Dr Nadine Leder collaborates with the Cardiff University and University of Greenwich research teams to break down a recent project that tested if there is a one-size-fits-all model for reusable cup schemes.
Reusable cup schemes are increasingly being explored by hospitality businesses, towns and cities looking to reduce single-use plastic waste and support a more circular economy. But is there a one-size-fits-all model?
From small, manually operated local schemes to technology-enabled networks operating across entire countries, the way reuse is organised varies considerably.
Research by Isaac Saulter and Thomas Atkin from Cardiff University, as part of the University’s On-campus Internship Scheme, compared 13 reusable cup schemes across the UK, Europe and North America.
The interdisciplinary project was led by Prof Jin Hooi Chan and Dr Grace O’Rourke from the University of Greenwich, alongside myself and Prof Andrew Potter from Cardiff University, examining how different schemes are organised and what makes them work.
We have all collaborated on this article to analyse if a one-size-fits-all model for reusable cup schemes exists.
Different places, different models
Seven of the 13 schemes were based in the UK, with others across Europe and North America. Ten operated as open networks involving independent venues or businesses, while four were closed schemes linked to a single retailer, workplace environment or events.
The schemes varied in ownership, deposit models, technology, washing arrangements and how participating businesses worked together.
One clear finding was the relationship between scale and scheme design. Larger networks tend to require more coordination and infrastructure, while smaller schemes can often operate through simpler systems and stronger local relationships.
The design of a reusable cup scheme is closely connected to the scale and circumstances in which it operates.
Reusable cup schemes require businesses to cooperate on the practical details of reuse, even where those businesses are competing for customers.
Some schemes rely heavily on an external operator to provide cups, manage returns and support participating businesses. Others involve businesses taking greater responsibility for accepting returns, storing or washing cups, with a coordinating organisation providing support.
At a local level, businesses can also take collective responsibility for operating a scheme, demonstrating how cooperation between businesses can support a relatively simple system without extensive external infrastructure.
For practitioners, the question is therefore not simply who owns the cups, but who is responsible for making the system work day to day.
Does bigger mean more complicated?
The largest city-wide and national schemes tend to make greater use of technology, including apps, RFID systems and automated collection points.
These can help manage larger numbers of cups, venues and returns. Larger schemes also often make use of large, centralised washing systems, as they are more efficient for working with a variety of different businesses, which may also lack suitable washing facilities in-house. Therefore, schemes can be more accessible for businesses to join initially.
Technology should support the scheme rather than define it.
Smaller schemes take a different approach, using manual deposit-and-return systems and, in some cases, having businesses wash cups themselves.
This suggests that technology is best considered as part of the solution rather than a prerequisite. A small community may have little need for sophisticated tracking, while a large network may benefit considerably from it.
Deposits, ownership and washing
Most of the schemes studied used a refundable deposit, typically around £1–£2. This provides a straightforward incentive for customers to return cups.
Other models remove the upfront payment. Refill-Return Cup Schemes, for example, lend cups without a deposit and use app-based tracking alongside charges for cups that are not returned within the agreed period.
Ownership also varies, with schemes operated by private companies, non-profits, councils and public-private partnerships. Washing arrangements differ in much the same way, with larger schemes requiring dedicated infrastructure (centralised washing) as participation grows, while smaller schemes can often wash cups on site.
These choices are interconnected. A deposit system needs a practical return process, while a larger network may need centralised washing and logistics to avoid placing too much responsibility on individual businesses.
What can organisations learn?
The comparison points to a few practical considerations for councils, businesses and other organisations exploring reuse.
Scale matters. The infrastructure needed for a small local network will be very different from that required for a city-wide or national scheme.
Coordination matters. As reuse networks grow, facilitating organisations may need to take responsibility for supporting businesses and managing the movement and return of cups.
Successful reuse depends not just on the cup, but on the system built around it.
Technology should fit the model. Digital systems can help manage complexity, but smaller schemes demonstrate that reuse can work without them.
Local relationships matter. Cooperation between businesses can make a simple scheme viable, while larger networks may benefit from dedicated coordination.
There is no one-size-fits-all model
The 14 schemes show that reusable cup systems can work at very different scales and in very different ways.
The challenge for organisations is not finding a single “best” model, but understanding what is appropriate for their own context: its businesses, infrastructure, resources and relationships.
