Challenges in Transitioning to a Circular Economy: A Spatial Analysis of Socioeconomic Factors Affecting the Adoption of the Deposit-Return System

Abstract

The Deposit-Return System for Recyclable Packaging (DRS) has recently been implemented in many countries to improve packaging waste management and support circular economy objectives. However, this mechanism has encountered many difficulties. The present study analyses the effectiveness of the DRS in the first 10 months of its operation in Romania, focusing on the spatial inequalities in recycling behaviour, the socioeconomic factors that influence the level of user participation, and user perceptions of waste management effectiveness. Combining cartographic analysis, socioeconomic indicators correlations, and media sentiment analysis, we discover key barriers to DRS implementation in rural areas, infrastructure limits, and public trust challenges. The results show a correlation between recycling rates and factors such as educational attainment, economic well-being, and urbanisation. The study also points out waste management inefficiencies related to poor infrastructure, costs to retailers, and operational difficulties of the recycling system. To enhance DRS performance, we suggest expanding the collection infrastructure in uncovered areas, providing dedicated financial assistance to retailers, and increasing transparency communication in waste processing outcomes. These findings contribute to discussions on optimising deposit-return schemes, reducing waste generation, and improving recycling efficiency in emerging circular economies.

1. Introduction

The Deposit-Return System for Recyclable Packaging (DRS) is an increasingly widespread measure in waste management and is recognised as a tool to address climate change [1]. Studies show that the recycling and reuse of packaging have a positive impact on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions [2]. In this context, it is important to analyse the effectiveness of waste management systems and their implementation at a geographical scale. Over 40 countries have adopted DRS, using it as a tool to increase recycling rates [3]. The model’s implementation differs from country to country, with variations in management, logistics, and user fees [4]. The success of DRS is most often measured by recycling rates [5], but this needs to be viewed more broadly, taking into account the ways in which it is communicated and promoted, the overall costs of the system and the ability to spread as widely as possible across the territory, beyond metropolitan areas or more densely populated regions.

In Romania, the recycling rate of packaging waste in 2022 was below the EU target of 65% by 2025, with only 39.9% of the target being achieved [6]. At the same time, at the European Union level, Romania ranked last in terms of municipal waste recycling in 2022, with a rate of only 12%, compared to Germany with 69%. According to the European Environment Agency (2022) [7], Romania is among the 10 EU countries that are at risk of reaching both their recycling targets of 55% for municipal waste and 65% for total packaging waste by 2025. Furthermore, the same report places Romania on the list of countries at risk of missing the target of reducing landfills by 10% by 2035. In this context, in November 2023, the Deposit-Return System (DRS) was initiated in Romania with the objective of becoming the largest circular economy project in the country and of collecting 77% of the plastic bottles in the country by 2025, and over 90% of them by 2030. By this time, it is also estimated that recycling rates will reach 75% for glass and 60% for aluminium [8]. The DRS system launched in Romania was projected to be the “world’s largest centralized Deposit-Return System with almost 80.000 collection points” [9]. The program received extensive media coverage and rapidly gained nationwide recognition. However, DRS encountered challenges in its implementation, experienced technical malfunctions, and was met with criticism. Furthermore, its geographical expansion was found to be uneven. In this context, the analysis of the implementation of this instrument in the context of the structural challenges and spatial disparities that Romania faces, positions it in a relevant case study for testing the effectiveness of European Union policies, in the context of climate change mitigation.

A number of criticisms and shortcomings have been identified in the literature on DRS. For instance, in several European countries, it has been argued that glass packaging recycling is not necessarily more efficient through DRS [3]. In other countries, issues have been identified with the programme’s logistics or the technical functionality of collection facilities [10,11,12]. Another criticism is related to the complex cost chain of the whole system, including distance and spatial diffusion [13,14].

It is still unclear how the DRS system has been developed at the territorial level, as well as the processes that have led to dysfunctions and confusion for the users. In this context, the aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of the Deposit-Return System in Romania following the initial year of operation, with a particular focus on geographical disparities that have emerged, media coverage, and the evolving reactions of users of the program. Our study has three research questions:

(1)

What geographical disparities have emerged in the wake of the implementation of the DRS, and what socioeconomic factors are influencing them?

(2)

What are the main themes reflected in the media about the SGR?

(3)

What kind of reactions have emerged over time from users of the system and how have these changed over time?

It is from these questions that two working hypotheses are proposed. The first hypothesis is that the DSR system primarily spreads in large cities, and that there is a direct relationship between demographic size and the spread of this system. Secondly, it was hypothesised that public reactions would be characterised by reluctance, criticism and resistance to change.

In order to address the questions posed, three distinct analyses were employed. Firstly, official DRS program data and socioeconomic data were analysed to produce a geography of the program and the factors that make it spread unevenly in terms of territorial distribution. Secondly, a comprehensive analysis of all press articles published in the last year in the five most-read newspapers in Romania was conducted. Finally, we analysed the online user comments during this time period. This involved an examination of the tone of the articles and user feedback, given that public perceptions can influence recycling behaviours [15,16].

