Mitigating Cost Impact on Customers with Beverage Container Return Scheme's Roll-out in April 2026

Mr Foo Cexiang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether NEA took reference from other countries in designing the Beverage Container Return Scheme; (b) whether NEA has considered alternatives which could have a lower cost impact on producers and consumers; and (c) how will NEA ensure that producers and consumers are not adversely and severely impacted.

Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how many operational reverse vending machines and return points will be available at the onset of the Beverage Container Return Scheme on 1 April 2026; (b) how will adequate capacity for redemption of deposits be assured during the roll-out of the scheme; and (c) how will unredeemed deposits be managed with full transparency.

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment given that the Beverage Container Return Scheme is projected to add 25 to 60 cents to prices of bottled and canned drinks of which only 10 cents is refundable, what assessment was made of the affordability impact on lower-income households before confirming the April 2026 launch.

Sir, the response to these questions also addresses related Parliamentary Questions on the Beverage Container Return Scheme (BCRS) filed by Members of Parliament Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik and Ms Lee Hui Ying1, 2, 3 for Sittings on or after 4 February 2026.

Sir, I thank Members for their interest in the upcoming BCRS, which will commence on 1 April this year. This scheme was debated three years ago during the Second Reading of the Resource Sustainability (Amendment) Bill and Members had expressed support for the scheme. Engagements and discussions with industry and the public had started even earlier.

The scheme was first proposed by a Recycle Right Citizens’ Workgroup in 2019 to increase household recycling rates and reduce contamination in the recycling bins. These intentions remain relevant today. The amount of packaging waste generated in Singapore forms one third of our domestic waste generated and our overall recycling rate remains low.

The BCRS aims to increase the recycling of beverage containers using an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) concept. And this is the second such scheme to be introduced in Singapore, building on our experience with the e-waste recycling programme. The scheme features a deposit paid at the point of purchase to incentivise consumers to return their containers. By nudging consumers to make a small change in their lifestyle, we hope to increase recycling of beverage containers and spark a change in our recycling habits.

In designing the scheme, we studied the experiences of other jurisdictions. Schemes in Norway, Denmark and Lithuania have achieved high collection rates, and one common factor was having an industry-led, not-for-profit entity run the scheme. We have adopted a similar approach in Singapore, because the industry stakeholders are best placed to determine the most effective way to recover used beverage containers. They are also incentivised to operate the scheme efficiently and effectively to ensure that the cost impact on producers is manageable.

The scheme operator, BCRS Ltd, was formed by the industry and is governed by a Board that has both large and small producer representatives, comprising Coca-Cola Singapore Beverages, F&N Foods, Pokka, Wanin Industries and Chia Khim Lee Food Industries. Licensed by the National Environment Agency (NEA), they are required to report the amount of 10-cent deposits collected from the producers and refunded to the consumers in their annual report for public accountability.

Several Members asked questions about the cost of the scheme and the effect on beverage prices.

All regulated beverage containers supplied in Singapore will attract a 10-cent deposit, which is fully refundable. Such containers will bear a deposit mark for easy identification. Consumers will pay this 10 cents at the point of purchase and obtain their refund when they return the containers for recycling.

All producers will also need to pay a producer fee of three to four cents per container to the scheme operator, BCRS Ltd. This fee covers the logistics to collect and recycle the containers and is comparable to fees in other jurisdictions.

From our engagements with stakeholders, producers of about 80% of beverage containers can incorporate the deposit mark and barcode requirements directly on their containers. Beyond the once-off implementation cost, these producers should see costs per container close to the producer fee of three to four cents, which should keep compliance costs low for most drinks sold.

Some producers may need to, or may choose to, place a sticker on their containers, instead of changing the design of the container, in order to comply with the scheme. The cost of stickering will vary, depending on the quantity of containers put to market and how their supply chains are organised. Some can do so for about three cents per container, if done at source overseas and at scale. For small quantities done locally, the cost to the producer would be higher.

We appreciate that some producers may find the transition more challenging. NEA and the scheme operator BCRS Ltd have been engaging both large and small producers regularly and providing practical support to help them come on board. Responding to feedback from producers that they needed more time to comply with the scheme requirements, we have extended the transition period from three months, to six months. We also introduced a transition grant of $2,500 to help smaller businesses.

We will continue to be flexible and supportive to producers who reach out to BCRS Ltd to help address their concerns. Over time, we expect producers to work with BCRS Ltd to optimise their processes and find cost effective ways to meet their responsibility to the environment.

