The question

If a Deposit Return Scheme (DRS) says “if you sell drinks, you must take containers back”, is it realistic for a retailer to handle returns manually at the counter over the long term, or is automation with Reverse Vending Machines (RVMs) effectively the only sustainable option?

The direct answer

For serious retail environments, manual counter take‑back is not a viable long‑term strategy:

• It is dirty and space‑intensive: you turn valuable counter or back‑counter area into a wet, sticky sorting zone.
• It is labour‑heavy and costly: staff must stop what they are doing to count, inspect and store containers.
• It is open to fraud and error: there is no systematic, auditable way to prevent double‑counting, mis‑counting or re‑refunding.
• It will likely be increasingly constrained by DMO rules as schemes mature and look for data integrity and fraud control.

For HORECA (pubs, bars, restaurants, hospitality), scheme operators will normally publish specific exemptions or tailored rules. That is a separate discussion and those venues should refer directly to their DMO. The Recyclever blog focuses on retailers operating under DRS with RVM return points – supermarkets, discounters, convenience, petrol forecourts, shopping‑centre anchors.

Once you factor in:

• Handling fees per container, and
• The revenue potential of a properly used media screen on the RVM,

the machine shifts from “necessary cost” to money‑making infrastructure. That logic holds not only for large chains but increasingly for mid‑size and even smaller shops as customer expectations rise.

Why manual returns are fundamentally flawed for retailers

From a retailer’s operational point of view, manual take‑back at the counter has four structural problems.

1. It’s dirty

• Staff must manually handle sticky, sometimes un‑emptied containers.
• You need somewhere to put them – crates, bins, bags – very close to where food, payment and customer interaction happen.
• Spills, smells and pests become a real risk if procedures ever slip.

In a modern store, where hygiene, food safety and customer perception are critical, that is not a sensible use of front‑of‑house space.

2. It takes space

• A “manual return desk” or space behind the counter displaces selling space or queuing space.
• You need room for:
  • The staff member.
  • The returned containers, at least until they can be moved to the backroom.
  • Any basic sorting (glass vs PET vs aluminium).

For most formats, the opportunity cost of that space is high. An RVM, by contrast, has a known, compact footprint and its storage volume is vertical inside the machine.

3. It’s manual and costly

• Every container is an incremental task:

  • Count.
  • Check material and condition.
  • Decide if it’s in scope.
  • Keep some sort of tally.

• During busy periods, this means:

  • Longer queues.
  • Staff pulled off other tasks.
  • Inconsistent counting and decision‑making under pressure.

You are effectively turning every return into a mini “customer service transaction” rather than allowing the customer to self‑serve.

4. It’s open to fraud and error

Without automation, you are relying on:

• Human memory and honesty for:

  • Tracking whether a container has already been refunded.
  • Avoiding “sympathetic” double refunds when customers argue.

• Manual records that are:

  • Hard to integrate into the DMO’s data flows.
  • Vulnerable to manipulation.

It is not hard to imagine scenarios where containers are:

• Counted twice, by mistake or design.
• Taken in from outside and re‑refunded.
• Reported inaccurately to the DMO.

Given that the scheme operator must reconcile deposits, refunds and material flows at national scale, manually handled, low‑integrity return points are a structural weak link. It is reasonable to expect DMOs to become progressively stricter about what is acceptable as the system matures.

HORECA is different – and should follow DMO guidance

Pubs, bars, clubs, restaurants and other hospitality venues (HORECA) are a different use case:

• Their core business is on‑premise consumption, not retail shopping.
• Their waste streams and staffing models are different.
• The practicality of installing RVMs on‑site varies widely.

Most scheme operators recognise this and will:

• Publish specific rules or exemptions for HORECA.
• Allow different return and reporting processes for drinks consumed on the premises.

Those businesses must check the rules set by their own DMO (for the UK, that is UK DMO: https://dmouk.com/) and plan accordingly.

The Recyclever blog, and this post in particular, deals with retail DRS return points – not HORECA – because the operational reality is completely different.

Why RVMs are the realistic standard for retailers

In a “return‑to‑retail” DRS, the direction of travel in mature markets is clear:

1. Wave 1 – Major retailers

   • Large supermarkets, discounters, hypermarkets:
     • Install RVMs to handle high volumes.
     • Meet customer expectations and DMO requirements from day one.
     • Protect front‑of‑house from mess and manual counting.

2. Wave 2 – Mid‑tier chains

   • Medium‑sized retailers find that:
     • Their customers are returning containers at the larger competitors.
     • They are losing both footfall and perception (“they’re not serious about recycling”).
   • They install RVMs to remain competitive and to keep DRS‑driven visits in their stores.

3. Wave 3 – Smaller shops

   • As the scheme matures, the public begins to expect RVMs everywhere:
     • “If you sell drinks, you should have a proper return machine.”
   • Even smaller shops recognise that:
     • Manual returns are a poor experience and a fraud risk.
     • A well‑chosen, compact RVM can become a service differentiator and revenue source, not just a tick‑box for compliance.

In other words, the market tends to move from “RVMs as big‑retailer tools” to “RVMs as normal infrastructure”, just as card terminals and self‑checkouts did.

From cost to money maker: handling fee + media + loyalty

If you think of RVMs as only a way to comply with DRS, you see only the cost side:

• Machine, installation, maintenance.
• Staff time for paper, bags, cleaning.
• IT integration.

Once you add the income side, the picture changes:

• Handling fees per container (paid by the DMO) help cover the operating cost of collection; mature DRSs are explicitly designed so retailers are compensated for hosting return points.

• A media screen on the RVM gives you:

  • High‑engagement digital inventory at the point of return.
  • The ability to sell campaigns to beverage brands and other suppliers at a premium.
  • A channel to amplify your own offers and sustainability messaging.

• Loyalty integration lets you:

  • Capture data by letting users scan their loyalty app at the end of a session.
  • Trigger targeted, supplier‑funded offers based on categories or behaviours.
  • Increase visit frequency as customers come back to redeem vouchers and offers.

For a retailer with, say, 500 stores, each with at least one RVM:

• You control 500 media screens in prime, high‑attention locations.
• If you package that properly, the media revenue alone can be significant – in some cases enough to offset a large share, or even most, of the RVM operating cost.

This is why, viewed strategically, it makes sense to see the RVM as:

• A service device: required for DRS and expected by customers.
• A data and loyalty device: connecting physical behaviour with your digital ecosystem.
• A media device: a new premium channel to sell to brands and use for your own campaigns.

So, is manual take‑back viable long term?

For the retail DRS context the Recyclever blog focuses on, the answer is:

• Operationally: manual returns are dirty, space‑hungry, labour‑intensive and disruptive.
• Financially: manual processes provide no media or data upside and are hard to compensate fully through handling fees alone.
• From a fraud and compliance standpoint: manual returns are inherently weaker, harder to audit, and more exposed to mistakes or bad faith.
• From a customer‑expectation standpoint: as RVM adoption spreads, manual counter returns will increasingly feel second‑rate.

In other words, manual take‑back might be tolerated as a temporary measure or in exceptional contexts, but it is not a credible long‑term solution for mainstream retailers under a modern DRS.

RVMs, particularly when designed and deployed as money‑making, customer‑engaging infrastructure, are the sustainable answer.