The present study contributes to the existing literature on deposit-return systems [3,17,18,19] by introducing a spatial dimension to the phenomenon. While many studies have focused on the economic dimension of this system [20,21,22], we introduce new approaches by explaining the geographical factors that determine the speed or slowness of the spread of this system. Moreover, the innovation of our approach lies in the integration of a triple analytical framework that includes not only spatial correlations, but also media coverage and user perceptions within a common timeframe.

The structure of the present article is as follows. First, we present the theoretical background of deposit-return systems. Secondly, the methodology and the manner in which the data were analysed are presented. The results, discussion and conclusions are then provided.

2. Literature Review

The plastic lifecycle is not circular on the planet: annual plastic production reached 460 million tons in 2019 (double the amount in 2000), but only 9% of this is recycled [23]. At the European Union (EU) level, 83.4 million tons of packaging waste was generated in 2022, of which 19% was plastic, 19% glass, and 5% metal. This represents more than 36 kg of plastic packaging waste per capita, and of this, only 40% was recycled [6]. In response to this challenge, the European Union has formulated a strategy for a circular economy [24] and adopted numerous measures, including the ‘European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy’, a component of the ‘European Green Deal’. By this strategy, the EU aims to ensure that by 2030, all plastic packaging in Europe is reusable or economically recyclable, promoting more responsible management [25].

The Deposit-Return System (DRS) is a mechanism whereby the purchaser, at the time of purchase, pays a deposit, which can later be recovered by returning the packaging to a specially arranged collection point. The DRS became a tool that facilitates waste collection, reduces material waste, and encourages recycling [26], based on the “polluter pays” principle [27] and in line with the principles of the circular economy [28].

Although there are significant differences between countries in terms of legal framework, administrative structure of the system and the value of the guarantee offered, they have generated high recycling rates. Zhou et al. [27] identified three operating models: “the reverse logistics mode” implemented in Germany with a recycling rate of 97% glass, 96% metals and 98% plastics; “the retail recycling mode” implemented in Sweden with an overall recycling rate of 84.9% in 2016, and “the repo recycling mode” model used in Australia with a recovery rate of 76.5% in 2015.

Up till now, 16 countries have adopted DRS [9], each of which has a different pace of alignment with the EU’s overall target of collecting 90% of plastic bottles [29]. For example, at the time of DRS implementation in Slovenia, the recycling rate was 60%, and in 2024 the recycling rate reached 92%. On the other hand, within 8 years of DRS implementation, Lithuania has reached a rate of 83%, starting from 33% at the time of implementation. Implemented in 2005 in Estonia and 2006 in Croatia, the recycling rate of the two countries at the time of implementation was 50%, reaching 2024 87% in Estonia and 86% in Croatia, respectively [9,30].

To create a circular system and close the loop, the actors involved in the DRS scheme are multiple, from producers, distributors, and retailers, to consumers and system administrators [31]. The integration of the end consumer into the circularity loop is compulsory as this aspect, by closing the loop, generates an efficient implementation of a circular economy [32,33]. In the case of packaging waste, the buyer represents the final link of the loop, and his behaviour has a direct impact on the recycling process. This further strengthens the need to understand the factors that influence consumers’ recycling intentions and behaviour. More than that, the transition to a circular economy is also linked to the ability of businesses to adapt to new economic and environmental requirements. This transition involves more than simply changing production processes, requiring a reassessment of commercial relationships and interactions between economic agents [34].

The DRS mechanism has attracted the attention of administrations in various countries, and is considered a model of good practice [30,35]. In this respect, the European Union supports such instruments through strategic documents such as the European Green Deal [36], the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive [37] and the Environmental Liability Packaging Directive, also known as the Polluter Pays Directive [38]. In addition, the DRS contributes to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals of “Responsible Consumption and Production”, “Climate Action” and “Partnerships for the Goals” [39].

The concept of DRS has been a subject of discussion in the academic literature since the early 1980s [40], with researchers conducting continuous studies on this topic [5,12,41,42,43,44,45]. In the DRS framework, consumer behaviour plays an important role in the recycling process. Ajzen [46] claims that an individual’s behaviour is influenced by his or her intention to act, behaviour based on three main factors: attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control. These factors, in turn, are determined by different indicators, such as education level or income [47,48]. Indeed, in the case of recycling behaviour, some studies show that education, income, and individual benefits obtained from recycling influence the degree of involvement in the recycling process [49]. At the same time, Campbell [50] states that recycling rates are shaped by three primary factors: (I) the level of consumer knowledge and involvement in the recycling process (internal factors), (II) financial rewards and social pressure (external incentives) and (III) the regularity of the collection process (external factors).

On the other hand, lack of knowledge, information and familiarity with recycling processes were important barriers to DRS [51]. Consequently, education and awareness efforts are fundamental to promoting recycling behaviour [52]. However, even when individuals recognise the negative environmental and health impacts of plastic consumption, their recycling behaviour is influenced by factors such as consumption habits, perceived benefits of plastic use and contextual circumstances, hence reducing the determination to limit plastic consumption [53]. In this respect, a strategy for raising awareness is taking into account communication [54]. However, information campaigns should not only focus on the economic benefits of packaging return, but also on the positive impact of this process on the environment [55,56]. In this context, it is important that DRS is perceived not only as an obligation, but also as an opportunity to contribute to a more sustainable environment [57].

