3 Pricing Mechanisms for Food Delivery Packaging: Paid Use vs. Deposit System vs. Alternatives

At the end of 2024, I held an annual review meeting with a client who operates a chain of milk tea shops. They receive 23 million delivery orders annually, and their annual procurement spending on takeaway packaging—cups, bags, straws, and food containers—is 28 million. During the meeting, the CEO showed me a spreadsheet: after Plastic Restriction Order 2.0 took effect, they had tried three packaging fee schemes. The first reduced order volume by 12%, the second increased costs by 4%, and the third produced no results after six months.

He said: Could you help me take a look at exactly how many types of fee-charging mechanisms are currently viable across the country? Which one should we choose?

I spent two months researching this issue and ultimately found that the charging mechanisms for restaurant takeaway packaging do not fall into a simple either-or framework, but can be divided into three categories: paid use by consumers, deposit systems guided by government, and alternative solutions led by enterprises. The costs, order impact, and compliance boundaries behind each category differ.

Category One: Paid Use — Direct Price Increases to Consumers

Paid use is currently the most common approach. When consumers order takeout, the packaging fee is listed as a separate item, typically 1-3 yuan per order.

Shenzhen officially launched a pilot program for the paid use of takeaway packaging in September 2023, covering the two major platforms, Meituan and Ele.me. Data released after the 6-month pilot showed that: plastic takeaway packaging usage decreased by 52%, while order volume declined by 4.7%.

This breakdown of the data is highly informative. The 52% reduction in plastic use comes from consumers actively choosing “no utensils” (30%), opting for biodegradable packaging (18%), and choosing to dine in rather than order takeaway (4%). The 4.7% decline in orders primarily comes from low-spending customers, with orders below 30 yuan showing the sharpest decline.

The impact on printing plants is a shift in packaging specifications from "general-purpose plastic food containers" to "degradable sugarcane-bagasse food containers and PLA-coated paper boxes." Within the 6-month Shenzhen pilot, orders for degradable food containers increased by 280%.

Type 2: Deposit-Based System — Recycling and Reuse Reduce Unit Costs

The deposit system was launched in Shanghai in 2024 as part of the "plastic meal container deposit and return" pilot program. Consumers pay an additional 1 yuan packaging deposit when ordering takeout, and receive a refund of 1 yuan when returning the meal container.

Four-month pilot data (March–June 2024): 38% deposit-returned meal container recycling rate, with an average of 4.2 uses per container. This means that for every 1 deposit-funded meal container introduced into circulation, it completes 4.2 actual rotations, reducing the cost per use from 1 yuan to 0.24 yuan.

The key challenge of the deposit system lies not in the deposit itself, but in the recycling network. Shanghai’s approach is to establish collection points at all 12,000 food delivery stations across the city, where delivery workers collect containers while making deliveries. This integrated delivery-and-collection model increased the recycling rate from an initial 12% to 38%.

The deposit system is unfriendly to printing plants because deposit-return meal boxes must be made of PP, which can withstand high-temperature cleaning above 100℃. Each printing plant must separately develop its own set of PP meal box molds, costing 8-15 ten thousand yuan per set, making it unsuitable for small and medium-sized printing plants. During the pilot period, only 3 printing plants in Shanghai could supply these boxes reliably.

Category 3: Alternatives — Enterprises Proactively Switch Materials

An alternative is the "biodegradable packaging subsidy" policy introduced in Zhejiang Province in 2024. For every biodegradable food container used by a food service business, the government provides a subsidy of RMB 0.5 (up to RMB 0.8 per order in Hangzhou).

Three months of pilot data from Hangzhou: subsidies covered 38% of takeaway orders, while the market share of biodegradable meal containers rose from 18% to 47%.

However, the subsidy policy has two major flaws: ① it depends on the fiscal budget, and Hangzhou's 2025 subsidy budget of 2.4 billion has already run short; ② it subsidizes only "use" rather than "recycling." The industrial composting facilities for biodegradable meal containers have not kept pace. There are only 2 industrial composting plants around Hangzhou, with a processing capacity of 8,000 tons/year, while the actual volume generated is 12,000 tons/year.

For printing plants, the alternative presents both an opportunity and a burden. The opportunity is increased order volume: during the Hangzhou pilot period, orders for sugarcane-bagasse meal boxes grew by 180%. The burden is that degradable meal boxes have short shelf lives—the shelf life of sugarcane-bagasse meal boxes at room temperature is only 6-8 months, leaving printing plants with extremely compressed inventory lead times.

Compliance Boundaries and Printing Factory Opportunities for the Three Types of Solutions

The three types of solutions are not isolated; they can be combined. Shenzhen + Hangzhou already piloted a "paid use + government subsidy" model in 2025—consumers pay 1 yuan, and the government provides an additional 0.5 yuan subsidy to the enterprise, resulting in the enterprise bearing an actual cost of 0.5 yuan per order.

The real significance of this combination for printing plants is that packaging materials are shifting from single-material plastics to a mix of multiple materials. Capabilities printing plants need to build up over the next 3 years:

The 3 most common issues printers encounter when communicating with customers are: ① Customers ask, “Which option should we choose?”—printers need to provide a cost comparison and order impact forecast for the three options; ② Customers ask, “Which packaging markings are compliant?”—printers need to clarify the regulatory sources for the three types of markings (paid-use marking, deposit marking, and biodegradable marking); ③ Customers ask, “When will it be mandatory?”—printers need to track the enforcement schedules of local market supervision administration authorities.

Practical Recommendations: How Printing Plants Should Handle the Three Options

First, do not bet on a single approach. Shenzhen’s paid-use model is already underway, the deposit system is being piloted in Shanghai, and an alternative model is being subsidized in Hangzhou. These three models may coexist for 2-3 years.

Second, prioritize investment in the bagasse / PLA meal box production line. Orders for biodegradable materials are growing by 80%+ annually, and gross margins are 8-12% higher than those of plastic meal boxes.

Third, proceed cautiously with deposit-based meal boxes. The PP meal box production line required for a deposit system costs 2–4 million yuan and depends on a local recycling network, making nationwide expansion unsuitable.

Further Reading