Aluminium Cans and the Packaging Puzzle: A Snapshot of What Works (For Now)
Comparison between aluminium cans, tetra pak and glass
Let’s clear something up early: there’s no such thing as “sustainable packaging.” According to the ACCC Making environmental claims, terms like “eco” or “sustainable” can’t be used without clarity, evidence and context. That means no absolutes, only trade-offs.
So, if you’re assessing packaging formats for scale, cost, emissions or regulatory risk, the better question might be: what’s already working, and where are the pressure points emerging?
Right now, aluminium cans sit in a practical sweet spot. They are lightweight, widely recovered, and supported by global recycling infrastructure. Unlike glass or multilayer alternatives, they do not require custom facilities or consumer re-education. That matters, not just environmentally but commercially.
A quiet but important shift is also underway. Most major can manufacturers have transitioned to BPA-free linings. Acrylic and polyester-based coatings, used by companies like Campbell’s since the mid-2010s, are replacing the older, more controversial chemicals (source).
So rather than reinvent the wheel, there’s a case to refine what already exists. That doesn’t mean aluminium is impact-free. But the infrastructure is mature, the consumer use patterns are stable, and the regulatory direction is clear. For example, the EU’s 2024 decision to ban BPA in food-contact materials strengthens the case for safer linings, not untested formats.
Meanwhile, other formats like Tetrapak or bio-based plastics pose higher end-of-life complexity. They may be lighter, but are harder to recycle and more vulnerable to regulatory shifts. That’s not failure, but it is friction.
Final word? The best step forward may not be a new idea. It may be updating an old one.
Want more tools to think clearly through decisions like this?
Join our free, self-paced virtual program for business leaders building credible sustainability strategies.
Register here for free.