The consumer pricing of beverages is a complex and commercial decision. Consumer demand patterns and marketing strategies will also affect the price.

We have designed the scheme to be run as efficiently as possible, with a low cost to producers. Any cost pass-through to consumers will likely be further moderated by price competition among industry players, as consumers have a wide variety of choices. This has been the experience in some jurisdictions that have implemented this, where studies found that the introduction of deposit return schemes did not have a significant direct impact on beverage prices or beverage sales.

Members have also asked about the accessibility of our return point network. At launch in April, the public can return their empty plastic and metal beverage containers bearing the deposit mark at over 1,000 Reverse Vending Machines (RVMs) located across Singapore to obtain a 10-cent refund. These RVMs will be located at larger supermarkets and other publicly accessible locations with high footfall, such as void decks of HDB blocks and some hawker centres. Sir, 90% of residents in HDB housing estates will live within a five-minute walk to one of these return points. BCRS Ltd will provide more details on the RVM locations in the coming weeks.

We aim to double the number of return points to 2,000 RVMs within the first year of implementation. While the scheme officially starts in April, containers bearing the deposit mark will gradually enter the market during the transition period, with widespread availability expected by August and September. During this initial period, we will closely monitor return patterns and gather community feedback to determine the optimal location for these additional return points.

We want to create a scheme that works for all of us. At launch, we will deploy ambassadors on the ground to guide the public on how to use the RVMs. We recognise that some seniors and vulnerable members of the community may require additional assistance to adapt to the scheme. NEA and BCRS Ltd, together with our community partners, are committed to providing additional support to better address their needs.

A key focus for us in the coming weeks is to work closely with all stakeholders to build understanding and support for the scheme. We will be reaching out to grassroots organisations, schools, youth groups, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and corporate partners to share how the scheme works and why it matters. Many are already champions of our sustainability initiatives and I hope will continue to advocate for how BCRS is a very important step in our journey to look after our land, our resources and our environment.

We are also in discussions with other key stakeholders, including coffeeshops and smaller retailers, to help them understand the scheme and explain it to consumers. This includes posters and collaterals to assist in distinguishing new beverage containers bearing the deposit mark, from older or non-regulated beverages that are not subject to the deposit.

The beverage container return scheme is a significant step forward in Singapore’s recycling journey. It will take time for all of us to adjust. We will not get everything right from the start. We ask for feedback, suggestions and understanding as we transit to this new way of recycling. As we gather more data, we will refine and improve the scheme.

We need everyone’s support to make this scheme a success. We want to thank the producers who have helped to bring the scheme to where it is today and call upon those who have yet to register for the scheme to come forward and do their part for the environment.

The scheme cannot succeed without the support of our residents. I encourage Members of the House to rally their communities to participate actively, and extend a helping hand to those who may need assistance in returning their containers, as we all do our part for Singapore’s sustainability journey.

Thank you, Speaker and the Senior Minister of State. I have two supplementary questions. First, we expect this collection of return containers, with over 1,000, to even in future, 2,000 return points to be quite a substantial operational and logistical effort. What is the estimated additional manpower that is needed for collection and transportation of all these collected containers?

And related to this, my second supplementary question: how would consumers be protected? Should the cost of drinks go beyond the three to four cents of operational costs, as imputed in these logistical operations, will that lead to much more expensive drinks in future for consumers?

Sir, I thank Ms Poh for the questions. On the first matter, the RVMs are operated by the return point network operators. They have entered into contractual arrangements with companies to then do the reverse logistics – to empty out the RVMs at least once per day, and more if there is a high return rate at that particular machine. They also maintain the cleanliness and operations of the machines.

The reverse logistics operators are companies and entities that are already well known to us. They are actually part of our public waste collection and Town Council operations. They are they are not new companies being set up just for this purpose. I do not have a specific answer in terms of the number of man hours. This is something that will be adjusted over time, depending on which RVMs require frequent clearance and which ones only require clearance once per day. But we will be watching this closely and we are working with the companies to make sure that their operations can be done smoothly. We have to make sure that the machines maintain their up-time as a service to the residents, so that the ability to return these beverage containers is always there.

To her second question about protection for consumers, there are several reasons to have some degree of confidence in what is going to happen moving forward. The first is the experience in other jurisdictions where the introduction of such schemes has not led to an increase in price of beverage containers. More than 50 jurisdictions around the world have introduced similar schemes.