Geographically speaking, the development of behaviour regarding the DRS varies between countries. For example, in Sweden, where the system has been implemented for several decades, young adults have developed mature behaviours and attitudes towards recycling, which are influenced by functional values such as convenience, comfort, and the value of the guarantee [17]. In contrast, in Croatia, where the system was recently introduced, challenges related to knowledge and awareness persist [1]. In addition, there are considerable differences between urban and rural areas in terms of waste management. Urban areas are characterised by the presence of advanced waste collection infrastructures [58] and a population with a higher predisposition to waste recycling [59]. Instead, the rural areas are characterised by lower population density which conditions the number of collection points, and the access to these points collection becomes more challenging [60].

Dissemination of information through the media plays a major role in promoting and raising awareness of environmental and recycling issues [61]. This role is particularly significant in the context of a DRS system in its initial phases of implementation in a given country. The media has the ability to popularize such a system on a large scale, helping to educate the public, but it also can provide information on its technical functionality [62]. Consequently, the analysis of media exposure related to the DRS process can be a key aspect, given its potential correlation with the efficiency of the system and the effectiveness of its administration. However, few studies have focused on such analysis [63].

Social networks have become a major instrument in the promotion of recycling behaviours, exerting an influence on social and personal norms. They have the capacity to influence, reinforce and shape pro-environmental attitudes, thereby contributing to the adoption of sustainable practices [64]. The utilisation of online platforms has been identified as a means to activate norms that promote recycling, aligning with the theoretical framework of the theory of planned behaviour [65]. In the context of DRS, social networks have been identified to play a complex role. Specifically, they facilitate the dissemination of information regarding the system [66]. Thus, users can disseminate their personal experiences or report malfunctions, thereby fostering community engagement [67]. However, while social media can indeed raise awareness, it does not necessarily guarantee motivation to participate, as awareness does not necessarily equate to active engagement [68]. Furthermore, the amplification of negative perceptions through social media has the potential to discredit the system or disseminate false information, resulting in confusion or scepticism [69,70]. Consequently, user behaviour and comments on social media can serve as valuable tools for analysis, particularly in the context of emotions [71,72], an area that has received limited attention in the context of DRS.

Given the recent implementation of the DRS scheme in Romania, the academic approach within the country is incipient, focusing on the developing an implementation of the system and legislative aspects [57,73], or on the analysis of consumers’ perceptions in the marketing field [74], without addressing the topic in an integrated manner. However, environmental issues in Romania have been addressed by a series of studies that analysed the involvement of NGOs in environmental issues [75,76,77], while others have focused on environmental education [78,79], or on spatial approaches to it [80,81,82] and territorial disparities [83]. Consequently, this study offers a different perspective on the phenomenon by taking into account both geographical disparities of DRS, as well as media and social media exposure.

3. Materials and Methods

Our methodology consisted of three steps. First, we conducted a quantitative and spatial analysis of the DRS. Then, we analysed how this system has been reflected in the media, and thirdly, we analysed the comments of its users on social media (Figure 1).

The first methodological step was a quantitative analysis of the amounts recycled and their correlation with different socio-demographic indicators. This involved extracting and processing quantitative data available on the official website of DRS Romania [8]. The data set included monthly amounts of recycled packaging, specifically the number of pieces of plastic, metal and glass, at the county level, from January 2024 to September 2024. Utilising this data, the per capita recycling rate was calculated at the county level, and the results were translated into graphical and cartographic formats. Concurrently, a series of indicators were computed utilising demographic data for the year 2024, accessed from the website of the National Institute of Statistics of Romania [84], along with economic data obtained from the TopFirme platform [85] during the same period.

In order to ascertain the principal factors underpinning the intensity of recycling in each county, a coefficient of determination analysis was conducted (using the R2 function in the Excel spreadsheet program in the Microsoft Office v2016 package), indicating the extent to which the explanatory variable (total number of containers recycled per capita) is associated with each of the socioeconomic and demographic indicators analysed. These values reflect the potential influence of each indicator on the number of containers recycled. The analysis of these values reveals significant relationships between the variables analysed and recycling behaviour.

Two cartographic materials were produced with the program ARCGis Pro v2023, representing the following:

–

The number of recycled packaging per inhabitant in the interval January 2024–September 2024 (quantile method in 5 classes, on a choropleth background) and the share of the population with higher education (manual intervals in 4 classes with proportional symbols).

–

The number of economic agents per 1000 inhabitants (Jenks method in 5 classes with choropleth background) and the number of recycled packaging per inhabitant in the interval January 2024–September 2024 (Jenks method in 5 classes with proportional symbols).

