I. The Material Inventory
Press down on a refillable pump dispenser. Feel the resistance. That is a steel spring compressing inside a polymer housing. The spring pushes back with force calibrated for thousands of compressions. Plastic springs exist, but their elastic modulus is 50 to 150 times lower than steel — insufficient for reliable function. So the spring is metal. The housing is polymer. The seal between them is elastomer: silicone, EPDM, neoprene, or rubber, chosen for chemical compatibility with the liquid dispensed.
These materials do not share a lifespan. Glass lasts decades. Steel lasts years. Elastomer seals fail in budget models, often within months of regular use. When the seal fails, the pump stops functioning. The seal is not replaceable. The entire pump assembly must be discarded.
This is not design failure. This is material reality.
The engineering problem is real. The question is: who manages it?
II. The Transfer
You manage it.
You purchased a glass pump bottle for £25. Capital cost: transferred to you. The manufacturer no longer owns the container. You own the container. You own the pump. You own the disposal obligation when the pump fails.
The pump will fail. Press down on a functioning pump now. Feel the smooth compression, the reliable return. That elastomer seal inside is degrading with every use. Seals harden, crack, lose elasticity. Springs fatigue — the metal crystallizes at stress points, loses rebound force. Mechanisms jam when particulates from the liquid accumulate in the valve assembly.
When internal seals are compromised, according to Hunker's consumer repair guides: "Even if you could [repair it], it's easier and more reliable to just get a new pump."10
You do not get a new pump from the manufacturer. You get a new pump by purchasing another bottle, or you attempt to find replacement pumps sold separately. Most brands do not sell replacement pumps. The economics do not favour pump replacement. The economics favour refill pouch sales.
You buy a refill pouch for £5.25 to £7.95. Profit on the consumable: retained by the manufacturer. You pour the contents into your existing bottle with its functioning pump. This works until the pump fails. Then you manage disposal.
The pump contains polyethylene housing, a steel spring, and an elastomer seal. Pick up a failed pump. Try to separate the components. The spring is nested inside the housing. The seal is compression-fitted. The assembly is designed for manufacturing efficiency, not disassembly. You would need pliers, a screwdriver, five minutes, and tolerance for frustration to separate steel from plastic. UK Material Recovery Facilities are not equipped to process multi-material pump assemblies at scale. Steel springs prevent the entire pump assembly from being processed in existing plastic recycling streams. Manual disassembly is required before recycling. This is not practical at household scale.
According to the 2024 WRAP UK Plastics Pact Progress Report, one business replaced metal pump components with recyclable alternatives, resulting in 75,000 fewer parts sent to landfill each year.7 This figure is notable for what it confirms: the previous 75,000 pump components per year, per business, were being sent to landfill. This was standard practice. This remains standard practice for most brands.
You store the failed pump in a drawer. Or you place it in general waste. The drawer becomes a small waste sorting facility. The general waste bin becomes the endpoint for equipment the manufacturer designed, sold to you, and walked away from.
The manufacturer sold you a system and transferred the complexity. The transfer is complete.
III. The Alternative That Exists (But Not For You)
Manufacturer-managed closed-loop systems are proven technology.
According to Packaging Dive's 2024 coverage, Coca-Cola operates refillable systems across Latin America, Asia, Africa, and Europe.3 Customers do not purchase bottles. Customers pay a deposit and receive a discount when returning empty refillable containers to retailers. Bottlers retrieve empty containers during delivery routes. Containers are transported to washing and refilling facilities. Durable plastic bottles withstand up to 25 reuses. Glass bottles can achieve 50 or more refills.
The customer pays for the contents. The manufacturer owns the equipment. The manufacturer manages collection, cleaning, refilling, and redistribution. When equipment fails, the manufacturer bears the cost. When containers reach end of life, the manufacturer processes disposal.
According to Packaging Europe's coverage of the initiative, Coca-Cola Brazil invested $400 million in cleaning and refilling infrastructure to support this system.5 This is the capital cost that enables closed-loop operation at scale. The manufacturer absorbed it.
