Why do reuse systems such as refill stations and reusable packaging continue to be treated as a “sideshow” by circular economy investors, who prefer to park their capital in recycling?
This question was posed to speakers at the Cities: Possibilities conference in Singapore on Wednesday, where experts acknowledged a persistent investment gap: reuse models are more effective at cutting waste, yet are the least-funded part of the circular economy.
Matt Stanelos, Singapore representative for the global waste and water management company Veolia, said investors see limited upside in reuse.
“Reuse doesn’t need capital – reuse is just a behaviour. I don’t see that there’s an opportunity for capital to really push the reuse agenda,” he told his audience.
Despite being more effective at eliminating waste, reuse models attracted just 4 per cent of all circular economy investment for plastics between 2018 and 2023, compared with 82 per cent for recovery and recycling, according to a 2024 report by Circulate Initiative.
The Covid-19 pandemic weakened the reuse movement, as many businesses halted the use of reusable cups and containers over contamination concerns.
In a follow-up exchange with Eco-Business, Stanelos clarified that the viability of reuse systems varies.
“For food hygiene reasons, it [reuse] is not well accepted these days for beverage containers, but it is an accepted part of some value chains, for example waste electronics like air-conditioning units,” he said. “But it’s mostly a logistics issue – and not a capital-intensive one.”
Reuse push back
Stanelos’s comments were challenged by Jonathan Tostevin, chief executive of Muuse, a Singapore-based reusable dishware rental firm.
“If we treat reuse as infrastructure, not behaviour, the investment case becomes obvious. This is where growth and returns will come from – just as it was done with waste management,” Tostevin told Eco-Business.
“There’s a reason we say reduce, reuse, recycle – reuse comes before recycling. But we only prioritise what we build for, and right now infrastructure investment is the missing piece. Adoption will only follow when reuse is supported by systems that make it simple, seamless and practical.”
Reuse ventures have struggled in recent years. US-based social enterprise City to Sea closed in September after a decade of operations, while Australian zero-waste retailer Scoop has shuttered several outlets in Singapore.
Remi Cesaro, founder of sustainability consultancy Zero Waste City, who moderated the event panel, agreed that reuse models may not require the same level of investment as recycling, but still need capital to build durable products and the systems that support them.
He pointed to cases where the removal of reuse systems has come at a high environmental cost, for instance the shift from reusable glass bottles to single-use plastic by Coca-Cola. Internal life cycle assessments by the fizzy drinks brand in the 1960s showed that glass was more environmentally sustainable, but less profitable.
After the switch, the cost of managing the resulting plastic waste shifted from producers to municipalities and communities, Cesaro noted.
Reintroducing reusable glass bottles today would require substantial investment in cleaning and bottling infrastructure. The same applies to reusable takeaway packaging, which needs funding to produce durable containers, operate collection and washing systems, and manage reverse logistics.
Cesaro said that ultimately, the viability of any reuse model hinges on return rates. “If the return rate is too low – meaning a large portion of containers need to be replenished – then the system is not viable.”
Some brands have found refill models difficult to sustain. On a podcast in October, Venisa Chu, head of sustainability at skincare label L’Occitane, said the company’s in-store refill fountains have not met expectations and may even generate more waste. Product stored in the fountains can expire before being dispensed, she said, because customers are not using them enough.
