ASI GHG Validation Report - v2.0 - GENERIC

Analysis of Implementation of
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

Reporting from ASI Certified Entities:
March 2020 – March 2021 Update
Client: Aluminium Stewardship Initiative (ASI)

Date: 12 October 2021
Version: 2.0 – Generic / Public Release
Report prepared by
Atmolite Consulting Pty Ltd

Varsity Lakes, Gold Coast
QLD 4227, Australia
ABN: 58 592 457 824
Contact: david.wong@atmolite.com
Disclaimer
Atmolite Consulting Pty Ltd does not make any representation or warranty (express or implied) as to
the accuracy or completeness of this report. Nor shall it have any liability (whether arising from
negligence or otherwise) for any representations (express or implied) or information contained in, or
for any omissions from, the report, or any written or oral communications transmitted in the course
of the project. This report has been provided "as is" without any guarantee, representation, condition
or warranty of any kind, either express, implied or statutory.
Atmolite Consulting Pty Ltd shall not have any liability, duty or obligation for or relating to the data
contained herein, any errors, inaccuracies, omissions in the data, or for any actions taken in reliance
thereon.
Analysis of Implementation – GHG Emissions Reporting from ASI Entities: Mar 2020-Mar 2021 Update
Executive Summary
This report provides an analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy use data disclosures
by certified ASI Entities (both Performance Standard and Chain of Custody Standard). This is an update
of a similar study in 2020 and incorporates recently certified ASI Entities, up to 31 March 2021. The
study was commissioned by the Aluminium Stewardship Initiative (ASI) and was conducted by Atmolite
Consulting Pty Ltd.
The findings here represent a snapshot of GHG and energy data disclosures as of June 2021, with
granularity at the regional, country and supply chain activity level (from bauxite mining to downstream
activities). Also included in this report is a comparison of publicly disclosed data from ASI Entities
against data from CRU’s Emissions Analysis Tool, for primary aluminium activities.
In total, the review covered 55 ASI Member companies, of which there were 87 ASI Entities (expanding
to 115 modified Entities, incorporating multiple supply chain activities by ASI Entities). ASI
certifications have increased significantly (by 70%) since the last assessment (51 Entities in 2020). Of
the 115 modified Entities, 21 are engaged in aluminium smelting and 9 in alumina refining; a further
9 Entities (all downstream activities) are not certified under the ASI Performance Standard V2 Criteria
5.1-5.3, and hence are not currently required to provide emissions/energy disclosures.
Note that this report uses generic labels (region and numeral) to refer to specific ASI Entities; for
example, ‘SAM-1’ refers to ASI certified Entity #1 in South America.
Assessing Quality of Data Disclosures from ASI Entities

The overall level and quality of data disclosure for various ASI Entities appears to be improving,
compared to the 2020 review. Some improvements have resulted from these independent reviews
(2020-21) and feedback to specific Entities regarding their disclosed data. In this 2021 assessment, 73%
of certified ASI Entities provide either a comprehensive (‘good’) or reasonable (‘medium) level of data
disclosures, relating to their scope of certification; this includes 86% of aluminium smelting Entities
and 55% of alumina refining Entities.
As observed in 2020, many newly certified ASI Entities – the majority of which are smaller enterprises
located in China and Europe – are publicly disclosing their sustainability performance (e.g. GHG and
other emissions, energy, waste, water usage) and social credentials (e.g. human rights, employee
policies, communities) on their websites and reporting. Importantly, many of these Entities are now
doing these sustainability disclosures for the first time in their company’s history, as part of the ASI
certification process.
Trends in Energy Intensity from ASI Entities

The Smelting supply chain activity exhibits the highest energy consumption per unit product, which
reflects the large amounts of energy required to electrochemically split the strong Al-O bonds in
alumina (Al2O3) to produce primary aluminium metal. Smelting has a median intensity of 53 GJ/t Al,
compared to 10 GJ/t Al2O3 for Alumina refining activity, and 9.3 GJ/t product and 5.5 GJ/t product for
Remelt-to-Downstream and Downstream activities, respectively.
iii
Reductions in total energy intensity (GJ/t) over the past three to five years were observed for 12% of
all Entities, 22% of Alumina refining Entities and 10% of Smelting Entities in 2021. Of Smelting Entities
where trends could be assessed, almost 85% are either stable or trending down in energy intensity
over time. Overall, increases in energy intensity were observed for 13% of all Entities, 11% of Alumina
refining Entities and 10% of Smelting Entities in 2021.
Trends in GHG Emission Intensity (Scope 1+2) from ASI Entities