So, in designing our scheme, we took reference from those lessons around the world and started with our BCRS, which is industry-led. Secondly, the competition in this industry is quite significant. For 80% of the beverage containers that are put to market, the producers of these 80% of the containers have told us that their cost for doing so is about three to four cents. They have been quite engaging and open about this. There is a long tail of smaller producers that will face some challenges, and as I have explained, we will be flexible and supportive to assist these businesses in dealing with the transition and will try to help them come on board.

The protection for the consumers is that our consumers are quite discriminatory and they will adjust purchasing behaviour if there is indeed some attempt to extract excessive profits through this process. Nevertheless, NEA will be watching the beverage prices after we introduce this scheme and through the transition, very closely.

Thank you, Speaker. My clarification for the Senior Minister of State is this: I thank him for his response that there will be about 1,000 RVMs set up country-wide, with an aim to increase to about 2,000. But in context, there are about 15,000 vending machines in Singapore and I believe a significant number of them are vending drinks. So, in comparison, the ratio is about 1,000:15,000. Given that everyone who buys a can will have to return the can to the vending machine to get back to 10 cents, do we anticipate queues and long waiting periods at the RVMs? And also, have we taken into consideration of the logistical arrangements in terms of malfunctions or that sort of operational challenges with the RVMs?

Sir, I thank Mr Foo Cexiang for his questions. We are deploying 1,000 RVMs in the first instance. The way in which we are doing it, this phased approach, is indeed to then learn about how best to deploy, where best to deploy and how best to then have ambassadors come and assist people. So, we are deploying 1,000 machines together with operations to have people stand by the machines at certain times of the day to assist seniors particularly, but also anybody who is asking for help. We will learn from that experience to decide how we should deploy the next 1,000 machines and where we should deploy them.

Again, we are learning from the experience of jurisdictions overseas. We are also learning from the experience here in Singapore, where we had about 50 RVMs operate through a pilot programme over four years. We collected about 16 million containers through that process. The operators of that pilot are also one of our return point network operators and on the board of BCRS Ltd. So, we are taking those lessons in and through all of that, we have assessed that we do not need 15,000 RVMs. There is a certain minimum volume collection per day that makes the logistical arrangements cost-effective, and we think that number is much closer to the 1,000 to 2,000 RVMs we are planning to have. Nevertheless, we are going to look at the data very closely and make sure that we make the RVMs accessible to Singaporeans so that they can return their beverage containers.

Addressing malfunctions and making logistical arrangements are part of licensing requirements for BCRS Ltd, and contractual arrangements that they have with their return point network operators and vendors of their machines. There is a contractual requirement for these machines to maintain 90% up-time. In other words, you only have 10% of your time for cleaning, clearing the beverage containers and doing repairs. For the rest of the time, it needs to be available. This is a metric that we will be watching very closely, and BCRS Ltd will be watching in terms of their contractual arrangements with the return point network operators.

Thank you, Speaker and Senior Minister of State. I have two clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. First, could the Ministry provide additional grants and support, including on a longer-term basis, for smaller drinks producers to help defray the costs of complying with the scheme?

Second, would the Ministry consider waiving the requirement to have the deposit mark after the transition period, given that there should be sufficient public awareness by then and retailers no longer need to distinguish products with and without the 10-cent deposit?

Sir, I thank Ms Joan Pereira for her two questions. We are currently providing a grant of $2,500. That grant is given to all registered producers. But it is sized to especially address the needs of the smaller producers. For a smaller producer, which we define as less than 50,000 beverage containers put to market per year, and that represents about one quarter of the producers in our estimate, the $2,500 is more than sufficient to cover both the product registration cost as well as the producer fees for the first year, which is about $2,000 in total. So, that is how we have sized the grant.

We are prepared to exercise flexibility and look at further support, but we also have to recognise that the purpose of this scheme is to shift some of the responsibility to the producer. Today, if we purchase a beverage container, the entire responsibility for recycling that beverage container rests with the consumer. What we want is to shift some of that responsibility to the producer, so that they think about their supply chains, about the materials that are used and about how they commissioned their product and put it to market.

So, we will consider these factors, but in general, we are prepared to be flexible and supportive in order to make sure that this scheme includes as much material as possible that we can successfully recycle.