The second stage of research involved a media framing analysis [86] of articles published in the national online press related to the DRS program in Romania. The top five national news media sources were identified according to the number of views between January 2024 and August 2024, as provided by the Romanian Transmedia Audit Bureau [87]. The search for relevant articles was conducted using the following keywords: ‘RetuRO’, ‘Garantie-Returnare’ (Deposit Return, in Romanian) and ‘SGR’ (the Romanian equivalent acronym for DRS). A total of 316 articles were identified and analysed, with the first article dating from June 2016 to September 2024. The articles were then centralised into a database, which included the following fields: title, keywords, date of publication, subject of the article, typology of the setting (i.e., economic, moral, accountability, promotion) and the attitude in which the article presents the DRS system (positive, neutral or negative). The coding system was developed through consensus among the authors following the four-eyes rule [88], and the resulting data set provided graphical representations that illustrate the evolution of the DRS reflection in the press over time.

The third step involved the content analysis of the comments related to the posts on the official DRS Romania page on the Facebook social networking platform. The comments of the posts uploaded on the DRS official page from January 2023 to September 2024 were extracted for analysis using the ESUIT Comments Exporter for Facebook™ v2.6.6. The database thus created contained 12,841 comments. Of these, all fourth comments were selected for analysis, resulting in 3210 analysed comments. These were then manually interpreted and coded. The analysis of the comments was performed using the 4-eyes principle [88], with two authors independently evaluating each comment and reaching a consensus through mediation after the evaluation process, where there was no unanimity on the code to which a particular comment fell. Comments that were deemed irrelevant, such as those containing references to other links, images, or obscene language, or those that did not address the topic under analysis, were removed from the interpretation. Furthermore, DRS responses were also removed from the analysis. The analysis concentrated on the main codes generated, with a focus on their content and attitude (positive, neutral or negative).

The databases, graphical (utilising pivot, scatter chart and stacked column functions) and cartographic materials were produced using the Excel spreadsheet program from Microsoft Office v2016 and ArcGIS PRO v2023.

4. Results

4.1. The Functioning of DRS in Romania

The Deposit-Return System (DRS) in Romania was initiated on 30 November 2023, as outlined in the national legislation concerning packaging recycling [89]. The DRS model closely resembles the operational mechanism previously implemented in Germany, aligning with the principles of the Reverse Logistics Mode as articulated by Zhou et al. [27]. A notable distinction between the Romanian and German systems is the management structure. In Romania, the DRS is overseen by “RetuRO Sistem Garanție-Returnare S.A.”, a public-private entity. A key aspect of its mandate is the reinvestment of profits into system enhancements, ensuring continuous improvement and innovation. The company is owned by a consortium of three private non-profit shareholders (Association of Romanian Brewers for the Environment, Association of Soft Drink Producers for Sustainability, Association of Retailers for the Environment) and one public shareholder, the Ministry of Environment [8]. The “non-profit” legal form adopted in Romania is similar to the Norwegian model, which is managed by the non-profit organisation “Infinitum” [90]. In Norway, any revenue generated is reinvested in the collection and recycling infrastructure. Romania, therefore, adopts the German infrastructure and logistical mechanisms, yet implements the mixed management structure and reinvestment of profits inspired in Norway.

The process is initiated upon the purchase of a beverage packaged in plastic, glass, or metal, with a volume ranging from 0.1 to 3 L. In addition to the financial outlay expended on the product, the consumer is required to pay a deposit of RON 0.50 (approximately equivalent to $0.1). This deposit is subsequently refunded when the packaging is returned. Following consumption, the packaging can be presented at any designated return point within participating retail establishments. The packaging is then collected through the utilisation of automated or manual mechanisms, commonly referred to as Reverse Vending Machines. In exchange for the returned packaging, the consumer is issued a refund voucher, which can be utilised for future purchases or redeemed for cash. Subsequent to the collection, the packaging is transported to the sorting and recycling centres managed by “RetuRO Sistem Garanție-Returnare S.A.”, where it is processed and prepared for transformation into raw material for new packaging.

In order for the guarantee-return guarantee scheme (DRS) to function effectively, it is essential that all parties involved—namely, producers, distributors and traders—possess clearly defined responsibilities, which are stipulated by law. Producers and distributors are obligated to officially register with the system, pay a deposit for each package placed on the market (which will be recovered by consumers when they return it), label their products with the “Packaging under guarantee” logo and regularly report the amount of packaging sold and recycled [7]. Furthermore, retailers with a commercial surface area exceeding 200 square metres are obligated to participate in the scheme, and they must designate return points for customers, where packaging can be collected manually by a store employee or automatically by special RVM return machines. The financial burden of acquiring these return machines falls upon the economic operators.

Despite being a recent implementation, the system has demonstrated encouraging outcomes. By the close of September 2024, Romania had recycled 50% of plastic packaging (1.3 billion pieces out of a total of 2.63 billion pieces introduced into circulation), 48% of metal packaging (572 million pieces out of 1.18 billion) and 47% of glass packaging (445 million pieces out of 948 million) [91].

4.2. Spatial Disparities and the Influence of Socioeconomic Factors on Recycling

Our first analysis concentrated on the identification of geographical disparities in DRS recycling behaviour in Romania. A range of socioeconomic indicators of the Romanian counties were analysed, and these were then correlated with the recycling statistics of DRS. Among all of the indicators, the educational level of the population was identified as the most significant factor influencing environmental behaviours. The data demonstrate a direct association between the share of the population with higher education and higher awareness of, and greater ease of adoption of, recycling practices (see

Table 1. R² values between the number of plastic, glass, and metal containers recycled per inhabitant and socioeconomic indicators of Romanian counties.

