SINGAPORE: When Singapore’s beverage container return scheme begins in April, most people will notice one thing first: the extra 10 cents added to the price of a drink.
You pay it upfront, and you get it back when you return the empty bottle or can. Simple enough.
However, importers and small retailers warned that the new scheme would lead to higher compliance costs, which could be passed on to consumers.
Dr Janil Puthucheary, Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment, clarified that beside one-off implementation costs, the cost for producers to meet the new requirements would be around 6 to 7 cents per container.
But if we focus only on the money, we miss what this policy is really trying to do. At its core, this scheme is less about recycling containers than it is about changing behaviour. Its goal is to make sustainable actions easier, more visible and part of daily routines.
Singaporeans generally care about sustainability. Surveys consistently show strong concern for environmental issues, and many people recycle when conditions allow. Yet recycling rates have lagged behind these intentions.
This is not because people do not care. It is because caring alone does not reliably translate into action.
Behavioural science has long shown that people are more likely to act sustainably when systems reduce friction and prompt follow-through. Deposit return schemes do exactly that. By attaching a small, refundable value to an empty container, the scheme reframes it from “rubbish” into something unfinished.
That moment matters. It introduces a pause after consumption, a reminder that there is one more step to complete. Over time, repeating that step can turn it into a habit rather than a decision that needs fresh motivation each time.
International experience supports this approach. Countries in Northern Europe have used deposit-return systems for decades, achieving return rates above 90 per cent. What stands out is not enforcement, but normalisation. Returning bottles is simply what people do.
Australia offers a more regional comparison. Since container deposit schemes were introduced across most states, return rates have increased substantially and litter has declined. Importantly, participation has remained high even though refund amounts are modest.
These experiences suggest that once systems are convenient and embedded into daily life, people stop thinking about the incentive. The behaviour becomes automatic.
Behaviour does not happen in isolation. It is shaped by place.
For Singapore’s scheme to be successful, beverage container return points must be conveniently and conspicuously located. About 1,000 reverse vending machines will be installed at supermarkets, void decks and town centres.
When infrastructure fits daily movement, participation rises without the need for reminders or enforcement. Visibility matters as well – seeing others return containers reinforces the idea that it is normal behaviour. Recycling shifts from a private household task to a shared public practice.
For any public scheme to become a shared civic practice, it must also feel fair.
If returning containers is easy only in certain neighbourhoods, or if machines are difficult to use for some groups, participation will naturally be uneven. Environmental responsibility should not depend on having more time, familiarity or access than others.
Policymakers can support more inclusive implementation by monitoring where participation is lower across neighbourhoods or demographic groups. Rather than reacting after problems emerge, they can adjust infrastructure placement, communication or outreach in response to real usage patterns.
This shifts policy from static rollout to adaptive learning. It also helps ensure that environmental citizenship remains a collective expectation, not an uneven burden.
Aggregated and anonymised data not only informs policy decisions, but when communicated with the public, goes a long way in building trust.
People are more willing to accept small inconveniences when they understand the purpose behind a policy and can see its outcomes. Transparent reporting on return rates, environmental benefits and how recovered materials are reused can reinforce public confidence that individual actions matter.
Ultimately, the beverage container return scheme should not be judged only by how much waste it diverts from incineration. Its deeper success lies in whether it normalises sustainable behaviour and strengthens a shared sense of responsibility for the city we live in.
Cities shape behaviour, often without us realising it. Streets, systems and infrastructure quietly guide what feels easy, normal and expected. When policy is designed with behavioural insight, sustainability becomes less about persuading people to change, and more about enabling them to act on values they already hold.
Returning a bottle may seem like a small act. Repeated millions of times, in public spaces, it can shift how Singaporeans understand environmental responsibility and citizenship.
Dr Samuel Chng is Research Assistant Professor and heads the Urban Psychology Lab at Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities, Singapore University of Technology and Design.
Dr Sarah Chan is Chan Heng Chee Research Fellow at Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities, Singapore University of Technology and Design.
Continue reading...