Speaker, I am sorry. I think Ms Pereira had a second question that I have not yet answered, about waiving the deposit mark after the transition. It is a reasonable question. However, not all beverage containers will be covered by the scheme and a consumer will need to know that the beverage container that they have in their hand is ineligible for the deposit. So, the deposit mark will be necessary for some time as the scheme does not cover 100% of beverage containers, and we want to make sure that consumers know which ones will attract the deposit and hence, be eligible for use at the RVMs for refunds. I would like to make the point that for containers that do not bear the deposit mark, we would like to encourage consumers to recycle them through the existing blue bins.

Thank you, Speaker and thank you, Senior Minister of State. I have two supplementary questions. The first is whether the deposit value will be revealed over time and what criteria will trigger such a review?

And for the second supplementary question, what is the increase in the national recycling rate that we expect to see as a result of this scheme?

Sir, if I may clarify with Ms Valerie Lee, the deposit value she is referring to is the total amount or the 10 cents? Okay. So, whether the 10-cent deposit amount may be subsequently reviewed. Indeed, we will review the scheme as we go along. The quantum of the deposit in the 50 jurisdictions that we have studied does vary and some are significantly more than what we have here in Singapore. It is something we will review as we go along, to ensure that the scheme is effective.

As for the recycling rate, we are hoping that we can get a good recycling rate of beverage containers. Some of the best schemes in the world have recycling rates of over 90%. Most of them that we have studied, that we are trying to emulate, are closer to the 70% to 80% range. That is the sort of recycling rate that we would be hoping to achieve through this process.

Thank you, Speaker. The deposit rate is fully refundable at 10 cents, but I believe media reports have put the projected price increase at 25 to 60 cents. So, the difference is about 15 to 50 cents of permanent compliance costs, which the vending machine will not return. So, what assessment has been made of this non-refundable portion as a share of income for lower-income households?

The second supplementary question: the only current confirmed refund method is EZ-Link. So, can the Senior Minister of State confirm that the cash refund or cash voucher refund option will be available at all return points from Day 1.

The third supplementary question: a lot of parallel importers face $40,000 a month of fees under the scheme. With the transition grant at $2,500, that is quite disproportionate. So, these parallel importers are the companies that bring the cheapest drinks onto the market. Has the Ministry assessed the risk that this scheme eliminates the discount beverage segment entirely?

And final supplementary question: I note that the Senior Minister of State has said that they will monitor to see if the price increases will go beyond three to four cents. But as we all know, price increases are sticky. So, what will the Government do if the price increases go beyond three to four cents?

Sir, I thank Mr Tiong for his questions. On his first point, he quotes it as a projection. The 25 to 60 cents was a media report from a handful of producers. Our assessment is that 80% of the market will have a 3% to 4% increase. [Please refer to "Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment", Official Report, 3 February 2026, Vol 96, Issue 15, Clarification section.]

Indeed, there will be smaller producers who, because of their supply chain or the size of their operations, will have higher challenges and we are prepared to be flexible and supportive, as explained. The grant that we sized already covers about one-quarter of the producers and especially those that have put to market of less than 50,000 units.

For the refund methodology, we have explained that EZ-Link SimplyGo is available as a refund methodology and there will be further refund methodologies. We are not, at this point, planning for cash or cash voucher as forms of refund. We are hoping to use digital means and BCRS Ltd will be announcing the other means for refund in the future.

We have indeed engaged with a variety of importers, including some of the smallest importers. I think the smallest producer that we have directly engaged has a put to market of 1,000 units. We are trying to understand their challenges, and we are trying to find ways to help them participate in this scheme while remaining viable as a business.

Was there a fourth question?

So, we will monitor. It depends on what is the behaviour. If there is evidence of collusion or profiteering, there are mechanisms for that to be reported and dealt with. We will look to see what are the factors that have led to that.

Thank you, Speaker. Since small beverage producers may likely pass the compliance cost to consumers, what percentage price increase does the Ministry consider acceptable for consumers to bear as a result of this scheme? And was this consumer impact factored into the decision to set the grant at only $2,500?

Sir, I anticipate significant competition within the market to be the biggest protection that consumers will have; that there are quite a wide variety of choices available, and 80% of the beverage containers will only be attracting, for the producer, a cost of three to four cents. That availability of choice and the functioning of the market are likely to be the biggest protection.

We have indeed engaged with the producers, retailers and a variety of representatives representing all stakeholders, to understand what the dynamics are and what the concerns are.

The industry players, of course, are also concerned that they remain competitive within this industry. We will be monitoring the transition and how this process plays out.