The Smelting activity is responsible for the highest emissions per unit product across the supply chain,
with a median of 2.7 and average of 4.3 t CO2e/t Al. It also has the most significant variation compared
to other activities, ranging from 1.3 to 14.0 t CO2e/t Al, driven by the range of electricity sources –
from low carbon hydro, nuclear and renewables, to carbon-intensive coal and a whole power mix in
between. The 14 ASI Smelting Entities with a higher share of low carbon (hydro, nuclear and
renewables) sources as part of their power mix (often purchased power) are located in Western and
Eastern Europe, North and South America, Oceania and in multiple regions. These are all operating at
5 t CO2e/t and below. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Smelting Entities – predominantly using self-
generated, natural gas-fired power – are between 8.0 and 9.3 t CO2e/t Al. The highest emission
intensity disclosure, at 14.0 t CO2e/t Al, is for an Entity in China, predominantly using self-generated
coal-fired power. Significant changes in the grid-energy mix for smelters which purchase their power,
increasing grid connection of self-generating Entities, fuel switching and/or carbon capture, utilisation
and storage (CCUS) by self-generating Entities are needed if coal-powered smelters are to meet the
current 8 t CO2e/t Al maximum threshold by 2030.
All other supply chain activities exhibit lower GHG emission intensities per unit product, with narrower
distributions, a function of the fact that they are dominated by fuel combustion processes (to provide
heat & steam) with similar fuel use and lower (mainly purchased) electricity intensity. Alumina refining
Entities vary from 0.3 to 1.2 t CO2e/t Al2O3, Remelt-to-Downstream from 0.1 to 4.5 t CO2e/t product,
and Downstream activities from 0.3 to 1.4 t CO2e/t product.
Reductions in GHG emission intensity over the past three to five years were observed for 16% of all
Entities, 22% of Alumina refining Entities and 19% of Smelting Entities in 2021. The majority of ASI’s
Smelting Entities are either stable or trending down over time in their disclosed emissions intensity;
only one Entity exhibited minor trends up. Overall, increases in GHG emission intensity were observed
for 6% of all Entities and 5% of Smelting Entities in 2021.
Comparing Data Disclosures with the CRU Emissions Tool

Comparisons were made between Entity data disclosures and CRU’s Emissions Analysis Tool data set
(2021) for six Bauxite mining Entities, nine Alumina refining Entities and 18 Smelting Entities. In
general, the Smelting category had the best match between the two data sets – 67% of energy
disclosures (based on power consumption only) and almost 85% of GHG emission disclosures were in
either “good” (<5% discrepancy) or “medium” (5-20% discrepancy) agreement with the CRU data set.
Overall, the CRU Emissions Tool is a very useful tool for benchmarking of ASI certified Entities
throughout the primary aluminium supply chain, especially for the GHG emissions. It also provides
asset-level data for existing ‘gaps’ in data disclosures, where they are missing or do not directly
correlate to the scope of ASI certification.
iv
Recommendations
Recommendations that could be adopted by ASI to further improve the quality, transparency and
benchmarking of data disclosures, include:
a) Encouraging disclosures relevant to facility or activity, which allows aggregation to ASI
certification scope level (not aggregated data that can include non-certified production sites
or multiple processes);
b) Encouraging disclosures of not only electricity use, but total energy use and energy use per
energy carrier (fuels, electricity, etc.) which is a more relevant proxy for GHG emissions and
carbon footprint (particularly for non-Smelter processes); and
c) Standardising the scope and units of disclosure, both totals and intensities (per unit of
production), preferably indicating the specific numerators and denominators used when
intensities are reported. These could be implemented through use of standardised data
reporting templates, such as those already employed by the International Aluminium Institute
(IAI) and other industry associations.
Finally, as per the IAI’s Beyond 2 Degrees Scenario (B2DS) to 2050 (IAI, 2021), the ultimate goal is
decarbonisation of the entire aluminium sector, and particularly important for the primary aluminium
smelting sector. Success will require all aluminium smelters to shift down the current emissions curve,
particularly those currently using carbon-intensive sources of power. ASI could play a part in
incentivising this by providing certification pathways for all smelters on the emissions curve, whilst
ensuring clear, significant and time-bound emission reductions are demonstrated.
v
Contents
1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Objectives ...............................................................................................................................1
1.2 ASI Performance Standard – Principle 5 ................................................................................1
1.3 ASI Chain of Custody Standard – Criterion 9.3 .......................................................................2
2 Data Collection and Scope ...............................................................................................................3
2.1 ASI Members and Entities ......................................................................................................3
2.2 Collection of Data Disclosures from ASI Entities ....................................................................5
3 Development of a GHG Emissions Database ...................................................................................7
3.1 ‘Filling the Gaps’ for Data Completeness ...............................................................................7
3.2 Classifying Data for Entities with Multiple Supply Chains ......................................................8
4 Analysis of Implementation – Quality of Data Disclosure ............................................................ 10
4.1 Range of Data Sources, Varying Formats and Units ............................................................ 10
4.2 Data Disclosures not Representing Certification Scope of ASI Entities .............................. 10
4.3 Emission and Energy Disclosures Using Totals vs. Intensity Units ...................................... 11
4.4 Assessing Quality of Data Disclosure (2021 assessment) ................................................... 12
4.5 Improving Quality of Data Disclosure (comparing 2020 and 2021 assessments) .............. 13
4.6 Outcomes from ASI Certification – Promising Uptake of Data Disclosures ........................ 14
4.7 Recommendations on Data Disclosures.............................................................................. 15
5 Analysis of Implementation – Emissions & Energy Data .............................................................. 17
5.1 GHG Emissions and Energy Profile of ASI Members ........................................................... 17
5.2 Energy Profile – by Activity ................................................................................................. 18
5.3 Energy Profile – Trends over Time ...................................................................................... 20
5.4 GHG Emissions Profile (Scope 1+2) – by Activity ................................................................ 21
5.5 GHG Emissions Profile (Scope 1+2) – Trends over Time ..................................................... 24
5.6 Energy & Emissions Profile – Aluminium Smelting Activity ................................................ 25
5.7 Energy & Emissions Profile – Alumina Refining Activity ..................................................... 31
5.8 Emissions Profile of ASI Certifications compared with Global Distribution ........................ 35
6 Comparisons with CRU Emissions Tool......................................................................................... 40
6.1 CRU Emissions Analysis Tool ............................................................................................... 40
6.2 Benchmarking Method for Entity Data Disclosures vs. CRU Data ...................................... 40
6.3 Benchmarking Outcomes .................................................................................................... 41
7 References .................................................................................................................................... 45
Appendices ........................................................................................................................................... 47
vi
Appendix I – List of ASI Entities ............................................................................................................ 48

