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

At the end of 2024, I sat in on a year-end review meeting with a client running a chain of milk tea shops. Their annual food delivery orders totaled 23 million, and their annual procurement spend on food delivery packaging (cups, bags, straws, lunch boxes) reached ¥28 million. During the meeting, the CEO showed me a spreadsheet: after Plastic Restriction Order 2.0, they had tried three packaging pricing schemes—the first caused order volume to drop 12%, the second raised costs by 4%, and the third showed no results after six months.

He asked: Can you help me figure out which pricing mechanisms are actually working nationwide right now? And which one should we choose?

I spent two months researching this question and ultimately found that food delivery packaging pricing mechanisms are not either/or—they fall into three categories: consumer-paid "paid use," government-guided deposit system, and business-led alternative-material substitution. The cost structure, order impact, and compliance boundaries differ for each.

Category 1: Paid Use—Direct Surcharge on Consumers

Paid use is currently the most common approach. When consumers order delivery, the packaging fee is listed as a separate line item, typically ¥1–3 per order.

Shenzhen officially launched its "Paid Use of Food Delivery Packaging" pilot in September 2023, covering both Meituan and Ele.me platforms. After six months of piloting, the data was released: plastic food delivery packaging usage dropped 52%, but order volume fell 4.7%.

Breaking down these numbers reveals their value. The 52% plastic reduction came from: consumers actively choosing "no utensils" (30%), selecting compostable packaging (18%), and switching from delivery to dine-in (4%). The 4.7% order decline came mainly from low-ticket-size users (orders below ¥30 showed the steepest drop).

The impact on printing factories: packaging specs are shifting from "generic plastic lunch boxes" toward "compostable bagasse lunch boxes and PLA-coated paper boxes." Within six months of the Shenzhen pilot, orders for compostable lunch boxes grew 280%.

Category 2: Deposit System—Recovery and Reuse to Lower Per-Use Cost

The deposit system was launched as Shanghai's "Plastic Lunch Box Deposit-Recovery" pilot in 2024. Consumers pay an extra ¥1 packaging deposit when ordering delivery and get ¥1 back when returning the lunch box.

Four-month pilot data (March–June 2024): deposit lunch box recovery rate of 38%, average reuse of 4.2 cycles. This means each deposit lunch box actually circulates 4.2 times, bringing per-use cost down from ¥1 to ¥0.24.

The core challenge for the deposit system is not the deposit itself but the recovery network. Shanghai's approach: set up recovery points at all 12,000 food delivery dispatch stations citywide, with couriers collecting used boxes during delivery runs. This "deliver-and-collect" model lifted the recovery rate from an initial 12% to 38%.

The deposit system is unfriendly to printing factories—because deposit lunch boxes require PP material (which can withstand high-temperature washing above 100°C), printing factories must open a dedicated PP lunch box mold, costing ¥80,000–150,000 per mold set, which is unsuitable for small and mid-sized printers. During the pilot period, only 3 printing factories in Shanghai could supply consistently.

Category 3: Alternative-Material Substitution—Businesses Proactively Switch Materials

The alternative-material approach is the "Compostable Packaging Subsidy" policy launched by Zhejiang Province in 2024. The government subsidizes food businesses ¥0.5 for each compostable lunch box used (up to ¥0.8 per order in Hangzhou).

Hangzhou pilot data after 3 months: subsidies covered 38% of food delivery orders, raising the compostable lunch box market share from 18% to 47%.

But the subsidy policy has two hard flaws: ① it depends on fiscal budgets—Hangzhou's ¥240 million subsidy budget for 2025 is already running out; ② it only subsidizes "use," not "recovery"—industrial composting facilities for compostable lunch boxes cannot keep up, with only 2 industrial composting plants around Hangzhou, processing capacity of 8,000 tonnes/year versus actual generation of 12,000 tonnes/year.

For printing factories, the alternative-material approach is both opportunity and burden. The opportunity is increased order volume—bagasse lunch box orders grew 180% during the Hangzhou pilot. The burden is the short shelf life of compostable lunch boxes—bagasse lunch boxes have only 6–8 months of ambient shelf life, compressing printing factory inventory cycles to the extreme.

Compliance Boundaries and Printing Factory Opportunities Across the Three Categories

The three categories are not mutually exclusive—they can stack. Shenzhen + Hangzhou have already piloted a "paid use + government subsidy" combo in 2025—consumers pay ¥1, the government subsidizes businesses another ¥0.5, so businesses effectively bear ¥0.5 per order.

The real significance of this combo for printing factories: packaging materials are shifting from single-plastic to multi-material hybrid. Capabilities printing factories need to build over the next 3 years:

• Molding processes for three bio-based materials: bagasse, PLA, and bamboo fiber
• High-temperature washing + reuse process for PP lunch boxes (required by deposit system)
• Compliant printing of compostability marks (two certification systems: OK Compost INDUSTRIAL / OK Compost HOME)

The 3 most common questions printing factories face from clients: ①"Which scheme should we actually choose?"—printing factories must be able to provide cost comparisons and order impact projections for all three schemes; ②"What marks must we print on packaging to stay compliant?"—printing factories need to know the regulatory sources for three types of marks (paid use mark, deposit mark, compostable mark); ③"When does enforcement become mandatory?"—printing factories must track enforcement timelines from local market regulation administrations.

Practical Advice: How Printing Factories Should Respond to the Three Schemes

First, don't bet on a single scheme. Shenzhen's paid use is already running, Shanghai is piloting the deposit system, and Hangzhou is subsidizing alternatives—these three models may coexist for 2–3 years.

Second, prioritize investment in bagasse / PLA lunch box production lines. Orders for compostable materials are growing 80%+ annually, with gross margins 8–12 percentage points higher than plastic lunch boxes.

Third, enter the deposit lunch box market cautiously. The PP lunch box production line required by the deposit system demands ¥2–4 million in investment and depends on local recovery networks, making it unsuitable for nationwide rollout.

Further Reading

• Bagasse / PLA Lunch Boxes: What's the Difference Between "Industrial Compostable" and "Home Compostable" Marks?
• PLA-Coated Paper Cups: 3 Real-World Compliance Boundaries
• Bagasse / PLA / Bamboo Fiber: 3 Bio-Based Packaging Options in 2026 Practice