stores, and there is a state monopoly on the sale of alcoholic drinks. Supply chains are therefore comparatively simple and there is no need to transfer the deposit, with all its associated administration costs, through a number of sectors.

In any case, a number of European countries with no deposit have achieved higher recycling rates for metal and plastics packaging than Sweden.

Why do some people believe deposits on drinks containers are a good thing? One of the main reasons cited is that they reduce litter by encouraging consumers to take it to a redemption centre rather than dropping it in the street.

People who drop litter are anti-social and thoughtless. There is no evidence that having a deposit on their empty bottle or can turn them into model citizens. Ironically, there is evidence that where deposit systems operate, litter bins are emptied by people searching for deposit containers, leaving the rest of the bin contents strewn around.

Read Resource's overview of deposit schemes.

Read Iain Gulland's take on deposit schemes, 'Just rewards'.