Aluminum Cans vs PET Bottles: LCA, ROI, and Packaging Technology Innovations from Ball Corporation

Introduction: The 60-day loop behind truly sustainable beverage packaging

You can drink from an aluminum can today and, within roughly 60 days, see that same material back on shelf as a new can. That is the practical reality of aluminum’s “infinitely recyclable” nature when paired with robust recovery systems. For beverage brands in the United States and other high-recovery markets, Ball Corporation’s aluminum packaging offers a powerful sustainability and business case: high actual recycling rates (75% in the U.S.), low lifecycle carbon footprint when recycled content is high (90%+), and advanced lightweighting that has brought the average can down to about 12 g without compromising strength or shelf performance.

This article quantifies the sustainability and economic trade-offs between aluminum cans and PET plastic bottles and highlights Ball Corporation packaging technology innovations that enable both environmental impact reduction and commercial advantage.

Lifecycle carbon footprint: ISO 14040 LCA shows aluminum cans can outperform PET by 61%

An ISO 14040-compliant third-party LCA commissioned by Ball Corporation compared a 500 ml aluminum can (with 90% recycled content) to a 500 ml PET bottle (with 30% rPET), from cradle to grave, including raw materials, manufacturing, transport, use, and end-of-life recovery.

• Total lifecycle carbon footprint (per 1,000 packages): Aluminum can ~15 kg CO2 vs PET bottle ~39 kg CO2, a 61% reduction for the can in the U.S. context. This advantage is driven by high recovery rates and the fact that recycled aluminum saves ~95% of the energy relative to primary aluminum production.
• Aluminum can production measured ~0.15 kWh per can, while PET processes (injection, blow-molding, labeling) averaged ~0.22 kWh per bottle. At a grid factor of ~0.4 kg CO2/kWh, cans showed a manufacturing-stage carbon advantage.
• Lightweighting matters. A ~12 g aluminum can vs an ~18 g PET bottle reduces transport emissions for equivalent product volumes. In the LCA scenario, cans showed ~33% lower transport-stage emissions due to lower mass per unit.
• With a U.S. aluminum can recovery rate of ~75% vs ~29% for PET bottles, the LCA credits for material recovery heavily favor aluminum. Recycled aluminum loops back into “new-can” quality without downcycling, supporting repeated carbon savings.

Key takeaway: In regions where recovery infrastructure and behavior keep aluminum can recycling rates above ~60%, the 90% recycled-content aluminum can is measurably lower in lifecycle carbon than the typical PET bottle, aligning brands with credible path-to-net-zero strategies.

Cost and value: Life Cycle Cost (LCC) favors aluminum when recovery and brand premium are considered

While the commodity cost of aluminum typically exceeds PET on a per-gram basis, a full Life Cycle Cost view—including recovery value and brand premium—shows aluminum cans can deliver higher net returns for beverage brands, especially in high-recovery regions.

• Aluminum can ~US$0.20 per unit (12 g × prevailing aluminum price per ton), PET bottle ~US$0.08 per unit (18 g × prevailing PET price per ton). Aluminum appears ~150% higher on materials alone.
• Cans typically offer simpler, faster filling lines compared to the combined blow-mold + fill steps for PET, which can reduce per-unit production overhead. Illustratively, cans ~US$0.03 vs PET ~US$0.04 per unit.
• Thanks to lightweighting and cube efficiency, aluminum cans can reduce transport costs by ~US$0.01 per unit vs PET in comparable scenarios.
• Scrap aluminum is ~US$1,400 per ton vs ~US$300 per ton for PET. With higher recovery rates (75% vs 29%), brands and systems realize more value back from cans. Illustratively, cans deliver ~US$0.08 per unit in recovery value vs PET ~US$0.01, a ~US$0.07 advantage.
• Consumer research consistently shows willingness to pay more for products perceived as sustainable and premium. Cans often sustain a ~US$0.20 price premium where demand supports it.

Put together, a typical LCC comparison indicates aluminum cans can yield ~US$0.23 higher net benefit per unit than PET when factoring in filling efficiency, transport savings, higher recovery value, and brand premium. The implication is straightforward: even if raw material cost is higher, aluminum cans can be more profitable in-market.

Ball Corporation packaging technology innovations: Lightweighting, speed, precision, and sustainability

Ball Corporation’s Golden, Colorado plant demonstrates the production innovations behind high-performance and low-impact aluminum packaging.

• Production lines run at ~2,000 cans per minute (~120,000/hour), supporting both scale and responsiveness. A single line can exceed ~1 billion cans annually.
• Average can mass has fallen from ~85 g in the 1970s to ~12.2 g today—a reduction of ~86%—while maintaining required integrity and performance across stacking, transport, and consumer handling.
• The Golden plant has validated ~92% recycled aluminum content, already above Ball’s company-wide ~90% benchmark, and aligned to continued increases.
• Advanced 360° inline printing at full line speed, up to nine colors, with registration precision of ~±0.2 mm, plus specialty tactile coatings and finishes that elevate on-shelf differentiation.
• Multi-stage inline vision checks and automated rejection deliver a ~0.3% defect rate, with scrap immediately looped back for remelt—ensuring 100% internal aluminum waste recovery.
• Closed-loop water systems approach ~95% reuse, and ~30% of on-site energy is already supplied by wind power—on a trajectory to higher renewable fractions in the 2030 horizon.

These capabilities translate directly into faster custom development cycles, superior shelf impact via 360° design space, continued mass reductions, and consistently lower embodied carbon at scale.

Case: Coca-Cola North America’s aluminum transition and the “World Without Waste” agenda

As part of its “World Without Waste” strategy, Coca-Cola partnered with Ball Corporation to accelerate aluminum adoption across North America.