Appendix II – Dashboard Graphics (Entity Data Disclosures only) ....................................................... 54
Appendix III – Graphical Comparisons, Entity Data Disclosures vs. CRU Emissions Tool Data ............ 66
vii
Figures
Figure 1: Comparison of data disclosure quality for ASI Entities reviewed in 2020, with all activities
(left), Smelting Entities (centre) and Alumina Entities (right). ............................................................. 14
Figure 2: Boxplot – Energy intensity (GJ/t product) for ASI Entities by supply chain (latest disclosures
only), with outlier for Smelting category not shown............................................................................ 18
Figure 3: Histogram – Energy intensity (GJ/t product) by supply chain (latest disclosures only), with
outlier in Smelting category visible. ..................................................................................................... 19
Figure 4: Individual value plot – Energy intensity (GJ/t product) by supply chain and region (latest
disclosures only), with outlier in Smelting category visible. ................................................................ 19
Figure 5: Boxplot – Scope 1+2 GHG emissions intensity (t CO2e/t Product) by activity (latest disclosures
only). ..................................................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 6: Individual value plots – Scope 1+2 GHG emissions intensity (t CO2e/t Product) by activity
(latest disclosures only). ....................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 7: Histogram – Scope 1+2 GHG intensities (t CO2e/t Product) for each supply chain (latest
disclosures only). .................................................................................................................................. 23
Figure 8: Individual value plot – Scope 1+2 GHG emissions intensity (t CO2e/t Product) by supply chain
and region (latest disclosures only). ..................................................................................................... 24
Figure 9: Individual Value Plot, Smelting activity – energy intensity (GJ/t Al) by region (past three to
five years data, where available). ......................................................................................................... 26
Figure 10: ASI Smelting activity – Energy intensity (GJ/t Al) by Entity, with past three to five years data.
.............................................................................................................................................................. 27
Figure 11: Aluminium smelting – Ranked global emission curves showing Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions
(t CO2e/t Al) vs. cumulative production (kt) in 2021. (Source: CRU Emissions Tool, © CRU International
Ltd, 2021). ............................................................................................................................................. 28
Figure 12: Individual Value Plot, Smelting activity – GHG emissions intensity (t CO2e/t Al) by region,
with past three to five years data, where available; also shown is ASI’s current target of 8 t CO 2e/t Al.
.............................................................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 13: ASI Smelting activity – Scope 1+2 GHG emissions intensity (t CO2e/t Al) by Entity, with past
three to five years historical data where available. ............................................................................. 30
Figure 14: ASI Alumina activity – Energy intensity (GJ/t Al) by Entity, with past three to five years
historical data where available. ............................................................................................................ 32
Figure 15: Individual Value Plot, Alumina activity – Scope 1+2 GHG emissions intensity (t CO2e/t
alumina) by region (past three to five years data included, where available). .................................... 33
Figure 16: ASI Alumina activity – Scope 1+2 GHG emissions intensity (t CO2e/t Al) by Entity, with past
three to five years historical data where available. ............................................................................. 34
Figure 17: Bauxite Mining – Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions curves (t CO2e/dmt bauxite) vs. cumulative
production (million tonnes) with ASI certified Entities highlighted in colour, compared to CRU’s global
data set. (Source: CRU Emissions Analysis Tool, © CRU International Ltd, 2021). .............................. 37
viii
Figure 18: Alumina Refining – Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions curves (t CO2e/t alumina) vs. cumulative
production (kt) with ASI certified Entities highlighted in colour, compared to CRU’s global data set.
(Source: CRU Emissions Analysis Tool, © CRU International Ltd, 2021) .............................................. 38
Figure 19: Aluminium smelting – Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions curves (t CO2e/t Al) vs. cumulative
production (kt) with ASI certified Entities highlighted in colour, compared to CRU’s global data set.
(Source: CRU Emissions Analysis Tool, © CRU International Ltd, 2021) .............................................. 39
Tables
Table 1: Snapshot of ASI Entities reviewed by regions, countries and supply chain activities. ..............4
Table 2: Redefined supply chain labels employed here for data analysis and reporting. ......................9
Table 3: Proportion of ASI Entities where data disclosures relate directly to scope of ASI certification.
.............................................................................................................................................................. 11
Table 4: Qualitative ‘data quality’ ratings in 2021 for all ASI Entities (all activities), as well as for Alumina
Refining and Aluminium Smelting activities. ........................................................................................ 12
Table 5: The overall trend in energy intensity (2021 assessment) for all of ASI’s Entities (all activities),
as well as for Alumina Refining and Aluminium Smelting activities..................................................... 21
Table 6: The overall trend in Scope 1+2 GHG emissions intensity in the 2021 assessment for all of ASI’s
Entities (all activities), as well as for Alumina Refining and Aluminium Smelting activities. ............... 25
Table 7: Comparison of energy use, GHG emission and production “match” between the ASI Entity
data disclosure vs. data obtained from CRU Emissions Tool for Bauxite Mining supply chain activity.
.............................................................................................................................................................. 42
data disclosure vs. data obtained from CRU Emissions Tool for Alumina Refining supply chain activity.
.............................................................................................................................................................. 43
data disclosure vs. data obtained from CRU Emissions Tool for Aluminium Smelting supply chain
activity................................................................................................................................................... 44
ix
Analysis of Implementation of GHG Emissions Reporting from ASI Entities: Mar 2020-Mar 2021 Update
1 Introduction
This project – ‘Analysis of Implementation of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Reporting from
Certified ASI Entities: March 2020 - March 2021 Update’ – has reviewed greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and energy use data disclosures by certified ASI Entities, according to ASI’s Performance
Standards (PS) and Chain of Custody (CoC) Standards. This includes an update of data from the
previous 2020 project* and the inclusion of new Entities that have since been certified by ASI over the
twelve month period up to 31 March 2021.
*The outcomes of the previous 2020 project were detailed in the report entitled ‘Data Collation and
Validation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs) from ASI Members, as of July 2020’, dated 14
November 2020.
This project has been commissioned by the Aluminium Stewardship Initiative (ASI) – as part of its
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) program – and has been prepared by Atmolite Consulting Pty Ltd
(ATMOLITE).
1.1 Objectives
The main objectives of the project were to:

• Provide an update on energy use and GHG emissions disclosures in ASI Entities previously
covered in the 2020 project data set.
• Incorporate recently certified ASI Entities since the completion of the previous 2020 project
data set.
• Compare energy use and GHG emissions across the ASI aluminium supply chain activities,
from bauxite mining to downstream activities.
• Analyse trends in both (a) the implementation and quality of data disclosures from ASI Entities
and (b) in actual reductions of energy use and GHG emissions by these Entities over time.
• Compare / cross-reference publicly disclosed data from ASI Entities with data obtained from
the CRU Emissions Analysis Tool (CRU International Ltd, 2021), to assess potential data
integrity issues.
• Refine the technical context for ASI in its oversight of the Performance Standard Principle 5,
which relates to GHG emissions, and in its current Standards Revisions process for both the
PS and CoC standards.
1.2 ASI Performance Standard – Principle 5
Focused on Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Principle 5 of the ASI Performance Standard (PS) (Version 2,
December 2017) mandates for all ASI Entities:
• The reporting and public disclosure of GHG emissions and energy use by source, on an annual
basis (PS Criterion 5.1).
• Commitments to reducing GHG emissions over time through the setting of targets and
implementation plans to reach these (PS Criterion 5.2).
1
• For Entities engaged in aluminium smelting, a further demonstration of goals, measures and
performance in reducing ‘Scope 1 and 2’* GHG emissions to below 8 tonnes CO2-equivalent
per metric tonne aluminium (t CO2e / t Al) by 2030 for existing smelters, or by 2020 for new
smelters (PS Criterion 5.3).
*The GHG Protocol standards (https://ghgprotocol.org/) defines:

• Scope 1 as direct GHG emissions from activities within the Entity’s owned/controlled facilities,
vehicles, etc.
• Scope 2 as indirect GHG emissions from the Entity’s purchased electricity, steam and
heating/cooling for its own activities, and
• Scope 3 as indirect GHG emissions from upstream and downstream activities outside the
scope and control of the Entity (can include purchased goods, raw materials,
transportation/distribution, product use and end-of-life treatment, etc.).
1.3 ASI Chain of Custody Standard – Criterion 9.3
ASI’s Chain of Custody (CoC) Standard (Version 1, December 2017), Criterion 9.3 encourages Entities
to issue chain of custody (CoC) documents along with shipments, which disclose the Entity’s Scope 1
and 2 GHG emissions intensity – particularly those engaged in aluminium smelting, aluminium
remelting/refining or casthouses or downstream processes.
2
2 Data Collection and Scope

2.1 ASI Members and Entities
The data collection and validation exercises were based upon the list of ASI Entities certified as of 31
March 2021. Including both PS and CoC certified Entities, data were reviewed for:
• 55 ASI Members, under which there were:
o 87 ASI Entities*, the scope of which varied from single-site facilities, multiple site
facilities, or corporate divisions (across multiple countries). This is a 70% increase in
the number of ASI Entities reviewed compared to 51 Entities in the 2020 assessment.
o 21 ASI Entities engaged in aluminium smelting.
*Note that:
• Some of the 87 Entities reported separate data for individual supply chain activities; these
were captured as additional data entries, expanding the 87 Entities to a total of 115 ‘modified’
Entities. For example, Company ‘A’ might report data for bauxite, alumina refining and
smelting activities, providing up to three unique ‘modified’ data entities as reported here.
• Ten percent of ASI Entities reviewed (nine out of 87) are not currently certified for ASI’s
Performance Standard Criteria 5.1-5.3, and therefore are not required to disclose GHG
emissions and energy use data under the ASI Performance Standard; currently, these Entities
are only certified for ASI’s Performance Standard Principle 4 (Materials Stewardship).
Table 1 shows a summary of the ASI Entities reviewed and the regions, countries and supply chain
activities represented. A full list of these Entities is provided in Appendix I.
This report uses generic labels (regional code and numeral) to refer to specific ASI Entities, where
specific commentary is provided. For example, the Entity label ‘SAM-1’ refers to Entity #1 in South
America. Regions are denoted as follows:
• North America (NAM)
• South America (SAM)
• West Europe (WEU)
• East & Central Europe (EEU)
• China (CHN)
• Asia ex-China (AS)
• GCC (GCC)
• Oceania (OCN), and
• Multiple regions (Multi).
3
Table 1: Snapshot of ASI Entities reviewed by regions, countries and supply chain activities.
55 ASI Members, under which there are:

