Increased deposit, a return bonus or a lottery – plenty of action after second penalty payment order

The Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT) is dissatisfied with the collection of plastic bottles. In an Order Subject to Periodic Penalty Payments of 3 September 2025, the ILT imposes, under penalty of a fine, that Verpact increases the deposit by 15 cents and/or the consumer receives 5 cents extra deposit back. This financial incentive should help consumers return more plastic bottles. Verpact does not agree with this new order and took the matter to court with an application for a provisional remedy. We did the same, because we find the potential fine of 21 million too low.

UPDATE as of 1 December While the Council of State is considering the provisional remedies in this case, a striking turn of events occurred on Thursday 27 November regarding the Order Subject to Periodic Penalty Payments (LoD). Read more about the content of the LoD below. First, we continue with current developments.

Out of dissatisfaction with the intake figures, the inconvenience experienced by consumers when returning items, and the litter around rubbish bins, State Secretary Thierry Aartsen for the Environment (VVD) started talks with Verpact. This led to a plan entitled Totaalaanpak Statiegeld (Comprehensive Deposit Return Scheme Approach) which was published on 27 November.

In this plan, Verpact provides insight into how they will realise the paying and non-paying intake points monitored by the ILT's Order Subject to Periodic Penalty Payments of July 2024. There is also more insight into the campaigns, communication, and an app that Verpact wants to roll out to achieve the legal target of 90% collection. Verpact is also coming up with financial incentives along the following lines (also known as four initiatives): 1. A reward mechanism via reverse vending machines outside supermarkets, the exact implementation of which is to be worked out in more detail, expected in Q2 2026. 2. A reward mechanism via an existing gaming licence holder, with a combination of prizes and supporting charities, via reverse vending machines outside supermarkets, expected in Q3 2026. 3. Promotional games of chance at supermarkets and producers, expected late Q3 2026. 4. Further development into an advanced national reward mechanism on all reverse vending machines.

Verpact is going to focus on reward promotions in the form of a "game element" at all reverse vending machines. Verpact is also working on setting up a promotional game of chance, for which cooperation is being sought with an "existing gaming licence holder". All of this will run via an app, which also includes a "digital wallet" for "tracking accumulated deposit balances, transferring amounts to a bank account, or donating to charities".

Will these incentives be successful? Verpact points to "experiences from similar initiatives abroad and promotional activities from supermarkets and producers" which would demonstrate that game elements with a chance of a reward positively influence consumer awareness and behaviour. Especially people who already return items regularly would be sensitive to these incentives. Verpact expects an increase of 1 to 2% towards the 90%, but "on the condition that the foundation of the intake point infrastructure is in place."

The State Secretary is "satisfied with Verpact's proposed approach" and is "confident that this will deliver improvements on the experienced bottlenecks in the short term". Regulator ILT has let it be known that it will adapt the LoD of 3 September to the financial incentives from Verpact's Comprehensive Plan and has since done so. Verpact is said to have withdrawn its provisional remedy as a result. Fair Resource Foundation has also done so now regarding our "vo-vo" (we found the final fine for Verpact if they did not comply with the LoD too low).

As Fair Resource Foundation, we are critical. It is great that Verpact is finally coming up with a comprehensive plan for more intake points and better communication (and they should have actually made this plan after the LoD of July 24). However, when offering a game of chance, we see the promotion and normalisation of gambling and potentially gambling addictions as a major risk. Verpact refers to young people as "the target group where there is also the most potential for improvement", but according to the Ministry of Justice and Security, minors and young adults in particular need special attention when protecting against the risks of games of chance. Developing a gambling game for deposits through an existing gambling authority will actually increase these risks.

And then the expected success: Verpact itself speaks of 1-2% extra returns. That is very little for a complex system with risks. We do know that increasing the deposit or paying a return bonus - two other points from the ILT's Order Subject to Periodic Penalty Payments - works to increase collection (in Norway with 8% extra, see below for more information). A return bonus is also more inclusive: everyone gets extra money back. Running game-like rewards through an app leads to the exclusion of people who are not digitally skilled and people who, from a privacy perspective, do not want to share their data with the business community.

