And why it’s important

You can download a one-page PDF Fact Sheet of Upstream’s recommended definitions for policymakers here.

Thanks to the tireless work of the reuse movement, there is growing recognition that reuse is a win-win — it’s great for the planet, great for communities, and great for businesses, too. And because of this growing recognition, state and federal policymakers are — finally — not just talking about recycling anymore. Reuse is included in some way in all four of the packaging EPR laws that have passed in the US since 2021 (in ME, OR, CO, and CA). And we are also starting to see reuse incorporated into upgrades to existing deposit-return-systems (or DRS) — like in Maine, where they’ve recently allocated a portion of funding from unredeemed deposits to go toward activities and infrastructure to support reusable and refillable beverage containers.

With all this excitement and activity, Upstream published principles for how best to incorporate reuse into EPR and DRS legislation last spring. One of these principles is to properly define “reuse.”

Building & aligning on recommended definitions

Definitions matter in policy, and in the case of reuse, definitions are abundant and inconsistent. A working group within our Reuse Solutions Network put their heads together over many months to grapple with the question of how to properly define reuse. They landed on this helpful general purpose summary: 

A reusable product/packaging is designed to be refillable or returnable and is part of a system that achieves multiple uses, equitable access, reduced waste, and net benefits for the health of all beings and the planet.

It’s great that this definition distinguishes between refillable and returnable packaging, and it specifies that either way there needs to be a system for reuse that actually achieves results. But this is a bit too broad to use directly in an EPR or DRS bill, so we needed to dig deeper for legislative purposes. 

Similar discussions on how to define reusable packaging have been taking place around the world. For example, in a report published last year, Zero Waste Europe went in depth on the distinction between refillable vs. reusable packaging. The core idea is that refillable packaging is owned by consumers, while reusable packaging is owned by producers or a third party. We also appreciate that they separately define reuse systems in this report. 

This all builds on publications from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and their Refill & Return Models: Refill at Home, Refill on the Go, Return from Home, and Return on the Go. The distinction is crystal clear: refill is one model; return is another. 

So what, exactly, is the difference? Here is what we recommend: 

Returnable Reusable Packaging is designed to be recirculated multiple times for the same or similar purpose in its original format in a system for reuse, and is owned by producers or a third party and returned to producers or a third party after each use.

Refillable Packaging is designed to be refilled by consumers multiple times for the same or similar purpose in its original format, and is sold or provided to consumers once for the duration of its usable life.

For those of you thinking, Why returnable-reusable? Why not just say returnable? — this is an attempt to avoid confusion with other types of returnables, like returnable cans in a bottle bill system, which are returnable, but not reusable. 

We know this is a change, especiallyfor those accustomed to referring to certain containers that brand-owners reuse as “refillable” (this is especially true in the beverage sector, where companies often refer to “refillable bottles” even when those bottles would fall under our definition of returnable reusables) But the distinction is important, and here is why.

Taking the work away from consumers

Refillables — as we’re defining them here — are relatively familiar at this point. These are business models that include bringing your own container to a bulk aisle, or purchasing a refillable bottle and buying concentrate to refill it with. To be clear: these are great business models for many products, and they probably do result in waste prevention.

But there are also challenges with scaling refill models. Refill-at-home requires continuous purchasing on the part of the consumer, usually involving single-use, disposable packaging; BYO and refill-at-home both require fairly significant behavior change on the part of consumers; bulk aisles take up space and can make a mess in retail settings; and overall it’s tough to guarantee waste reduction with these models since it’s left to consumer choice (consumers may refill their own container with cleaning spray one week and still buy cleaning spray in a disposable container the next).

On the other hand, returnables — as we’re defining them — eliminate many of these challenges. They more closely map to our current patterns of consumption and sales because they can mimic single-use packaging. In addition, they involve industrial cleaning, rather than at-home cleaning, which can alleviate health-code concerns. Ultimately the biggest advantage of returnables is that they take most of the work away from consumers and put it back into the hands of producers, and they can fully replace disposable packaging, ensuring waste prevention.

Policy recommendations for scaling returnable packaging

The greatest challenge with scaling returnable packaging is infrastructure, because returnable packaging is part of a system that includes reverse logistics, cleaning, repackaging, and recirculation. Building a whole new system is hard — and asking big brands to participate in such a system adds a layer of complexity because it requires competitors to share infrastructure. However, this isn’t such a crazy idea when you consider the fact that the packages brands put on the market today are already processed through a shared infrastructure for recycling and disposal. 

The way to retrofit this existing shared system so that it can focus on returnables is through policy, like EPR and DRS, that creates a mechanism for brands to share financial and operational responsibility for their packaging. If we want EPR and DRS to enable the returnable-reusable systems of the future, then we need to distinguish between returnables and refillables in these bills. 

First of all, it is best practice not to exempt either form of reusable packaging from EPR or DRS legislation. This enables more flexibility in the programs to ensure reuse systems are set up responsibly and transparently. Instead of being exempt, returnables and refillables should simply pay lower fees than disposables. And to further incentivize returnables over refillables and reward producers who choose returnables—which can be more challenging to implement but have a greater environmental benefit—there should be an even greater incentive for returnable packaging (aka even lower fees) than for refillables. 

Another crucial point is that EPR & DRS laws should distinguish between returnable and refillable packaging in their performance targets. If all refillables and returnables are allowed to count toward one overarching “reuse target,” we are likely to see most or all efforts going to refillables, rather than returnables. 

Once we have a separate target for returnable packaging, it should also be accompanied by a minimum return rate to ensure the system performs. And of course, there should be time allowed for the system to achieve that rate — ideally this is no less than 90% after a few years to optimize the environmental benefits of reuse. 

Lastly, it’s best practice to ensure transparency through reporting in these systems. If we’re distinguishing between return and refill, then these should be reported separately. 

Takeaways for Policymakers

Policymakers should keep the following in mind when considering packaging waste reduction bills:

• Include reuse provisions in EPR & DRS - see our Policy Principles for more details. 

• When defining reuse, clearly distinguish between returnable and refillable packaging.

• Emphasize returnable reusables with incentives and enforceable targets to ensure these policies enable the transition to a real reuse economy.

At the end of the day, refillables and returnables are very different business models — and it’s time to start treating them accordingly. 

These definitions and their implications were discussed on Indisposable Live livestream in February, 2024. You can find the full recording, more information and resources here.