87 ASI Entities* (PS and CoC inclusive)
*Data obtained for 115 unique entries for ASI Entities (including split-offs for different supply
chains within the same Entity).
8 regions 27 Countries 6 supply chain activities

Regions a Countries Supply Chain Activities b
North America 4 Entities Australia 2 Entities Bauxite Mining 8 Entities
South America 5 Austria 2 Alumina Refining 10
West Europe 38 Bahrain 1 Aluminium Smelting 21
East & Central Europe 3 Belgium 1 Re-melting / Refining 35
China 15 Brazil 5 Casthouse 53
Asia (ex-China) 2 Canada 3 Downstream d 59
GCC 2 China 15
Oceania 3 Croatia 1
MULTIPLE c 14 France 5
Germany 7
Greece 1
Iceland 3
Italy 3
Luxembourg 1
Netherlands 1
Norway 2
Romania 1
Russia 1
South Korea 1
Spain 5
Sweden 1
Switzerland 1
Taiwan 1
Turkey 1
UAE 1
UK 1
USA 1
MULTIPLE c 19
a Regions are aligned with those defined by the International Aluminium Institute, IAI (http://www.world-
aluminium.org/statistics/)
bThe majority of ASI Entities are engaged in multiple Supply Chain Activities (see Appendix I)
cMULTIPLE here refers to various regions or countries represented within a single ASI Entity, i.e. covering
numerous sites or facilities.
d ‘Downstream’ here includes ‘semi-fabrication, material conversion and other manufacturing or sale of
products containing aluminium’ supply chain activities, as defined by ASI.
4
2.2 Collection of Data Disclosures from ASI Entities
2.2.1 Timing of Data Collection
Collection of GHG emissions and energy data disclosures was undertaken from mid-May to end June
2021. The findings reported here, therefore, represent a snapshot of GHG data disclosures as of May-
June 2021, and do not consider more recent updates in data disclosures by ASI Entities.
Whilst this exercise focused on the most recent data disclosures available (often 2018, 2019 or 2020),
up to five years’ historical data were also collected to examine trends over time. Data obtained was
on the basis of either calendar year or fiscal year.
2.2.2 Data Disclosure Sources
All emissions and energy use data acquired for this analysis were collected from publicly available
sources. These included:
• Weblinks provided in ASI PS or CoC audit certificates – these were accessed initially.
• ASI Entity/Member websites – in addition to providing access to reports, some Entities
published GHG emissions and energy use in a dedicated sustainability webpage.
• ASI Entity/Member sustainability reports or Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) reports – particularly
in recent years, the majority of Entities publish annual sustainability reports.
• ASI Entity/Member annual reports – used to obtain production data (to estimate emissions
and energy intensities, if not disclosed) which are not always reported in sustainability reports.
• Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) reports – some Entities submit annual disclosures of emissions
and energy data to CDP (https://www.cdp.net/en).
• Emissions reporting to regional/national governmental bodies – for some Entities, emissions
data was available in compliance reporting to regional/national emissions inventories. These
included – the Australian Government’s National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER),
New Zealand’s Ministry for the Environment (MfE), Quebec’s Atmospheric Emissions
Inventory (IQEA), the Norwegian Environment Agency, and the Spanish Office for Climate
Change (OECC).
• In cases where no data was readily available, attempts to contact the Entity (via ASI) were
made to find links to publicly assessable data.
*Note that the data collection exercise should not be deemed an exhaustive search of all and every
available public source; it is acknowledged that Entities may have published data in locations other
than those reviewed above.
2.2.3 Disclaimer on Data Collection and Validation
An in-depth review or verification of energy balance or emissions inventory calculations from each ASI
Entity was not undertaken, as this was beyond the Terms of Reference for this project. Where unusual
data or numbers were observed, these have been highlighted in the database.
5
Where Entities provided reports and data in a language other than English, reasonable attempts were
made at translating these (using Google Translate) for compilation into a GHG database. However, as
professional interpreters or native speakers have not verified these translations, errors in
interpretation may be possible.
Finally, some data aggregation and conversions were required in this study (see Section 3.1) in order
to generate a data set that correlated with the certification scope of each ASI Entity. Whilst these
aggregate/conversion calculations were internally verified, it is acknowledged that calculation errors
are possible.
6
3 Development of a GHG Emissions Database