	Analysed Indicator	R2 Value (January–September 2024)
1	Share of the population with higher education	0.7523
2	The number of economic agents per 1000 inhabitants	0.6903
3	Share of the average number of employees	0.6883
4	Turnover registered per county reported per 1000 inhabitants	0.6555
5	Total number of supermarkets	0.5417
6	Urbanisation rate	0.5015
7	Share of the average number of social benefits paid	0.3772
8	Unemployment rate	0.346
9	Demographic Dependency Rate	0.1425
10	Share of the population over 65 years old	0.0446
11	Share of the population aged between 20 and 30 years old	0.014

(Data source: RetuRO SGR monthly reports, Topfirme.ro, National Statistical Institute, 2024).

and supplementary materials [8,84,85]). Secondly, local economic activity, as measured by the number of economic agents per 1000 inhabitants and reported turnover, has been found to support recycling through increased access to recycling infrastructure and financial resources. Thirdly, the correlation between recycling rates and employment rates indicates that regions with developed labour markets can more effectively initiate green practices. The findings further suggest that the rate of urbanisation and the presence of a greater number of supermarkets facilitate access to recycling points. However, the analysis reveals a weak correlation between this behaviour and demographic and social variables, such as unemployment and the proportion of the elderly population. The lowest R² values are associated with the share of young people between 20 and 30 years old, the population over 65 years old and the demographic dependency rates. Even though there are studies that show young people are more likely environmentally conscious and have an environmental behaviour in favour of recycling [92,93], the economic and social situation in Romania may support these low values. The rate of young people (15–29 years old) at risk of poverty and social exclusion in Romania is the highest in Europe [94]. At the same time, statistics show that in Romania, the population over 65 years old recorded the lowest purchasing power ratios, according to the Ageing Europe 2020 report [95]. This age group directs most of its income to health and maintenance expenses [95]. Therefore, the degree of commitment exhibited by these groups with regard to recycling issues (whether in terms of environmental aspirations or modest income generation) is likely to be diminished.

The analysis of quantitative data for the first indicator reveals a medium relation between the intensity of recycling and the proportion of the population with tertiary education, as evidenced by a coefficient of determination of R² = 0.7523 (Figure 2). Despite the fact that this value is not especially elevated, it achieves the primary ranking across all of the analysed indicators. The analysis suggests that counties with a high share of the population in possession of tertiary education have a higher recycling rate per capita. This finding suggests a potential correlation between educational attainment and awareness of sustainability, as well as participation in environmental initiatives. Moreover, counties with university urban centres, such as Bucharest, Cluj, and Timisoara, exhibited high values for both variables. In contrast, less developed counties with inadequate collection infrastructure and a low proportion of the population with higher education demonstrated lower recycling performance. Furthermore, counties with a higher share of highly educated population may be more open to the implementation of new green initiatives, such as the DRS system, more receptive to legislative changes and awareness campaigns, and also have higher consumption power due to higher wage levels.

The preceding analysis demonstrates that there are marked regional discrepancies between the recycling rate per capita and the level of education, thereby indicating a relationship that is influenced by economic, cultural, geographical and DRS recycling infrastructure factors (Figure 3). In addition to Bucharest, the north-western and western counties of Romania, Cluj, and Timis, demonstrate a higher level of performance, supported by a well-developed DRS recycling infrastructure, easy access to educational resources and a higher standard of living. Conversely, counties in the south and east, such as Giurgiu and Vaslui, are characterised by inadequate investment in recycling infrastructure, a substantially lower-income population and limited access to environmental education, which reduces engagement in sustainable practices. The findings of this study indicate that recycling is influenced not only by individual awareness but also by socioeconomic conditions and accessibility to recycling infrastructure. A further disparity emerges between urban and rural regions, with rural areas bearing the disproportionate brunt of the absence of infrastructure dedicated to the collection of DRS.

The correlation between the number of containers recycled per inhabitant and the density of economic agents (per 1000 inhabitants) demonstrates a statistically significant relationship, as substantiated by a coefficient of determination R² = 0.6903 (Figure 4). This finding suggests that approximately 69% of the observed variation in the number of recycled containers can be attributed to the density of economic agents, a substantial proportion of which are engaged in the food trade and possess collection points for packaging bearing the SGR logo. Consequently, an augmentation in the density of commercial agents results in a substantial increase in the number of collection points. The positive relationship observed suggests that countries with a higher number of traders generally have a more developed infrastructure for selective collection and a higher level of awareness among both the population and traders.

However, the analysis reveals significant variations, with counties deviating from the regression line, thereby emphasising the existence of regional disparities attributable to local factors such as low wage levels, diminished consumption capacity, and inadequate collection points. In this context, the lower part of the graph shows the less developed counties, while the upper part of the graph shows territorial units such as Bucharest and Cluj, which reflect a higher recycling management capacity.

