Editorial Policy mix in deposit-refund systems – From schemes in Finland and Norway In deposit-refund systems (DRSs), consumers pay a deposit when purchasing products and receive refunds when returning used products. DRSs are introduced to increase the return rates, partly achieved by paying consumers incentives to return their used products to appropriate places. DRSs can be said more efficient than other ways such as the natural participation of the citizens. However, the DRS operating actors may not try to collect more containers because that would increase their refund pay- ments (Numata, 2010). On the other hand, DRSs can be considered as a policy mix of taxes and subsidies. However, in reality, some DRSs are mixed with other policy instruments, such as container taxes; this type of pol- icy mix has not been sufficiently studied. Groth (2008) examines the policy mix of DRSs with other policy instruments in the context in Germany, but does not appreciably consider the acceptance from and incentives for DRS operating actors. This editorial considers the mandatory recyclable container DRSs that are mixed with container taxes from the perspective of the acceptance from and incentives for DRS operating actors based on interviewing stakeholders, etc. This editorial presents examples of DRS policy mix with container taxes in Finland and Norway 1 . In Finland, the deposit amount for a recyclable container is set, for example, as at least 0.15 euros per can and 0.2 euros per plastic container (0.35–1 l). 2 The company Palpa, which man- ages the DRSs in Finland, was established by breweries, retailers, and transporters. The DRSs’ scheme is shown in Fig. 1. First, the manufacturers register their products for a registration fee and sell their products to retailers. The retailers then deposit an amount (proportional to the volume of the products) with the manufacturers, who in turn pay the deposits to Palpa. The con- sumers who buy the products from retailers pay deposits to the retailers. Once the consumers consume the contents of the prod- ucts, they return the containers to the retailers and receive refunds (proportional to the volume of the returned containers) from them. The refunds are usually in the form of a receipt from reverse vending machines (RVM). The cashier pays the consumers a discount corresponding to the refunds. The collected recyclable containers are crushed in the RVM to decrease their volume and then stored, to be finally transported to recyclers by Palpa trucks. The cost of transportation of the collected containers is paid by Palpa. The deposits in Palpa are distributed to the retailers. The retailers also receive handling fees from Palpa. Recyclers receive scrap revenue from manufacturers and pay some scrap revenue to Palpa. Recyclers also receive handling fees from it. Palpa consid- ers the cost and revenue of each material as well as the burden of treating the collected material (such as separating the material from the residue and baling the separated material) to derive the handling fee rate. Manufacturers may be charged ‘‘recycling fees” if Palpa’s revenue is not enough to compensate the cost. The recycling fees paid by manufacturers will compensate the shortage of revenues to costs for Palpa. These DRS schemes can be seen in many countries including Norway, Sweden, some pro- vinces in Canada, and some states in USA. On the other hand, in Finland, drinking container taxes has been enforced. The tax rate was 0.67 euros/l. However, taxes were lower for recyclable containers (0.16 euros/l) if the Finnish Ministry of Environment approved that the collection program including DRS attained a return rate of more than 75% in the first year, 85% in the second year, 90% in the third year, and 95% in the fourth year (Groth, 2008). The return rate is derived by the returns divided by the sales. The tax is paid directly by each manufacturer or retailer, not through Palpa. The higher tax rate of 0.67 euros/l was revised to 0.51 euros/l in 2004. The lower tax rate for recyclable containers based on the approval systems was revised to 0 euro/l. The return rate-dependent system no longer exists, and the producers using recyclable containers are now subject to Palpa’s DRS. In 2012, the return rate was 97% for cans, for example. In Norway, the DRS management organization is called the ‘‘Infinitum” (formerly ‘‘Resirk”). The deposit and refund per con- tainer is 1 NOK (0.12 euros; May 2015) for less than 0.5 l, for exam- ple. The DRS in Norway is similar to that in Finland. Drinking containers are taxed in Norway as shown in Fig. 2. All recyclable beverage containers have to pay the tax rate of 1.12 NOK (0.13 euros) per container and is not dependent on the return rate. This rate can change every year. Further, all containers have to pay the return rate-dependent tax. The return rate is derived by the following equation: f½ðNumber of containers collected for recycling and refillingÞ þðNumber of containers collected for energy recoveryÞ ðEnergy recovery rateÞg =fNumber of containers delivered to the marketg Energy recovery is allowed only when recycling and refilling can- not be conducted. The return rate-dependent tax depends on the following rule. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.003 0956-053X/Ó 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd. 1 The interviewed organizations are the Finnish Ministry of Environment and Palpa in Finland, and Mepex, the Norway Ministry of Environment, Resirk, Green Dot Norway, and Syklus in Norway, in 2014. 2 Recyclable glass bottles including wine bottles have the same DRSs as cans since 2012. This is not the case in Norway. Waste Management 52 (2016) 1–2 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Waste Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman