In the grand theatre of sustainable packaging, aluminium beverage cans have long occupied centre stage. They are hailed as icons of recyclability — endlessly reusable, energy-efficient, and economically viable. But peel back the label, and the story grows murkier. How much of the aluminium in your next soft drink can is genuinely recycled? And by whose definition? A new technical protocol quietly released in early 2025 aims to settle that debate. Published by the Can Manufacturers Institute - Can Central and Titled “Guidance for Calculating Recycled Content in Aluminium Can Sheet (Version 1.0),” this industry-led initiative offers the first formalised methodology to quantify recycled content in aluminium can sheet. Developed by the Can Manufacturers Institute (CMI) and environmental NGO GreenBlue, with inputs from major players including Novelis, Ball, Constellium, and the Aluminium Stewardship Initiative, the document sets out a transparent framework for calculating recycled aluminium inputs — and challenges long-held assumptions along the way.
A reckoning with ‘recycled’
At the heart of the guidance is a critical reset of what constitutes recycled content. The industry has, until now, operated with flexible interpretations, which often lumps in internal scrap, process regrinds, and furnace dross under the recycled umbrella. This new guidance draws a clear boundary: only post-consumer and externally sourced pre-consumer aluminium counts.
Internal scrap, no matter how efficiently reused, is excluded. As the guidance argues, material that never leaves a facility cannot be considered part of a circular loop. In an era where ESG reporting is under a magnifying glass, such precision is not only welcome — it’s necessary.
This is more than a semantic adjustment. It directly impacts how manufacturers report to regulators, how investors assess decarbonisation progress, and how brands position their sustainability credentials in front of increasingly climate-literate consumers.
One alloy, three paths
The guidance outlines three formulaic versions to calculate recycled content, all based on the mass balance approach. Regardless of the version, the intent remains unchanged: account for true material origins and avoid double-counting across alloy series or process stages.
A worked example using a hypothetical Company Z, which sells 22 thousand tonnes of finished rolled product, reveals a recycled content share of 77.5 per cent. Of this, 47.5 per cent is post-consumer and 30 per cent pre-consumer. Notably, these figures are adjusted for melt yield losses, a factor rarely accounted for in public claims. Melt yield drops significantly when processing post-consumer material, sometimes to as low as 80 per cent (e.g., in used beverage cans) due to coatings, contaminants, and oxidation.
The use of melt yield-adjusted calculations ensures that manufacturers don’t overstate recycled content by ignoring what gets lost between the furnace and the final sheet.
A global context with regional fault lines
The guidance adopts UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) regional demarcations but adds granular nuance. Notably, it allows US and European producers to apply regional compositional defaults to Remelt Scrap Ingots (RSIs) — an industry-standard feedstock in can sheet manufacturing. According to 2025 data by Harbor Aluminium:
However, in Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East, such data defaults are disallowed unless substantiated by suppliers. In other words, aluminium producers in these regions are now at a disadvantage when making sustainability claims unless they build robust traceability infrastructure.
This divide could shape future sourcing decisions. Beverage giants with global supply chains — Coca-Cola, AB InBev, Red Bull — are increasingly demanding region-specific ESG disclosures. Under frameworks like the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), the carbon embedded in aluminium imports will face real-time tariffs. Recycled content is now more than a feel-good number — it’s a lever of market access.
Tracing trouble: Where the data trail ends
The guidance does not pretend that implementation will be easy. Particularly thorny is the treatment of rolling mill scrap (RMS) — material that flows between alloy series or leaves the facility altogether. RMS can either contribute or dilute recycled content, depending on its origin and tracking accuracy.
For co-located facilities with closed-loop processes, tracing RMS movement between alloy types is often impossible. In response, the guidance proposes conservative mass balance approximations. This avoids over-attribution of recycled content — a deliberate move to favour accuracy over ambition.
Sold scrap and dross recovery are also addressed. If returned to the process, Dross-derived aluminium is counted — but only if its recycled composition is known. Otherwise, it defaults to 100% pre-consumer.
This conservative accounting principle — when in doubt, assume zero — is central to the document’s credibility. In a time when greenwashing penalties are on the rise, this may protect manufacturers from litigation, reputational damage, or regulatory fines.
Why take it seriously?
For producers, this guidance is both an opportunity and a warning.
Those that embrace it will find themselves well-prepared for upcoming scrutiny under CBAM, the US SEC’s climate disclosures, and Scope 3 emission accounting demands. Those that ignore it risk losing access to premium markets, failing ESG audits, or being sidelined by brand owners that are chasing low-carbon materials with verifiable trails.
This protocol could become the de facto industry benchmark for recycled aluminium in beverage cans. And unlike voluntary labels or unverifiable pledges, it’s built on hard metrics, scientific methodology, and consensus from stakeholders across the aluminium ecosystem.
This isn’t just a technical document. It’s a blueprint for accountability. Aluminium cans may still be infinitely recyclable. But whether they are infinitely recycled is a matter of action, not intention. As regulators close in and consumers grow savvier, the aluminium industry will need more than marketing slogans. It will need maths. Transparent, traceable, verified numbers — and the courage to own them.
Also read: Why CBAM’s scrap loophole is a data and enforcement crisis waiting to erupt
Responses