The correlation between the number of economic agents per 1000 inhabitants and the recycling rate per capita highlights significant regional disparities, influenced by the degree of development (Figure 5). Territorial units with a high density of economic agents (e.g., Bucharest, Cluj, Brasov, or Timis) also have the highest recycling rates, suggesting a link between economic dynamism, infrastructure availability, and environmental behaviour. Conversely, counties in the south and south-east of the country, with a low density of economic agents exhibit low recycling rates, suggesting limitations in terms of economic organisation and waste management. However, the relationship between these two indicators is not uniform. For example, counties such as Arad, Bihor or Sibiu, which have a significant number of economic agents, do not perform proportionally well in terms of recycling. This suggests that there are additional factors influencing this relationship, which may be explained by environmental literacy, the level of consumption, and the availability of recycling infrastructure.

4.3. Media—The Main Driver of DRS Information in Romania

The second stage of the research involved the analysis of 316 articles on DRS, which appeared in the five most-read newspapers in Romania between June 2016 and September 2024. The thematic distribution and attitude of these articles (see

Table 2. Type of content and attitude of the analysed articles on the SGR system in the online press.

Content Type	Negative	Neutral	Positive	Total	% of Total
General information	4	93	46	143	46.28%
Information about recycling rates	-	3	32	35	11.33%
Controversies and criticisms of SGR system	23	4	-	27	8.74%
Information supported by SGR company	-	9	17	26	8.41%
Observations and System Evaluation	8	5		13	4.21%
System progress	-	4	7	11	3.56%
Legal aspects	8	3	-	11	3.56%
Disadvantaged categories	4	-	6	10	3.24%
Public involvement and perception	-	2	7	9	2.91%
Fraud and misinformation	8	-	-	8	2.59%
System expectations	-	-	6	6	1.94%
Innovations and Incentives in the SGR System	-	1	4	5	1.62%
Ecological impact and sustainability	-	-	3	3	0.97%
Editorial	-	2	-	2	0.65%
Total	55	126	128	309	100.00%
% of Total	17.80%	40.78%	41.42%	100.00%

(Data source: Own processing of analysed online media sources).

) reveal a diverse representation of the press’s coverage of DRS, with a predominant emphasis on information rather than critical analysis. It is evident that there has been an increased interest in the informative character of the subject, as demonstrated by 143 articles. The predominant information relates to the operational mechanics of the recycling system and the procedural requirements for its effective functioning.

The press articles were identified as one of the official information channels for the DRS. Twenty-six articles were identified as having the mention “article supported by DRS”. Furthermore, a discernible rise in interest is notable in the pursuit of quantifiable outcomes, as evidenced by a series of articles that focus on the quantities recycled and the performance of the system. For instance, 35 articles provide information on packaging recycled, and 11 articles describe the progress of the scheme using quantitative data.

The challenges faced by the DRS system have also been a subject of discussion in 27 articles. The primary concerns highlighted encompass extended waiting periods at collection points, inadequate automated collection equipment, and the substantial costs incurred by retailers for recycling packaging, which are subsequently passed on to consumers. These issues are indicative of the inherent limitations of a system that is still in its developmental phase. Notwithstanding the fact that the overarching objective of this initiative is to mitigate the adverse environmental impact of waste, this particular aspect is comparatively less extensively covered by media outlets in articles pertaining to the DRS program. However, there are subtle mentions of the environmental reduction effect of plastics. A further salient point is that of disadvantaged groups for whom the DRS has become a new source of income.

Prior to the initiation of the DRS program (until October 2023), the majority of press articles exhibited a neutral stance, with the predominant category of information being that pertaining to general details, thereby signifying a predominantly favourable approach by media sources towards the DRS (Figure 6). A marked increase in articles exhibiting a neutral or positive stance was evident in the launch month (November 2023), which can be attributed to the media’s promotion of the program.

In the initial months following the launch (January–April 2024), the number of articles remained relatively stable, with a marginal increase observed in positive and neutral articles. However, a substantial surge in DRS media coverage was observed in April, resulting in a balanced ratio between positive and negative articles. This phenomenon can be attributed, on the one hand, to an increased uptake of the scheme by citizens, which is correlated with the upward trend in the amount of recycled packaging, and, on the other hand, to the introduction of new packaging bearing the DRS logo and the depletion of old stocks. However, as the amount of recycling increases, the difficulties in operating the system are also becoming apparent. Since May, there has been evidence of a maturing of the system, as demonstrated by the preponderance of neutral articles and the constant frequency, reflecting an acceptance and adaptation of the population to the new circularity practice.

The recycling trend exhibits an exponential increase over the period analysed, with over 150 million pieces of recycled material (including plastic, glass, and metal) being recycled in April alone. This coincides with the emergence of concerns and difficulties with the system’s operation. The peak in monthly quantities recycled is observed in August, when over 500 million pieces of packaging were collected by the DRS.

4.4. DRS Weaknesses—Malfunctions and Challenges Reported by Users

The analysis of Facebook users’ comments on the official RetuRo DRS social media page provides insight into the functionality of the system from the perspective of end-users, including economic agents (traders) and buyers. In contrast to the positive or neutral informational content provided by the online press, social media is dominated by negative attitudes, which increase with the amount of packaging recycled and peak at the beginning of summer (Figure 7). The number of comments analysed before the launch of the program compared to the period after is low, which denotes a lack of awareness or interest in DRS before the official implementation, even though information campaigns from RetuRo DRS were numerous (66 posts between January and September 2023). The comments displayed a predominantly neutral and negative attitude, with the number of comments increasing in proportion to the amount recycled.

