// Table of contents
Scandinavia is the global reference point for deposit return systems. Norway (1972), Sweden (1984) and Finland (1996) have run DRS for decades and reached collection rates that other countries can only aspire to. Poland joined the club on 1 October 2025 — and six months in already produced its first full operating dataset.
Direct comparison is not straightforward. Each country operates at a different scale, with different consumption patterns, geography and retail structure. But certain structural patterns are clearly visible — and they help us understand where the Polish system stands today and where it might be in 3–5 years.
Headline comparison
| Country | Start year | Deposit (EUR) | PET return | Al return | Cost / tonne |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Norway | 1972 | 0.25–0.30 | 97.1% | 96.5% | ~110 EUR |
| Finland | 1996 | 0.10–0.40 | 93.2% | 94.8% | ~140 EUR |
| Sweden | 1984 | 0.10–0.20 | 84.9% | 91.2% | ~125 EUR |
| Denmark | 2002 | 0.13–0.40 | 92.4% | 91.0% | ~130 EUR |
| Germany | 2003 | 0.25 | 98.4% | 98.5% | ~150 EUR |
| Poland | 2025 | 0.12 | 72.4% (H1) | 81.1% (H1) | ~180 EUR |
At a glance: Poland in start-up outperforms Sweden after 10 years of operation. Not by accident — Poland built on 40 years of Scandinavian experience, deploying proven solutions from day one (Tomra machines, unified barcode, central clearing).
Norway — what sets the leader apart
Norway’s Infinitum operator reaches 97.1% PET return — the highest in the EU after Germany. Key factors:
- Relatively high deposit — 25–30 EUR cents is roughly 1% of the beverage price. The consumer economically feels not returning.
- Dense return network — 14 000 locations for 5.4 m people (one point per 400 people; in Poland one per ~1 100)
- Full back-office digitisation — the operator has real-time data from every machine and re-optimises logistics every 30 minutes
- Integrated recycling — Infinitum owns Heia Recycling, closing the loop inside the country
Market effect: since 2019 Norway has been a net exporter of food-grade rPET — mainly to Germany and the Netherlands, where FMCG demand far exceeds domestic supply. Norwegian rPET prices run 12–15% above the EU average.
Sweden — the legacy-system case
Sweden has the longest-running DRS in Europe after Norway, yet collection (84.9% PET) is the lowest of the Nordics. Structural reason: Sweden has the lowest deposit (10–20 EUR cents) and the most “summer” return culture — bottles often end up on the beach, in parks or in the bin.
In 2024, Returpack raised the deposit from 1 SEK (~8 cents) to 2 SEK (~18 cents). Effect: collection rose from 82% to 85% in 12 months — proof that deposit level matters.
Finland — the costliest operation
Finland reaches 93% collection at a relatively high operating cost of EUR 140/tonne. Reason: low population density (5.5 m people on an area similar to Poland minus Kraków) drives high logistics cost. Consequence — Finnish rPET is among the most expensive in the EU (premium pricing).
Poland — where we are, where we are going
Poland starts at 72.4% in the first half-year — a result better than every domestic forecast (Ministry projection: 60–65% in H1, 70% in H2). We have overtaken Sweden after five years.
A realistic trajectory for the Polish system:
| Year | PET target | PET forecast | Challenge |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | 65% | 74–78% | RVM rollout in small towns |
| 2027 | 77% | 82–85% | Extension to oils, milk, detergents |
| 2028 | 85% | 88–92% | Deposit raise from 12 to 20 EUR cents |
| 2030 | 90% | 93–95% | System consolidation, quality standards |
Matching Germany (98%+) is probably not achievable before 2032. Why? Germany has a denser machine network (8 000 people per machine vs 11 000 in Poland), a higher deposit (25 vs 12 EUR cents) and 22 years of operating experience.
Stream quality — the hidden key
“% returned” tells only half the story. Equally important is the quality index — the share of bottles that are actually usable for food-grade recycling:
- Norway: 97.8% (clean bottles, sorted by colour)
- Germany: 96.2%
- Finland: 95.5%
- Sweden: 94.1%
- Poland (H1 2026): 94.2%
Here Poland is essentially at Scandinavian level. The reason: investment from the start in RVMs with built-in optical sorters — they reject wrong items without staff intervention. The Polish system also runs separate colour fractions (clear, blue, mixed) from day one, like Germany.
Lessons for the Polish system
- The deposit level matters. Poland in 2028 should consider raising from 12 to 20 EUR cents to catch up with the German 98%+ level. The 2024 Swedish increase shows immediate effect.
- RVM density needs maintenance, not just launch. Norway runs continuous rollout programmes — a machine is dispatched to every new retail location above 150 m². Poland should adopt this standard.
- Clearing consolidation lowers cost. Three operators in Poland (Tomra, Envipco, Remondis) compete — good short-term for hardware prices, but ~25% higher operating cost than a single national operator. Consolidation or strict clearing standards should be on the table by 2028.
What this means for the rPET market
The headline conclusion: in 2028–2030 Poland becomes an rPET exporter — like Norway today. Production of 300 000+ t/year of food-grade rPET from a clean deposit stream will exceed domestic FMCG demand; the surplus flows mainly to Germany and France.
For Polish packaging producers and FMCG brands, 2026–2027 is the window of opportunity: secure long-term contracts for domestic rPET at lower prices, before pricing converges to German levels (today a 12% gap).