Publicly available GHG emissions data – Scope 1 and 2, and Scope 3 (where reported) – and energy
use data were collected into a Microsoft® (MS) Excel-based database for ASI. Data fields developed
include:
• Entity details – ASI Member, Entity Name, Supply Chain Activity, Region, Country
• Year of data – Year, Reporting Period, Markers for Latest Entry
• Energy sources – Energy Types (%), Electricity Types (%), Grid Connected, Power (Self-
Generated/ Purchased)
• Energy use* – Total Energy Use (TJ or GWh), Total Energy Intensity (GJ/t or kWh/t Product)
• GHG emissions (t CO2e) – Scope 1, Scope 2, Scope 3, total Scope 1+2, total Scope 1+2+3
• GHG emissions intensity (t CO2e/t Product) – Scope 1, Scope 2, Scope 3, total Scope 1+2, total
Scope 1+2+3
• Production – Total Production (tonne Product) and units (tonne bauxite (dry), alumina, liquid
aluminium, aluminium, other)
• Supply Chain Activity – Bauxite Mining, Alumina Refining, Aluminium Smelting, Aluminium Re-
melting/Refining, Casthouse, Downstream.
*Note that energy use data obtained refers to total final energy from all sources, i.e. not only
electricity, but also other fuels and energy carriers (diesel, natural gas, coal, steam etc.), where
available and disclosed by the Entity. In this analysis, total energy use in ‘TJ’ or ‘GWh’ units represent
direct conversions of one another, using a default factor of 3,600 joules per Watt hour. The primary
energy required to deliver the final energy used (e.g. fuel extraction, processing, combustion and
transmission losses to deliver a unit of electricity) is not included.
Tables providing graphical outputs of these data are also embedded in the database files. For further
details on the data fields described above, refer to the database files (provided separately).
3.1 ‘Filling the Gaps’ for Data Completeness
Due to gaps and deficiencies identified in data completeness, attempts were made to estimate those
emissions data considered absent and/or energy variables using other published data. This allows for
a more meaningful comparison across the cohort of ASI Entities. For example:
• Missing intensity values for emissions and energy use (e.g. t CO2e/t Al) were calculated from
emission and energy totals (e.g. t CO2e), provided matching production data (e.g. t Al) was
available.
• Missing total values for emissions and energy use (e.g. GJ) were back-calculated from reported
intensity data and production data (i.e. pro-rata), where available.
For many ASI Entities that were single-site facilities, disclosures of energy and GHG emissions data for
these single sites were not readily available; instead these Entities pointed to data disclosures for their
parent / corporate entity (e.g. the ASI Member). However, where the ASI Member had disclosed
7
relevant emissions and energy data, these were used to ‘fill the gaps’ for the specific ASI Entities.
Specific cases of where this occurred have been reported in the accompanying files.
3.2 Classifying Data for Entities with Multiple Supply Chains
Many ASI Entities are engaged in multiple supply chain activities (as defined by ASI – refer Appendix
I), and therefore report aggregated data across multiple, rather than individual activities. Meaningful
comparisons of energy use and emissions using ASI’s divisions of activities was therefore not possible.
To facilitate a level of comparison by supply chain activity, the aluminium supply chain was redefined
into five separate categories, from ‘Bauxite’ to ‘Downstream’ as shown in Table 2 (overleaf). This
allows for the comparison of several activity combinations. For example, Entities engaged in
aluminium smelting often also incorporated casthouse and/or remelting/refining activities, with only
one set of data disclosures for the entire Entity; therefore, these combinations were all categorised
under the one label “Smelting”.
Some further notes regarding the classification of supply chain activities:

• Where data could not be split into the five separate categories, these were allocated a supply
chain label, such as “Alumina-to-Downstream”, where data encompassed four out of five
activities.
• For larger corporate Entities that disclosed separate emissions/energy datasets for different
supply chain activities, multiple data entries were used for that ASI Entity in the GHG emissions
database provided. For example, if Company X provides data for its entire production chain
(Bauxite-to-Downstream), as well as separate data for ‘Smelting’ and ‘Alumina’ activities,
these data are recorded and analysed in the database as separate data entries.
8
Table 2: Redefined supply chain labels employed here for data analysis and reporting.
Modified ‘Supply Chain’ ASI Supply Chain Activities included

category used in this report
01 Bauxite Bauxite Mining
02 Alumina Alumina Refining
Bauxite Mining, Alumina Refining
03 Smelting Aluminium Smelting, Casthouse
Aluminium Smelting, Remelting/Refining, Casthouse
04 Remelt-to-Downstream Casthouse, Downstream
Remelting/Refining, Casthouse
Remelting/Refining, Casthouse, Downstream
05 Downstream Casthouse, Downstream
Downstream
- Bauxite-to-Downstream Bauxite Mining, Alumina Refining, Aluminium Smelting, Casthouse,

Downstream
Bauxite Mining, Alumina Refining, Aluminium Smelting,
Remelting/Refining, Casthouse
Bauxite Mining, Alumina Refining, Aluminium Smelting,
Remelting/Refining, Casthouse, Downstream
- Alumina-to-Downstream Alumina Refining, Aluminium Smelting, Remelting/Refining,
Casthouse, Downstream
- Smelting-to-Downstream Aluminium Smelting, Remelting/Refining, Casthouse, Downstream
9
4 Analysis of Implementation – Quality of Data Disclosure

