The manufacturer could make a cost/benefit-analysis, concluding that building a machine that lasts approx. these 1000 runs but no longer, and paying for recycling afterwards is cheaper than building something that lasts and is recyclable.
Also, replacing it every ~200 cycles with just another cheaply built throwaway-machine could also become a viable business model. Why should the manufacturer care, if it becomes cheaper?
You could also make the manufacturer pay for recycling anyway - which is the case in the EU for several device classes IIRC, no need for a rental model to establish that. For some devices this means that the manufacturer has to take it back when you are done with it. The problem of course is that this is directly paid for by the customer - and by itself does not change anything.
But my argument is that it wouldn't for the rental model either.