Canned Beer (330ml)
Food & BeverageCarbon Cost Index Score
Per kg
Methodology v1.0 · Last reviewed 2026-04-08
Scope Breakdown
| Scope | kgCO₂e | % of Total | Distribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope 1 | 0.028 | 5% | |
| Scope 2 | 0.044 | 8% | |
| Scope 3 | 0.479 | 87% | |
| Total | 0.55 | 100% |
Emission Hotspots
| Emission Hotspot | Scope | Est. % of Total |
|---|---|---|
| aluminum can production and material | S3 | 35% |
| barley cultivation and malting | S3 | 30% |
| retail and home refrigeration | S3 | 18% |
| distribution and transport | S3 | 12% |
| brewery operations and energy | S1/S2 | 5% |
Manufacturing Geography
- Region
- North America
- Grid Intensity
- 429 gCO2e/kWh (EPA eGRID 2022)
Canned Beer (330ml)
A standard aluminum-canned beer represents a complex product with emissions distributed across agricultural production, manufacturing, packaging, and end-use phases. The carbon intensity stems primarily from upstream supply chain activities, with aluminum can production and agricultural inputs driving the majority of lifecycle emissions.
Material Composition Assumptions
The carbon footprint model assumes the following material composition for a typical 330ml canned beer:
- Aluminum can: 11g (3.3% by weight)
- Malted barley: 40g (12.1% by weight)
- Water: 270g (81.8% by weight)
- Hops: 1.5g (0.5% by weight)
- Yeast: 0.8g (0.2% by weight)
- Epoxy/polymer interior coating: 0.7g (0.2% by weight)
- Other additives and processing aids: 6g (1.8% by weight)
Despite representing only a small fraction of total weight, the aluminum can contributes disproportionately to carbon emissions due to the energy-intensive smelting and forming processes required for can production.
Manufacturing Geography
Beer production occurs globally, but this assessment focuses on North American manufacturing patterns where large-scale breweries dominate the canned beer market. The regional electricity grid intensity of 429 gCO2e/kWh significantly influences the carbon footprint of both brewing operations and upstream aluminum production. North America was selected as the baseline region due to the prevalence of aluminum packaging, established recycling infrastructure, and representative agricultural systems for barley cultivation.
Regional Variation
| Manufacturing Region | Grid Intensity | Estimated CCI Score | Adjustment vs Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| North America | 429 gCO2e/kWh | 55 | Baseline |
| European Union | 295 gCO2e/kWh | 48 | -13% |
| China | 555 gCO2e/kWh | 62 | +13% |
| Nordic Countries | 85 gCO2e/kWh | 41 | -25% |
| Australia | 510 gCO2e/kWh | 59 | +7% |
Provenance Override Guidance
Suppliers can provide the following data types to override the default CCI score with product-specific measurements:
- Third-party lifecycle assessment report covering cradle-to-gate emissions including all scope 1, 2, and 3 categories
- Aluminum can specifications including recycled content percentage and supplier-specific carbon footprint data
- Agricultural sourcing documentation detailing barley origin, farming practices, and transportation distances
- Brewery energy consumption data with renewable energy certificates and grid emission factors
- Packaging material certifications showing lightweight design specifications and end-of-life recyclability rates
Methodology Notes
- The CCI score represents cradle-to-gate emissions including raw material extraction, processing, manufacturing, and packaging but excludes consumer transportation and end-of-life disposal
- Scope 3 emissions dominate at 87% of total footprint, reflecting the supply chain intensive nature of beverage production
- Functional unit is defined as one 330ml aluminum can of beer with standard 4-6% alcohol content
- Regional refrigeration patterns during retail and home storage are included as scope 3 upstream emissions
- Data gaps exist around small-scale craft brewing operations and seasonal variations in agricultural inputs
- Recycling credits are not applied to avoid double-counting with future lifecycle assessments
- The assessment excludes optional secondary packaging such as plastic rings or cardboard carriers
Related Concepts
Sources
- Cimini & Moresi 2016 Journal of Cleaner Production — Comprehensive lifecycle analysis showing packaging as the largest contributor to beer carbon footprint
- Amienyo & Azapagic 2016 International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment — Detailed comparison of packaging materials demonstrating aluminum's higher carbon intensity versus steel alternatives
- Morgan et al. 2022 LCA Studies — Updated carbon footprint ranges for canned beer across different production systems and regions
- Thielmann 2023 Whitepaper on Packaging Environmental Impact — Analysis of recycled content benefits showing 10-15% carbon reduction from using recycled aluminum
- BIER 2012 Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable LCA — Industry-wide study establishing scope 3 emissions as dominant factor representing 57-95% of total footprint
- Hallström et al. 2018 Sweden Beer LCA — Regional analysis demonstrating significant geographical variation in beer carbon footprints
- Morgan et al. 2021 UK Craft Brewing Carbon Footprint Calculator — Quantification of agricultural inputs showing barley cultivation as second-largest emission source
- Notarnicola et al. 2017 Italian Beer LCA — European perspective on beer lifecycle emissions with emphasis on refrigeration impact