The principal issues emphasised by users (see

Table 3. Main categories of analysed user comments on RetuRO Facebook posts.

Content Type	Negative	Neutral	Positive	Total	% of Total
Complaints/Claims	396	2	-	398	18.09%
Criticism Of The Process	369	8	-	377	17.14%
Distrust	266	9	1	276	12.55%
Questions/Concerns	82	162	-	244	11.09%
Education/Awareness	43	130	29	202	9.18%
Unreasoned Criticism	185	-	-	185	8.41%
Lack Of Infrastructure	97	6	-	103	4.68%
Commercial Criticism	100	2	-	102	4.64%
Suggestions For Improvement	20	56	6	82	3.73%
Positive Examples	1	5	46	52	2.36%
Disadvantaged Categories	32	10	8	50	2.27%
Appreciation	-	-	48	48	2.18%
Disinterest	37	4	-	41	1.86%
Optimism	-	2	31	33	1.50%
Irrelevant Comment	4	3	-	7	0.32%
Total	1632	399	169	2200	100.00%
% of Total	74.18%	18.14%	7.68%	100%

(Data source: Own processing from comments posted by users on the official DRS page: RetuRo).

) pertain to dissatisfaction and complaints (18.09%) relating to the malfunctioning of collection systems, protracted waiting times both at the collection machines and for the collection of recycled packaging from retailers, and the absence of dedicated infrastructure for collection and transportation of packaging from retailers. A further noteworthy percentage (17.14%) pertains to criticisms of the collection process, citing its initiation prior to the establishment of adequate facilities to ensure an efficient process. Approximately 13% of users expressed distrust in the system and demonstrated disinterest due to the complexity of recovering the guarantee and the difficulty of returning packaging. Furthermore, a substantial proportion of the comments analysed, amounting to 11%, pertain to queries and concerns regarding the procedural steps involved in the recycling process, as well as an alleged paucity of transparency in the system’s operations. This situation indicates a notable disparity between the information and awareness-raising dimension promoted by the online press and the end-user responses expressed on social media platforms. This discrepancy can be interpreted as an indication of a shortcoming in the ability to adapt messages and communication strategies to ensure the accessibility of information to all segments of the population.

In conclusion, the detailed assessment of the relationship between the quantities of packaging recycled and various socioeconomic indicators, together with the analysis of the theme and tone of the press articles, and the reaction and shortcomings reported by social-media users to the official RetuRO system posts, allowed for a more profound understanding of the factors influencing the system’s performance. Thus, both regional disparities and a socioeconomic dynamic shaping environmental behaviours at the county level were highlighted. Consequently, this comprehensive approach has enabled a more nuanced comprehension of the interplay between media portrayals and the quantitative essence of statistical data.

5. Discussions

The analysis of the implementation of the Deposit-Return System in Romania in its first year of operation revealed a number of significant challenges for both retailers and consumers, raising questions about the sustainability and efficiency of the system. However, the recycling rate achieved in Romania is consistent with the findings of previous research conducted in other countries that have adopted a similar recycling system [12,44,45,49]. The initial resistance and operational dysfunctions identified are to be expected when implementing a new system in a territory. A significant issue that has been identified is the pressure on retailers and financial shortcomings, with retailers having to manage the recycling process without adequate financial support. Shop employees must handle the collection of packaging without being paid for this extra effort, which creates dissatisfaction and operational difficulties. Furthermore, retailers are required to purchase essential recycling consumables (e.g., bags, seals) from their own funds, and those who carry out manual recycling receive only half of the initial guarantee, as recycled containers deteriorate during transportation and are considered non-compliant.

The system exerts indirect financial pressure on consumers. The obligation to pay the deposit when purchasing products has resulted in increased costs, and the recovery of the guarantee does not adequately compensate for the additional expenses incurred in transportation, lost time, and difficulties encountered at collection points. This has resulted in a decline in public confidence in the system’s benefits, which may potentially impact long-term engagement in recycling initiatives. Another shortcoming is the under-developed infrastructure in rural areas, which leads consumers to travel long distances to return packaging, thus discouraging recycling and potentially leading to increased pollution from individual transportation.

Previous studies have highlighted both the benefits that the implementation of DRS brings to the environment, and the challenges that influence the efficiency of the system, both from the perspective of the socioeconomic component and the infrastructure related to recycling. The adoption of such a system and its long-term success are closely linked to social participation [30], social behaviour and the degree of familiarity with recycling [1], and promotional campaigns play an important role in promoting innovation and increasing the degree of acceptance among the population [96]. Given the variety of recycling behaviours depending on the social status and age group of the participants, information and promotional campaigns must be adapted so as to stimulate the general public [17]. For example, one of the factors that generated the success of DRS in Slovakia was due to the way in which promotion and awareness campaigns effectively conveyed information through various media sources [96], although operational difficulties and increased waiting times at collection points were also reported in Slovakia [97], as in the case of Romania. Also, the disproportionate spatial distribution of DRS infrastructure limits equitable access to collection points and can discourage the active participation of users, such as in rural or poorly connected areas [98]. In the same vein, the importance of an effective recycling infrastructure has been demonstrated by the recycling systems in Germany and Norway [30].

