Deposit and Return Systems for recycling plastic bottles

On May 19, 2026, during his fifth ecological planning council meeting, the President of the Republic officially asked the government to begin consultations on the implementation of a deposit system for plastic bottles. As a representative of the plastics and composites industry, I welcome this courageous and pragmatic stance. It was high time to break the status quo and prioritize a true circular economy over political posturing and “plastic bashing.”

The debate over deposit refunds reveals everyone’s true intentions. Faced with the harsh reality of the European situation, the president’s announcement serves to expose the paradoxes and cynicism of those who oppose our industry.

The wall of financial and European reality

Emmanuel Macron has hit a nerve: France is currently paying 1.5 billion euros in fines because it is not complying with European recycling standards. In 2023, our country became the top European contributor to the tax on non-recycled plastic packaging, paying 1.564 billion euros. Germany, which produces more than twice as much plastic as we do, pays less! And why? Because it recycles more effectively.

The European Commission requires us to achieve a 90% collection rate for plastic bottles by 2029. However, we are currently stuck at a dismal 55%. Given this accumulated lag and the environmental emergency, a deposit system is not an option—it is the only truly effective tool for achieving these collection and recycling targets.

The Financial Blindness of Local Governments

Immediately following the president’s announcement, a wave of protests from associations of elected officials (AMF, France Urbaine, Intercommunalités de France) was swift to follow, denouncing it as an “environmental and financial aberration.”

The reality is far more cynical: the deposit system would undermine the financial stability of these local governments. Some players in the waste management sector simply do not want to let go of PET bottles because they are, for them, financially vital. They fear that the private sector will take over the most valuable waste streams, leaving them to manage only the waste that is hardest to recycle.

Let’s not beat around the bush: if recycling is stalling, it’s also because the vast majority of plastic packaging in France ends up being incinerated or landfilled. Some waste management companies clearly have their preferred end-of-life methods, which are undoubtedly the most profitable—a far cry from the virtues of the circular economy they love to preach so much.

It is particularly odd, in fact, to see organizations claiming to represent these communities—such as Amorce—complaining about the financial consequences of losing PET bottles, yet at the same time calling for a reduction in the amount of plastic packaging, which includes plastic bottles! In the latter case, does the loss of volume (and thus revenue) suddenly no longer bother them?  This paradoxical demand clearly demonstrates that the economic argument is merely a pretext for maintaining a status quo that suits them. Yet removing the bottle from the yellow bin is precisely the best way to relieve pressure on the system and finally force these stakeholders to address the remaining 70% of plastic packaging that still struggles to be recycled

The hypocrisy of NGOs and the myth of the “false directive”

Among anti-plastic organizations (France Nature Environnement, No Plastic in My Sea, Surfrider, Zero Waste France), the president’s announcement is seen as an obstacle to their core principle: reducing single-use plastic at the source and eliminating it entirely.

To discredit this progress, they—along with local government representatives—have fabricated the concept of a “fake recycling deposit.” They point to a system that they claim “normalizes the use of plastic bottles.” Yet Zero Waste Europe itself admitted that deposit-return systems are the only way to meet the 90% collection target set by Europe by 2029!

Their hostility is not rooted in science or environmental protection, but in a destructive ideology: eliminating all plastic, even when it is fully recyclable and is actually being recycled. If they reject the deposit system, it is because it demonstrates that an alternative to a total ban is possible.

In conclusion

Plastalliance, the only organization representing the plastics industry in France that is financially independent from waste management companies (such as Paprec) — whether directly or indirectly — has long supported the implementation of a deposit system for recycling plastic bottles. This system, a true necessity for our industrial sovereignty, will in any case become mandatory throughout the European Union in 2029 through the implementation of Regulation 2025/40 (known as the “PPWR”), whether its critics like it or not.

Rather than stubbornly clinging to a futile refusal, it would be better for local governments to plan ahead and start negotiating now. Why not demand, for example, that a portion of the European tax savings generated by increased recycling volumes be returned to them? It is high time to be pragmatic rather than wait until we hit a brick wall.

This system is vital to our industrial sovereignty. It will help secure a supply of high-quality secondary raw materials, prevent waste from being released into the environment, and drastically reduce our European costs. It will also help us avoid dependence on oil. In a multipolar and volatile world where global crises, such as the one in the Strait of Hormuz, can at any moment cause costs to skyrocket and threaten our supplies, recycled plastic is a true strategic shield.

In this regard, the report on information warfare in the plastics and composites sector, prepared by the Center for Applied Research at the School of Economic Warfare (CR451/EGE), provides an excellent account of the various parties’ positions. It clearly highlights the strategies of influence, information attacks, and the true economic agendas that lie behind environmental stances.

We call on the government to see this consultation through to the end and to approach it with ambition, without bowing to the financial interests of incineration or landfilling—or to what Yves Roucaute would call “green obscurantism.” Let’s stop condemning and start recycling.