Beer kegs function on the same principle. According to the Brewers Association, stainless steel kegs last decades when properly maintained.6 Typical keg deposits range from £30 to £60. The deposit is returnable. The brewery owns the keg. The brewery manages the keg's maintenance, cleaning, and eventual end-of-life processing. When kegs are lost or stolen, this costs brewers between $0.46 and $1.37 per barrel of annual production. The brewery calculates this loss into operating costs. The brewery does not transfer keg disposal to the pub.
Industrial chemical suppliers use Intermediate Bulk Containers in closed-loop systems. As documented by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, IBCs are leased, not sold.8 They are returned, cleaned, sanitised, and reused for many years. A pooling model allows companies to use high-quality returnable bulk containers without upfront purchase cost. The supplier owns the containers. The supplier manages the infrastructure.
These systems exist. They function. They operate at global scale for beverages, at regional scale for beer, at industrial scale for chemicals. They are designed for products that flow through pumps and dispensers and containers that accumulate material fatigue.
They do not exist for the glass hand soap bottle on your bathroom counter.
IV. What Manufacturers Choose Not to Do
Coca-Cola operates closed-loop bottle systems across Latin America, Asia, Africa, and Europe. Collect empty containers during distribution routes. Transport to centralised facilities. Wash at high temperature with approved sanitising agents. Inspect for damage. Refill. Redistribute to retail. Repeat for 25 cycles for plastic, 50 for glass.
The infrastructure exists. The logistics exist. The economics function at global scale for a product—carbonated sugar water—that retails for approximately £1.50 per litre.
Ecover manufactures hand soap that retails for approximately £3 per 250ml. Method manufactures surface cleaner. Bower Collective manufactures laundry detergent. Splosh manufactures washing up liquid. None operate closed-loop deposit-return systems in the UK consumer market.
You pay £19.99 to £30.99 for a glass bottle with a pump. You keep the bottle. You manage the pump. You buy refill pouches for £5.25 to £7.95. The brand retains profit on consumables without infrastructure investment.
Closed-loop systems require specific manufacturer commitments:
Deposit infrastructure. The manufacturer funds the returnable deposit system. The consumer pays deposit, receives deposit back on return. The manufacturer absorbs the capital cost of containers in circulation.
Take-back logistics. The manufacturer establishes collection points. The manufacturer manages transportation from consumer to cleaning facility. This requires reverse logistics networks.
Cleaning facilities. The manufacturer invests in high-temperature washing equipment, sanitising systems, quality control inspection. Coca-Cola Brazil invested $400 million in this infrastructure.
Equipment maintenance. When pumps fail, the manufacturer replaces them. When seals degrade, the manufacturer services them. Equipment failure is the manufacturer's cost, not the consumer's disposal problem.
End-of-life processing. When containers or pumps reach the end of their viable reuse cycles, the manufacturer handles final recycling or disposal. The consumer never takes possession of the waste.
Consumer-managed refillable systems require different commitments:
The consumer funds upfront capital. £20 to £35 per bottle. No returnable deposit. You own it.
The consumer manages storage and disposal. When the pump fails, you store it, research recycling options, discover none are viable, discard or hoard.
The manufacturer avoids infrastructure investment. No deposit system. No collection network. No cleaning facilities. No pump maintenance service.
The manufacturer retains profit on consumables. £5.25 to £7.95 per refill pouch. The refill is cheaper per millilitre than the original bottled product—Ecover advertises significant savings for their concentrated refills. This saving exists because you already paid £25 for the container the manufacturer did not have to manage.
No obligation when equipment fails. The pump stops working after months of use. The manufacturer does not collect it, service it, or replace it. Your problem.
Industrial chemical suppliers offer closed-loop systems for sulfuric acid. Beer companies offer closed-loop systems for lager. Beverage companies offer closed-loop systems for cola.
Consumer household product brands offer closed-loop systems for nothing.