You pay it upfront, and you get it back when you return the empty bottle or can. Simple enough.
However, importers and small retailers warned that the new scheme would lead to higher compliance costs, which could be passed on to consumers.
Dr Janil Puthucheary, Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment, clarified that beside one-off implementation costs, the cost for producers to meet the new requirements would be around 6 to 7 cents per container.
But if we focus only on the money, we miss what this policy is really trying to do. At its core, this scheme is less about recycling containers than it is about changing behaviour. Its goal is to make sustainable actions easier, more visible and part of daily routines.
FROM GOOD INTENTIONS TO EVERYDAY HABITS
Singaporeans generally care about sustainability. Surveys consistently show strong concern for environmental issues, and many people recycle when conditions allow. Yet recycling rates have lagged behind these intentions.
This is not because people do not care. It is because caring alone does not reliably translate into action.
Behavioural science has long shown that people are more likely to act sustainably when systems reduce friction and prompt follow-through. Deposit return schemes do exactly that. By attaching a small, refundable value to an empty container, the scheme reframes it from “rubbish” into something unfinished.
That moment matters. It introduces a pause after consumption, a reminder that there is one more step to complete. Over time, repeating that step can turn it into a habit rather than a decision that needs fresh motivation each time.
International experience supports this approach. Countries in Northern Europe have used deposit-return systems for decades, achieving return rates above 90 per cent. What stands out is not enforcement, but normalisation. Returning bottles is simply what people do.
Australia offers a more regional comparison. Since container deposit schemes were introduced across most states, return rates have increased substantially and litter has declined. Importantly, participation has remained high even though refund amounts are modest.
These experiences suggest that once systems are convenient and embedded into daily life, people stop thinking about the incentive. The behaviour becomes automatic.
Related:
PUBLIC SPACES AS PLACES OF ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION
Behaviour does not happen in isolation. It is shaped by place.
For Singapore’s scheme to be successful, beverage container return points must be conveniently and conspicuously located. About 1,000 reverse vending machines will be installed at supermarkets, void decks and town centres.
When infrastructure fits daily movement, participation rises without the need for reminders or enforcement. Visibility matters as well – seeing others return containers reinforces the idea that it is normal behaviour. Recycling shifts from a private household task to a shared public practice.
For any public scheme to become a shared civic practice, it must also feel fair.
If returning containers is easy only in certain neighbourhoods, or if machines are difficult to use for some groups, participation will naturally be uneven. Environmental responsibility should not depend on having more time, familiarity or access than others.
Policymakers can support more inclusive implementation by monitoring where participation is lower across neighbourhoods or demographic groups. Rather than reacting after problems emerge, they can adjust infrastructure placement, communication or outreach in response to real usage patterns.
This shifts policy from static rollout to adaptive learning. It also helps ensure that environmental citizenship remains a collective expectation, not an uneven burden.
Aggregated and anonymised data not only informs policy decisions, but when communicated with the public, goes a long way in building trust.
People are more willing to accept small inconveniences when they understand the purpose behind a policy and can see its outcomes. Transparent reporting on return rates, environmental benefits and how recovered materials are reused can reinforce public confidence that individual actions matter.
Related:
MORE THAN A RECYCLING POLICY
Ultimately, the beverage container return scheme should not be judged only by how much waste it diverts from incineration. Its deeper success lies in whether it normalises sustainable behaviour and strengthens a shared sense of responsibility for the city we live in.
Cities shape behaviour, often without us realising it. Streets, systems and infrastructure quietly guide what feels easy, normal and expected. When policy is designed with behavioural insight, sustainability becomes less about persuading people to change, and more about enabling them to act on values they already hold.
Returning a bottle may seem like a small act. Repeated millions of times, in public spaces, it can shift how Singaporeans understand environmental responsibility and citizenship.
Dr Samuel Chng is Research Assistant Professor and heads the Urban Psychology Lab at Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities, Singapore University of Technology and Design.
Dr Sarah Chan is Chan Heng Chee Research Fellow at Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities, Singapore University of Technology and Design.
Continue reading...