The following section provides general commentary in the implementation of data disclosures (energy
and emissions, as per ASI Performance Standard, Criterion 5.1) by ASI Entities, as of May-June 2021.
This includes a comparison of changes from 2020 vs. 2021 assessments.
4.1 Range of Data Sources, Varying Formats and Units
In the 2020 assessment, it was observed that ASI Entities do not follow a standard reporting template
or format (e.g. one defined by ASI) for GHG emission and energy use data disclosures. Rather, it was
observed that they often vary in format, units and in terms of data sources. This remains the case with
latest data disclosures obtained in this 2021 assessment. Of considerable note are the following
observations:
• A range of units are used in reporting, particularly for total energy use. This necessitated
conversion of data to consistent units (GJ and kWh) for comparison. For energy use disclosures,
various units were often used for specific fuels and energy carriers, e.g. m3 for natural gas,
tonnes LPG/LNG, litres (L) diesel, kWh for electricity, standard coal equivalents, etc.
• Many ASI Entities disclose data via a single primary source (e.g. company sustainability report)
that directly correlates to the scope of ASI certification. However, others disclose data via
multiple sources (e.g. national emissions inventory websites for two different countries,
where an Entity scope spanned multiple production facilities); this required additional
aggregation of data in order to evaluate emissions and energy use to represent the scope of
those ASI Entities.
• Some ASI Entities output multiple products, for example, downstream Entities with plastic,
cardboard and aluminium packaging. Understandably, some of these report emissions/energy
intensities in units such as ‘per tonne packaging unit’ (Entity Multi-2) or ‘per tonne copper
equivalent’ (Entity Multi-12) that are not comparable across ASI’s Entities (typically per tonne
aluminium, alumina or dry bauxite basis).
4.2 Data Disclosures not Representing Certification Scope of ASI Entities
As reported in the 2020 report, whilst almost all ASI Entities do disclose some level of GHG emissions
and energy data (exceptions discussed in Section 4.4), a substantial proportion of these disclosures do
not relate directly to the scope of certification. This represents just over one-quarter of ASI Entities
(24 out of 87) in the 2021 data set (Table 3).
Often these are related to larger, multi-national organisations, with multiple production sites and
supply chain activities owned and/or operated by the company. These typically report aggregated
data for the entire company and/or for specific divisions (e.g. primary aluminium, bauxite and alumina
divisions), but not necessarily data specific to those under each ASI certification – often these are only
a subset of total production facilities. Examples include Entities: Multi-2, Multi-8, Multi-11, GCC-2,
OCN-3, and EEU-4.
10
Table 3: Proportion of ASI Entities where data disclosures relate directly to scope of ASI certification.
Does Data Disclosure represents scope of ASI certification? No. ASI Entities % ASI Entities
Yes 54 62%
No (or unclear) 24 28%
Not applicable* 9 10%
Total 87 100%
*Note – 10% of Entities (nine out of 87) are not certified under ASI Performance Standard Criterion 5.1, and
hence are not required to provide data disclosures for emission and energy use.
4.3 Emission and Energy Disclosures Using Totals vs. Intensity Units
Whilst total values for emissions (t CO2e) and energy use (GJ or kWh) provide an absolute measure of
global warming potential and energy demand respectively from a particular Entity’s activities, these
are often less useful for benchmarking across Entities and supply chain activities as they do not take
into account production scale.
Intensities of emissions (t CO2e/t product) and energy use (GJ/t or kWh/t product) are preferred
indicators for benchmarking the profile of different Entities within the same supply chain activity. Care
should be taken when comparing, that the denominated products are in the same category (e.g. per
tonne aluminium). Comparing across products can inform on the variability between processes, but
variability in performance benchmarking should be limited to similar processes and products.
However, in both the 2020 and 2021 assessments, energy intensities (GJ/t or kWh/t) and GHG
emission intensities (Scope 1+2, t CO2e/t) were not found (or could not be estimated using production
figures) for just over 50% and 40% of ASI Entities respectively. This reduces the level of transparency
and ability to benchmark Entities within the same supply chain activity.
It is acknowledged that ASI PS Criterion 5.1 does not require the disclosure of GHG emissions or energy
use in specific units, rather that disclosures of both indicators are undertaken on an annual basis.
Finally, note that for the purposes of benchmarking Smelting Entities, electricity / power usage (in
units of GWh or kWh/t Al) has been taken as a proxy for total energy use. This approach was taken
due to the variability in energy disclosures – with some disclosing only electricity usage, others total
energy (including non-electricity fuel sources), and a small minority also including aspects of primary
energy (energy required to deliver the electricity generated, including combustion and transmission
losses, etc.).
11
4.4 Assessing Quality of Data Disclosure (2021 assessment)
An updated rating of the overall level of data disclosures from ASI Entities (relating to the scope of
certification) has been provided for the 2021 data set (refer to Table 4). Four qualitative data quality
ratings were used – ‘Good’, ‘Medium’, ‘Poor’ and ‘No disclosure’ – based on the overall completeness
of energy, GHG emissions and production data disclosed. These qualitative data ratings were based
on the following disclosure scenarios:
• “Good” = Entity discloses (a) energy use totals and intensities, (b) GHG emission (Scope 1+2)
totals and intensities, and (c) production is disclosed or can be calculated.
• “Medium” = Entity discloses at least (a) energy use totals or intensities, (b) GHG emission
(Scope 1+2) totals or intensities, and (c) possibly production is disclosed or can be calculated.
• “Poor” = Entity discloses either energy use data or GHG emissions, but not both (per ASI PS
criterion 5.1); production possibly not disclosed and cannot be estimated.
• “No disclosure” = no data disclosures found that fit the certification scope of the specific ASI
Entity, due to the following scenarios:
o No requirement for data disclosures – Ten percent of ASI Entities reviewed in 2021
(nine Entities, all downstream activities) are currently not certified for ASI’s
Performance Standard Criteria 5.1-5.3, and therefore are not required to disclose
GHG emissions and energy use data.
o In the majority of other Entities with a ‘no disclosure’ rating, data disclosures were in
fact available for the parent company, but not data specifically relevant to the
certification scope of the ASI Entity (refer to Section 4.2).
o Outside of the above two scenarios, there were only two Entities (out of 87 reviewed
in 2021) where no data disclosures could be found for the past three years. These
Entities were: WEU-15 in Western Europe and CHN-15 in China. Attempts were made
to contact both Entities for data, however no responses were received before the end
of the data collection period.
Table 4: Qualitative ‘data quality’ ratings in 2021 for all ASI Entities (all activities), as well as for Alumina Refining
and Aluminium Smelting activities.
Overall Data Quality ALL Supply Chain 02_Alumina Refining 03_Aluminium Smelting
Rating Activities Activity Activity
No. Entities % No. Entities % No. Entities %
Good 47 41% 2 11% 12 57%
Medium 37 32% 3 44% 6 29%
Poor 11 10% 3 33% 2 10%
No disclosure 20 17% 1 11% 1 5%
No. of data entries* 115 9 21