They manage equipment, cleaning, and end-of-life when the product is corrosive or regulated or subject to excise duty. They manage pumps and containers and reverse logistics when they own the equipment and failure costs them money. They do not manage these systems when you own the equipment and failure costs you the problem of disposal.
The technology is not the constraint. Coca-Cola, Heineken, and Dow Chemical have demonstrated that collection, cleaning, and redistribution of pump-dispensed liquids in reusable containers function across decades and continents and diverse product categories.
The question is not feasibility. The question is: who benefits from consumer-managed complexity?
V. What You Are Actually Managing
When you purchase a consumer refillable bottle system, you are not purchasing sustainability. You are purchasing the waste management obligation the manufacturer declined to perform.
The bottle may be beautiful. Amber glass, aluminium pump, aesthetic alignment with the sustainable bathroom you are assembling. The refill pouches arrive. You pour. You pump. The system works.
Then the pump fails.
Press down. Nothing. Press harder. The mechanism does not move. Or it moves but does not return. Or it returns but draws no liquid. You disassemble the pump to inspect it. Twist the collar. Pull the actuator. The spring is inside, coiled and compressed, still exerting force but no longer sufficient. The elastomer seal has a visible crack, or it has hardened and no longer creates airtight closure. You press your thumbnail into the seal. It does not yield. Elastomer, when functional, is flexible. When degraded, it is rigid. That rigidity is molecular: polymer chains have cross-linked beyond elasticity. The seal cannot be replaced without replacing the entire pump assembly.
The spring is steel. The housing is polymer. The seal is rubber. These materials do not share a recycling stream. You check your local authority guidelines. Metal is recyclable. Plastic is recyclable. Metal and plastic together, in a small assembled mechanism, are not recyclable without manual separation.
You place the failed pump in a drawer. You intend to research this further. You purchase another bottle, or you find a replacement pump sold separately if the brand offers one. Months later, another pump fails. Feel the resistance when you press it — or rather, feel the absence of resistance. The spring has lost rebound. The seal no longer closes. The mechanism is jammed. The drawer accumulates them. The bathroom cabinet is no longer a collection of sustainable products. It is a storage facility for waste you do not know how to process.
This is the designed outcome. The system is working as intended.
The manufacturer transferred capital cost to you: £25 upfront instead of a £5 returnable deposit. The manufacturer retained profit on consumables: £5.25 to £7.95 per pouch, cheaper than buying new bottles, expensive enough to maintain margin. The manufacturer externalised the disposal problem: pump components that cannot be recycled in existing infrastructure, material complexity that requires manual disassembly, equipment failure that occurs predictably within the product's use cycle.
Coca-Cola manages this complexity because they own the bottles. When their bottles return with damaged caps or worn seals, they service them. When bottles crack or degrade, they remove them from circulation. The cost of management is built into their system because they bear it.
You manage this complexity because you own the bottles. When your pump fails, you bear the cost—not monetary cost, but the time cost of researching disposal, the space cost of storing equipment you cannot recycle, the guilt cost of placing it in general waste, the decision cost of whether to continue buying refills for a system that failed.
The sustainable choice was supposed to reduce your waste. It reduced the manufacturer's.
The refillable bottle system transferred the engineering problem from the factory floor to your bathroom cabinet. The manufacturer designed equipment with mismatched material lifespans. They sold it to you. They charged you for the privilege. When the inevitable failure occurs, you manage it.
This is the economic structure of consumer-managed refillables. You pay for equipment. You pay for refills. You manage disposal. They avoid infrastructure investment. They retain profit. They walk away.
The bathroom cabinet full of glass bottles with failed pumps is not personal failure. It is the designed outcome of a system that profits from transferring material complexity from manufacturers who could manage it at scale via closed-loop infrastructure to consumers who cannot.
VI. The Levers — What You Can Control
You cannot force manufacturers to adopt closed-loop systems. But you can refuse to subsidize their avoidance of infrastructure investment.