The acceptance of Verpact's Comprehensive Plan by the State Secretary and the ILT is therefore a strange story in our view. Especially because environmental and consumer organisations were not involved in the discussions: it was truly an backroom deal between politics and business. And the timing in particular is notable, precisely between the hearing of the case at the Council of State and the ruling on 4 December. This has created the impression that the State Secretary has politically interfered in enforcement by his own, independent regulator. Finally, we believe that as an environmental NGO we should have a say in these plans, and we have made this known to the parties involved.

Continuation of the original article dated 25 November

As a regulator, the ILT is dissatisfied with the collection rates for plastic bottles over the years 2023 and 2024. In both years, Verpact failed to meet the legal target of 90%, achieving 74% and 77% respectively. In 2024, the ILT already imposed an Order Subject to Periodic Penalty Payments (LoD) on Verpact, requiring Verpact to realise 5,400 extra paying intake points before 1 January 2027. Due to Verpact's poor performance, the ILT is now imposing an additional LoD.

Financial incentive

This time, it concerns a financial incentive designed to encourage consumers to return more bottles. The ILT states that Verpact must temporarily either increase the deposit on bottles and small bottles by 15 cents, or give the consumer a return bonus of 15 cents. This means that the consumer either pays and gets back 30 cents for a small and 40 cents for a large bottle, or pays 15 and 25 cents respectively and then gets back 30 and 40 cents respectively. As Fair Resource Foundation, we have been advocating for a return bonus for some time, where we proposed giving back 5 cents extra. In the LoD, the ILT leaves it to Verpact to choose, whereby a combination of both points is also possible. Verpact must have this arranged by 1 January 2026, the ILT states. If not, a fine of 21 million euros will follow.

The ILT imposed this LoD on Verpact on 3 September. The producer organisation disagrees with the substance of the LoD: increasing the deposit would not work and a return bonus has not yet been introduced anywhere. In addition, Verpact believes that the Dutch collection rates are in step with other countries where a deposit scheme has been introduced. Verpact is working, in accordance with last year's LoD, on more paying intake points. The organisation therefore went to the Council of State to request a suspension of the order by means of a provisional remedy. The hearing took place in a session on Thursday 22 November.

Increase of deposit

The hearing between the ILT and Verpact was therefore about increasing the deposit, whether or not in combination with giving back extra money. Increasing the deposit works, as we know from abroad. In Norway, the collection rate for cans went from 84.3% to 93% by increasing the deposit amount in 2018 by the equivalent of ten euro cents. In the US state of Oregon, the

return rate of all beverage containers rose from 73% to 86% in two years after an increase of five US cents. The Canadian province of Alberta saw 12% more returns over a three-year period following an increase in deposits. The studies by Strategy& and Ipsos, initiated by Verpact itself, also show that Dutch consumers are more willing to return containers when there is a higher deposit.

Increasing the deposit is certainly not a strange idea when inflation is factored in. In the year 2000, the deposit on large bottles was 1 guilder. Converted to today, that is an amount of nearly one euro. In 2002, the deposit amount was set at €0.25, and if that had grown with inflation, it would now be €0.40. An increase of 15 cents, as currently imposed by the ILT, is short, realistic.

Verpact considers the return bonus unsuitable, partly because no research has yet been conducted into it. Factually, that is correct if you look strictly at deposits on beverage packaging. However, fellow producer organisation Stichting Open has had positive experiences with a return bonus in the field of electronic appliances. Indeed, since 2022, Stichting Open has had an incentive scheme whereby companies receive a financial compensation if they hand in appliances separately to recyclers. This scheme is so successful that it has been extended.

