Deposit or simple reuse: the legal and operational difference

The two terms are often used interchangeably, yet they refer to different mechanisms. Reused packaging can circulate without any money changing hands, or within a system where the customer pays a deposit that is refunded on return. The difference looks minor on paper. Yet it shapes the return rate, the logistics that need to be put in place, and the legal obligations that apply to the producer placing the packaging on the market.

What the Code de l'environnement says about reuse

Article L. 541-1-1 of the Code de l'environnement (French Environmental Code) distinguishes réemploi (reuse) from réutilisation (reuse of items that have become waste) on one specific criterion: the waste status of the item concerned. Réemploi covers any operation by which substances, materials or products that are not waste are used again for the same purpose for which they were designed. Réutilisation, by contrast, concerns products that have become waste before being put back into use. Well-managed reusable packaging, which returns to the loop without ever being discarded or treated as waste, therefore legally falls under réemploi, not réutilisation.

This distinction has an immediate practical consequence: a facility that carries out reuse only is not subject to the classified installations regime (installations classées) that applies to waste, which makes it simpler to operate than a channel that puts waste back into use.

Deposit: a separate mechanism built on a refundable payment

A deposit adds an element that simple reuse does not require: a sum paid by the customer at the time of purchase and refunded when they return the empty packaging. This mechanism does not appear as such in Article L. 541-1-1, which defines the notions of réemploi and réutilisation. It appears instead in the framework of the pilot schemes provided for by law, which made it possible to test deposit systems, particularly for the reuse of glass packaging.

In the sources consulted for this article, we did not find the exact text that gives a complete legal definition of a deposit in the current Code de l'environnement. If your company needs to secure a deposit scheme legally, checking the consolidated text on Légifrance (the official French legal database), or seeking advice from a lawyer specializing in environmental law, remains essential before any implementation. What can be stated with a higher level of confidence, because several pilots covered in the trade press document it, is the operational effect of a deposit on customer behavior: the refund creates a direct incentive to bring the packaging back, which reuse without a refundable payment does not.

What the loi AGEC requires, regardless of deposits

The loi AGEC (French anti-waste law) of 10 February 2020 imposes several reuse-related obligations without relying on a general deposit mechanism. Stores with a sales area of 400 m² or more must provide clean reusable containers to their customers, free of charge or for a fee. Consumers also have the right to bring their own container, which the retailer may refuse if it is dirty or unsuitable for the intended use. For takeaway drinks, the law requires a lower price when the customer presents a reusable container, which creates an economic incentive without resorting to a deposit in the strict sense.

Décret n° 2022-507 of 8 April 2022 (a French implementing decree) adds a quantified obligation: a minimum proportion of reused packaging must be placed on the market each year, on a trajectory starting at 5% in 2023 and reaching 10% in 2027, expressed in sales units rather than tonnage. This obligation covers all packaging categories, household and commercial alike, and applies to producers placing at least 10,000 packaged units per year on the French market. It does not specify that the packaging concerned must go through a deposit scheme: reuse organized without a refundable payment counts toward this proportion, provided it is declared and traceable.

At EU level, the PPWR regulation, which has applied progressively since 2026, defines reusable packaging in its Article 11 as packaging designed, created and placed on the market with the explicit aim of completing multiple trips or rotations within a reuse system. Its Articles 29 and 30 set quantified targets specific to transport and e-commerce, with a target of 40% in 2030 and then 70% in 2040, again without imposing a deposit model to achieve them.

The return rate gap between the two models

In the field, the gap between deposit and simple reuse shows up mainly in the return rate. A deposit scheme monitored over twelve months reaches an average return rate of 24% according to one industry player, a figure considered modest, while some frequently repurchased products, such as milk or water, exceed 60% within the same scheme. Conversely, in-store reuse pilots without a deposit show highly variable rates, from 1.1% to 18.6% depending on the retailer, a gap attributed largely to the visibility of the system and the training of sales staff rather than to the absence of a refundable payment.

This comparison remains partial, since the two types of scheme have not been tested under strictly comparable conditions. It does suggest, however, that a deposit provides a more consistent and predictable incentive, at the cost of extra management complexity: collecting the deposit, refunding it and tracing the payment, all of which carries its own cost to be factored into the overall business model.

Which model to choose for your business

For a company shipping parcels B2B or in a closed loop between its own sites, reuse without a deposit is often enough: routes are known, and the packaging comes back through the same channel that sent it, with no need for a financial incentive aimed at an end customer. For a model that serves end consumers directly, however, the absence of a deposit exposes the system to the same weaknesses observed in the pilots cited above: a return rate that depends almost entirely on the customer's goodwill and on the quality of point-of-sale communication. The choice between the two models is therefore not only a matter of applicable law, but also of a realistic assessment of how end customers are likely to behave in the channel concerned.

← All articles