Stop Buying: Consumer-Managed "Refillable" Systems
Glass pump bottles with no take-back program → These transfer disposal obligation to you. If the brand does not operate a deposit-return or mail-back system where they own and maintain the pumps, you are purchasing waste management responsibility.
Refill pouches from brands with no closed-loop infrastructure → Each purchase signals market acceptance of consumer-managed complexity. Stop signaling acceptance.
Choose Instead: Systems That Function or Simple Alternatives
Bar soap → No pump. No plastic. No multi-material disposal problem. Lasts longer per use than liquid soap. Works.
Solid shampoo and conditioner bars → No bottle. No mechanism. Plastic-free packaging. Effective for most hair types.
Powder-to-liquid concentrates in glass jars with metal lids → Single-material packaging. No pump mechanism. Mix with water as needed. Examples: laundry powder, dishwasher powder, surface cleaner concentrates.
Bulk refill stations with bring-your-own container → You bring your own glass jar with simple screw lid. No pump involved. No manufacturer-designed failure point. Refill at store. Pay by weight. Examples: Unpackaged (UK), bulk co-ops, zero-waste shops.
Demand Better: Support Brands Building Infrastructure
Loop by TerraCycle → Operates deposit-return systems where brands own durable containers, collect empties, clean, refill, redistribute.9 Limited UK availability but expanding. This is the model that functions.
Brands with mail-back or take-back programs → Some brands accept return of their pump bottles for refurbishment or responsible disposal. This is rare but worth prioritizing when available. If the brand takes responsibility for the pump's end-of-life, you are not managing it.
Repair Where Possible
Single-material pumps (all-plastic, no metal spring) → TriMas Mono-2e and similar designs use polymer springs. These are recyclable in standard plastic streams if your local authority accepts them. Still not circular, but one material stream instead of three.
Replace worn pumps with single-material versions → If you already own glass bottles, source all-plastic replacement pumps online (search "recyclable pump dispenser" or "single-material pump"). This converts your existing multi-material system into a simpler end-of-life pathway.
What Exists But Should Not Be Necessary
Single-material pumps now exist. According to TriMas Packaging, they pioneered the Mono-2e dispenser pump in 2021: six components, all made from one polymer—polypropylene.1 No metal spring. 100% recyclable without requiring material sorting or separation. As covered by Packaging Europe, Procter & Gamble developed similar all-plastic pump designs, acknowledging that traditional steel springs prevented entire pump assemblies from being processed in existing recycling streams.2
These innovations are technically available. They are not industry standard.
Three years after recyclable single-material pumps became commercially available, many refillable glass bottles sold in UK retail still contain multi-material pumps with steel springs and elastomer seals. The engineering problem was solved. The solution was not adopted.
The reason is economic. Multi-material pumps are cheaper to manufacture. Plastic springs require thicker walls and more material to achieve equivalent spring force—production cost increases. Manufacturers bear production cost. Consumers bear disposal cost. When disposal cost is externalised, there is no economic pressure to adopt more expensive designs.
If consumers owned pumps in closed-loop systems, manufacturers would replace failed units. If manufacturers bore the cost of replacing failed pumps, they would adopt longer-lasting designs. If manufacturers managed end-of-life processing, they would design for disassembly.
They do not manage these costs. You do. The engineering problem remains in your drawer because the solution costs them and the problem costs you.
VII. What Changed (What Should Change)
The pump in your hand is designed to fail predictably and be discarded by you. That is the current system.
The pump could be designed to be returned, refurbished, and reissued by the manufacturer. That is the system that functions for Coca-Cola, for breweries, for industrial chemical suppliers.
The difference is not technical capability. The difference is who owns the equipment and therefore who bears the cost of failure.
Press down on a pump. Feel the spring resistance. That spring will fatigue. That seal will crack. That mechanism will jam. And when it does, the question is: whose problem is it?
Right now, it is yours. It should not be.
Sable Chen writes about what things are made of and what they do to us.