While the results of this research make significant contributions to the field of combating waste by promoting and implementing a packaging, recycling and reuse system, it is important to acknowledge the existence of certain limitations that may influence the interpretation and generalizability of the findings. These limitations pertain to the constrained time frame of the analysis, which may compromise the long-term relevance of the conclusions, the circumscribed spatial scale of the study, which curtails the potential for capturing the disparities between residential environments, and the modest sample size utilised, signified by the number of comments selected from the total number of comments extracted from the official Facebook posts of DRS Romania.

6. Conclusions

Our study focused on three distinct dimensions. First, we were interested in geographical disparities and the factors that influenced the development. We further investigated the way in which this phenomenon was reflected in the national press, as well as the reactions of the population online.

In order to respond to the first research question, the analysis indicates the presence of substantial geographical disparities in recycling rates, which are influenced by factors such as collection infrastructure, the level of urbanisation, and local socioeconomic conditions. This provides only partial validation of our initial hypothesis. In other words, the demographic size of a territory is not the primary factor explaining the development of the DRS phenomenon; rather, its socioeconomic characteristics are more significant. These results complement previous studies on Romania’s socioeconomic disparities [99,100,101], and the rural-urban discrepancies follow the pattern also found in the spread of the smart cities phenomenon in Romania [102].

Concerning our second research question, the media has played an important role in informing the public regarding how to use the recycling system. The focus has gradually shifted from the initial promotion of the scheme to highlighting its operational difficulties, such as the financial pressure on retailers and the dysfunctionalities of collection points. These shortcomings in public communication have also been observed in Spain [26]. However, the media puts minimal emphasis on the positive impact of recycling on the environment and the need for commitment from the population to close the recycling loop and the benefits it would have. If communication does not diversify, become more precise, and target more diverse populations, it risks undermining the system.

With regard to the third research question, user reactions in the online environment were predominantly negative, particularly following the system’s initiation and dissemination, reflecting a combination of adaptation and frustration about logistical and economic challenges. This could lead to a loss of trust in the system and abandonment of the recycling process. Users criticised the difficulties encountered during the recycling process, the lack of infrastructure, or the lack of communication between the DRS management team and retailers of final users. This result confirms our second hypothesis that the initial public reaction would be negative. However, negativity is often both practical and justified, especially when specific technical problems are encountered.

This study addressed a knowledge gap concerning the development of recycling systems in Central and Eastern Europe, where this phenomenon is a relatively recent development. The study’s novelty lies in its integration of diverse research methodologies, including cartographic analysis, statistical analysis, media content analysis, and online feedback from the population. This multifaceted approach, which combines and cross-references these techniques, makes the study a pioneering contribution to the field in this part of Europe.

As policy recommendations related to the efficiency and sustainability of the Deposit-Return System in Romania, strategic interventions are needed to address the identified challenges and to broaden the applicability of the system. Primarily, the provision of dedicated financial assistance to retailers to offset the costs associated with collection and recycling, as evidenced by the German model, is essential. This financial support could encompass the procurement of consumables and equipment, thereby reducing the financial burden on economic operators. Concurrently, the upgrade of infrastructure through the implementation of automated collection machines (RVMs) equipped with advanced technologies for expedited processing of packaging would optimise the recycling process. Another priority is the expansion of collection infrastructure in rural areas, given the significant disparities between urban and rural regions. Solutions such as mobile collection points or public-private partnerships have the potential to facilitate access to the recycling system for people in remote areas. Furthermore, the extension of the DRS to encompass other types of packaging, including cardboard, additional plastics, and perishable product packaging, would facilitate a more effective integration of the system into the circular economy. In parallel, transparency and effective communication of information such as the publication of investments made as a result of the collection of guarantees are essential to increase public confidence. The publication of quantitative data in a user-friendly format would facilitate public comprehension of the system’s efficiency (e.g., evolutionary graphs). The implementation of these measures has the potential to position the DRS as a key instrument in the realm of waste management, contributing to the mitigation of the environmental repercussions of waste.

Further studies could concentrate on the analysis of disparities within large cities, taking into account both issues of density and system functionality. A further area of potential research could be the analysis of vulnerable populations, as evidenced by specific behaviour observed in Romania, where individuals have been known to collect packaging for minor financial gain. A comprehensive analysis of the costs involved in the DRS system, in conjunction with the economic efficiency of the whole system, would also be valuable. In addition, a study measuring the carbon footprint of the entire DRS would be beneficial, including both the emissions generated by each user during their travel to the recycling point and the energy used in the recycling process. This would provide a clearer analysis of the net impact of the DRS and its sustainability, highlighting areas that require further optimisation and policy improvements. Finally, an analysis of the effective communication of the system would be beneficial for the development of the DRS.