Other points of the hearing

According to Verpact, the Dutch collection rates are in line with other countries that have introduced deposit schemes. Two years would be too tight to reach 90%, according to Verpact, and therefore this second LoD would be unreasonable. However, other countries have shown that it can be done quickly. Lithuania introduced a deposit scheme in 2016 and in two years the collection rate rose from 74% to 92%. Slovakia introduced a deposit scheme in 2022 and collection went from 71% to 90% in two years. Both countries, just like the Netherlands, have a legal target of 90% and both countries achieved that in two years. Besides, factually there was more time in the Netherlands to achieve that 90%. After all, the House of Representatives already stated in 2018 that there would (have to) be a deposit on small bottles. The advance notice was published on 4 March 2019. The final publication was released on 6 March 2020. In July 2021, the deposit on small bottles was finally introduced. Viewed this way, the industry thus had about three to four years to prepare for the waste management structure, which was necessary from 2021. But the industry failed to do so, with the result that the 90% collection rate for small bottles is far out of reach.

During the hearing, Verpact argued that new financial incentives would lead to public unrest. Packaging would become worth 15 euro cents more and consumers would start hoarding to then return items on a large scale. Even if that happens, Verpact can handle it: over the years 2021 up to and including 2024, an amount of 506 million euros in deposits was paid but not collected by the public. The risk of extra broken-open rubbish bins is also not high: consumers will return more themselves and recent counts from the second National Rubbish Bin Day show that 99.6% of public rubbish bins are simply intact and clean. Verpact's criticism that increasing and/or the return bonus requires new labels with different barcodes, and thus more time, was already refuted during the hearing itself: these adjustments can be made in the ICT system.

Other Order Subject to Periodic Penalty Payments

To get collection rates up, Verpact argues that extra reverse vending machines are primarily needed. The producer organisation says it is working hard on realisng extra paying intake points. This is not only logical and fair, but also necessary. In July 2024, the ILT imposed an Order Subject to Periodic Penalty Payments on Verpact to realise 5,400 extra paying points before 1 January 2027. So it is good that Verpact is working on this, but it remains to be seen whether Verpact will achieve this: its own figures for Q3 2025 show that Verpact is lagging 592 intake points behind what the ILT demanded.

But: is the ILT allowed to impose two Orders Subject to Periodic Penalty Payments at the same time? The regulator thinks so, but the producer organisation thinks not. The judge asked several critical questions about this. Should the Council of State agree with Verpact's reasoning, this could have significant consequences for the decisiveness of the ILT and other enforcement regulators. If the judge rules that no new LoD may be issued during an active LoD, this raises fundamental questions about the possibilities the ILT has to enforce effectively.

FRF joined as an interested party

Fair Resource Foundation joined the hearing as an interested party. We have always said that a higher deposit is realistic. For a year now, we have been advocating for a return bonus, where we have said that this bonus should amount to 5 cents. We therefore consider the ILT's penalty decision to be reasonable. However, we do feel that the ILT's LoD is not strict enough and that the fine of 21 million should be increased. Especially given the huge volume of 506 million euros in unredeemed deposits.

Director Rob Buurman said in court that the deposit system belongs to everyone: "We all have to work with it and all have an interest in a well-functioning system. Even if the system is not yet perfect, it does work." After all, thanks to deposits, the number of plastic bottles and cans in litter has dropped by about 70%, the State Secretary stated. Producers also benefit: currently, new plastic bottles already consist for half of recycled material (see this site and then the visual 'Recycled PET in PET bottles'). Thanks to deposits, producers are reducing the climate impact of their packaging.

As Fair Resource Foundation, we see even more possibilities to increase collection figures: also introduce deposits on juice and dairy packaging, a return obligation (whoever sells also returns deposits), and also accept damaged packaging. Dirk Groot Zwertfinator, for example, convincingly shows that on certain plastic bottles, the labels peel off too easily. Financial incentives to also promote the collection of cans are also welcome.

The Council of State will rule on this provisional remedy on 4 December. We will then know whether Verpact's request to postpone the deposit increase will be granted.