Should smelters producing high carbon intensity aluminium be excluded from the Aluminium Stewardship Initiative’s sustainability certification? During 2025 it became obvious that many smelters would not meet the ASI’s ambitious decarbonisation target by the scheme’s deadline. So, they were given a temporary ‘free pass’ to continue their certification. This situation could not continue. A way round the problem is being proposed in a public consultation on what amounts to a complete overhaul of the Performance Standard.
ASI also wants to increase market demand for its certified aluminium. With such a wide range of members, from bauxite miners to packaging producers, there are many opinions about what needs to change. A key part of the consultation is whether there should be different levels of attainment, with a new enhanced level of achievement labelled ‘leading practice’ in some areas. This is particularly relevant for the vexed question of sustainable aluminium’s carbon footprint.
Production of primary aluminium is energy intensive, and access to renewable electricity via a country wide grid or a dedicated facility differs widely. Some geographies have used their hydroelectric resources to develop low carbon smelting facilities. Other smelters are stuck with electricity generated from coal.
So, ASI is asking interested parties to decide whether high carbon intensity aluminium (> 11 t CO2/t aluminium) is truly sustainable. The ASI’s Climate Working Group doesn’t think it is. But if adopted, this measure would prevent over 50% of current global smelter capacity from being certified. All smelters using electricity generated from coal would be excluded, which would address the risk that the most polluting fossil fuel, coal, poses for ASI.
Or should all smelters be allowed to comply? This more inclusive proposal would continue to allow even the highest carbon aluminium, to be ASI certified and its products labelled as sustainable. As a differentiator, low carbon aluminium producers would be able to claim, ‘leading climate practice.’ ASI members have to choose between these two proposals. They are between a rock and a hard place: either risk ASI’s reputation or weed out the most carbon intensive members.
There are other consequential proposals too. Companies at the end of the supply chain producing packaging and consumer goods, have been downgrading to a lesser category of membership and giving up their certification status. To entice these particular companies, including some very big names, back into the fold, ASI is consulting on a streamlined certification proposal, which concentrates on those areas most relevant to their activities – responsible sourcing, climate, and circularity. If accepted, this proposal would take ASI closer to the status quo before the last Standards revision, when downstream companies had a much simpler route to certification. These operators are not only key to promoting ASI to the public but also to getting certified aluminium products on the market. Other sustainability schemes go to great lengths to retain their brand owners, by offering them a more cost effective licensing scheme than the expensive membership that ASI currently requires. Members should take note.
Other proposed changes, such as focussing mainly on high risk impacts, are long overdue. So, for example, if a site is in an industrialised area, then it wouldn’t have to consider biodiversity impacts. There are also questions about whether smaller companies should be exempt from some requirements, to make sustainability certification more inclusive. This is particularly important in parts of the world where there is little outside support for small companies from organisations such as trade associations.
ASI has a growing membership, but all parts of the supply chain are not evenly represented. There is currently more ASI certified aluminium produced than products made from it. So, ASI could afford to lose high carbon smelters if, at the same time, more processors, fabricators, and end-users are motivated to join. The lowest impact smelters would also see more demand for certified aluminium if high impact smelters were to lose their certification.
Some Standards revision processes involve debates on incremental changes. This one offers more; the opportunity to decide, in a world struggling to tackle climate change, whether carbon intensive aluminium can be part of a sustainable future. The ASI consultation is open to all. Have your say.
Published: 19 March 26