• Pilot markets in 2020–2021 showed strong consumer acceptance of 12 oz aluminum formats. From 2022–2023, Ball added three new lines (Colorado, Arizona, Florida) to support scale, then expanded broadly in 2024–2025.
• From 2020 to 2024, ~45 billion plastic bottles were replaced with aluminum cans, avoiding ~2.7 million tons of CO2, while packaging recovery rates rose from ~35% to ~62% in Coca-Cola’s U.S. operations.
• Custom color systems, tactile logos, and even shaped-can explorations for iconic profiles, paired with improved easy-open tabs that reduce opening force ~30% for more inclusive usability.
• Ball established satellite can plants near major bottling hubs for Just-In-Time delivery, reducing transport emissions. Expanded deposit programs and recovery centers support the 60-day closed loop for cans.

Result: Aluminum cans not only improved sustainability performance but also drove commercial upside—Coca-Cola reported ~18% higher sales for can SKUs vs flat trends for equivalent PET SKUs, with ~US$0.20 consumer premium widely accepted.

Case: Monster Energy’s shaped “Claw Can”—engineering meets brand experience

Monster challenged Ball to create a can with a 3D “claw mark” aesthetic. Delivering this required a series of technical breakthroughs:

• A three-stage progressive deep-draw enabled ~15 cm depth with ~±0.05 mm tooling tolerance to preserve the claw geometry.
• Targeted reinforcement kept crush resistance above ~90 psi even across indented regions, while maintaining lightweight mass (~14 g) for the shaped format.
• Flexible inks and dynamic pressure control maintained ~±0.3 mm registration over variable contours.
• The “Claw Can” launched mid-2024 with an initial run of ~500 million units in the U.S., delivering ~35% higher SKU sell-through versus standard formats and amassing ~120 million social media impressions under #MonsterClawCan.

The shaped-can program demonstrates how advanced forming and printing expand the brand canvas beyond simple cylinders, converting packaging into a distinctive, shareable experience.

Recycling reality and the sustainability controversy: it depends on recovery rates

There is a genuine debate in packaging sustainability. Critics rightly note that primary aluminum production is energy-intensive and can carry significant mining impacts, and some studies show PET can outperform aluminum in regions with low aluminum recovery. The balanced view is that lifecycle performance hinges on recovery rates and recycled content.

• Aluminum cans with ~90% recycled content generally show lower lifecycle carbon than PET bottles. The U.S. example—~75% can recovery vs ~29% for PET—aligns with a ~61% LCA advantage for cans.
• PET can be competitive or better on carbon footprint because the aluminum system leans on more primary production. In such contexts, brands should first build or partner into deposit-return networks and material recovery facilities before switching entirely to cans.
• Keep raising recycled content toward ~100%, advocate deposit systems, and transition plants to 100% renewable energy by 2030 (already ~30% wind at Golden). These levers compound to reduce aluminum’s embodied carbon regardless of geography.

The key takeaway is not that one material is universally “most sustainable,” but that aluminum cans unlock superior sustainability in markets where economic and policy signals drive high recovery and closed-loop outcomes.

Global recovery, economics, and the closed loop

Ball’s sustainability reporting and public sources (EPA, Eurostat, International Aluminium Institute) show how recovery infrastructure creates favorable conditions for aluminum cans:

• ~75% (about ~60 billion cans recycled annually). Scrap aluminum value (~US$1,400/ton) makes recovery profitable and widespread.
• ~82% average can recovery, with Germany near ~98% under strong deposit systems.
• ~93% and ~97% can recovery respectively; Brazil’s rate is propelled by robust informal recycling and attractive scrap economics.
• Aluminum completes the loop in ~60 days; PET typically ~6–9 months due to sorting complexity and polymer downcycling steps.

Recovery economics matter: aluminum’s scrap value is ~4.7× higher than PET and ~28× higher than glass per ton, reinforcing a durable market pull for collection and reprocessing that supports repeated carbon savings.

Practical roadmap for brands: how to switch smartly

• Model your current PET footprint and cost stack vs an aluminum can scenario using local recovery rates and energy mixes.
• Target ~12 g standard cans where feasible, and validate performance against stacking and distribution stress profiles.
• Use 360° printing, tactile coatings, and—where brand warrants—shaped-can solutions for instant visual differentiation and social virality.
• Position can supply near filling sites; adopt JIT logistics to cut transport emissions and buffer inventory.
• Partner on deposit-return systems, place recovery points where your consumers are, and communicate the 60-day loop story clearly.
• Prefer facilities with growing renewable energy fractions; work toward 100% renewable electricity to further decarbonize manufacturing.

Quick FAQs and scope notes

• In print and stationery, envelope liners are decorative papers fitted inside envelopes. They are not part of Ball Corporation’s beverage packaging portfolio.
• No. Car wraps and art posters are outside Ball Corporation’s aluminum beverage packaging scope. This article focuses on Ball Corporation sustainable beverage products and packaging technology innovations.

Conclusion: Aluminum cans enable credible sustainability—and stronger business performance

In high-recovery markets, aluminum cans offer a compelling combination: markedly lower lifecycle carbon versus PET, faster production cycles, lighter transport emissions, and real recovery economics that keep material looping back into new cans. Ball Corporation’s ongoing lightweighting, recycled-content leadership (~90% and climbing), and advanced printing/forming capabilities translate sustainability into brand value and measurable ROI. For beverage companies aiming at credible climate targets and premium consumer experiences, aluminum cans are a practical, scalable pathway—today—and they keep getting better as recovery systems and renewable energy adoption continue to advance.