*Note – these include additional entries where ASI Entities disclosed data for specific supply chains (e.g.
alumina refining, aluminium smelting, etc.).
12
An assessment of Table 4 provides the following insights on the implementation of data disclosures
(Performance Standard, Criterion 5.1) by the certified ASI members:
• 73% of certified ASI Entities provide either comprehensive (“Good”) or a reasonable level
(“Medium”) of data disclosures, relating to the scope of certification. This includes 55% of
Entities engaged in alumina refining, and 86% of Entities engaged in aluminium smelting.
• 98% of certified ASI Entities (85 out of 87) do provide some level of GHG and energy data
disclosures, even if they do not relate directly to the scope of certification.
4.5 Improving Quality of Data Disclosure (comparing 2020 and 2021 assessments)
In order to analyse whether the disclosure quality is improving over time, a similar rating of disclosure
quality was applied on the 2020 assessment of ASI Entities. However there has been a 67% increase
in new Entities (from 63 to 115) achieving ASI certification since the 2020 assessment – many of these
new Entities provided either “Good” or “Medium” levels of data disclosure. To provide a fair analysis
of any improvements, only the 2020 cohort of Entities (total of 63) were compared.
Figure 1 illustrates the overall improvements in data disclosure for the 2020 cohort of Entities, and
compares 2020 and 2021 assessment periods:
• There is an increase from 63% to 87% Entities (from 40 to 55, out of 63) reporting either “Good”
or “Medium” disclosures in this latest 2021 review – this is for all supply chain activities. The
number of ASI Entities providing incomplete (“Poor”) data disclosures has reduced from 27%
to 6% (from 17 to four, out of 63).
• Improvements were also noted for Smelting and Alumina refining Entities reviewed in 2020,
with an increase from 75% to 86% Smelting Entities (from nine to 12, out of 14) and from 20%
to 80% of Alumina Entities (from one to four, out of five Entities) reporting “Good” or
“Medium” disclosures in this latest 2021 assessment period.
• Overall, 37% of all 2020 Entities improved in the quality of the disclosure, i.e., improving from
a lower rating level from 2020 to 2021.
The above improvement metrics correlate well to what has been observed on a ‘case-by-case’ basis
during the data collection phase of this 2021 project, where an overall improvement is noted in the
quality of data disclosure publications by many ASI Members and Entities. This includes the publication
of more sophisticated and comprehensive sustainability reporting by many ASI members compared
to in 2020. One example is a ‘downstream’ producer, Entity NAM-3, which previously displayed
emissions and energy use data in graphical form only and did not disclose actual values, however their
latest 2020 sustainability report is significantly more comprehensive.
Furthermore, a reduced need to search for alternative sources of data disclosures (such as CDP reports,
which often publish outdated data) is also noted, with many ASI Entities now publishing more up-to-
date information on their own websites and sustainability reports.
On the other hand, isolated examples were observed where ASI Entities have reduced their level of
data disclosure at the individual site level (e.g. Entity OCN-3, with two smelters previously providing
individual site sustainability reports/figures, but now no longer).
13
Figure 1: Comparison of data disclosure quality for ASI Entities reviewed in 2020, with all activities (left), Smelting
Entities (centre) and Alumina Entities (right).
4.6 Outcomes from ASI Certification – Promising Uptake of Data Disclosures
It is noted that in general, most Entities display their ASI certification(s) prominently in both their
Sustainability and Annual Reports, as well as on their websites.
As observed in the 2020 review, many new certified ASI Entities in regions such as China but also in
other countries (and in smaller enterprises and/or remelting and downstream activities) are publicly
disclosing their sustainability performance (energy, GHG and other emissions, waste, water usage,
employee/human rights policies, etc.) on their website. Importantly, many of these Entities have now
adopted this practice of providing sustainability disclosures for the first time in the history of their
company, which may be attributable to (or at least coincident with) their ASI certification. Whilst there
is still room for improvement in the quality, standardisation and format of these data disclosures, ASI
continues to play an important role in ensuring data disclosure (both quality and quantity) and
transparency improves; ASI’s certification process continues to be an important tool in encouraging
this.
Improved transparency and the tracking / benchmarking of the energy and emissions profile of ASI
Member organisations (and non-Members) is one of the key measures of emission reduction
programmes. However, increased disclosures alone will not achieve the significant cuts in the overall
carbon footprint of the global aluminium production that is required by climate science (80% absolute
emissions, as per IAI ‘Beyond 2 Degree Scenario’ or B2DS (IAI, 2021)) – rather, these must be coupled
with significant changes in technology, finance, consumption patterns, product lifetimes and more
across the entire aluminium value chain.
14
4.7 Recommendations on Data Disclosures
4.7.1 Standardising Data Disclosures
As with the 2020 assessment, it is recommended to standardise data disclosures by ASI Members and
Entities. This could significantly enhance transparency and provide an efficient means to profile,
compare and benchmark energy and emissions performance across the ASI Membership. These
analyses may then inform the work of ASI’s ongoing Monitoring & Evaluation program. One option
could include the supply of consistent data templates to ASI Entities and mandate the return of their
data disclosures direct to ASI on an annual basis. The template could request the following:
• Reporting of data specific to certification scope of each ASI Entity
• Reporting of data for specific supply chain activities, if Entities are engaged in more than one
• Reporting of energy use totals, intensities, sources of total energy, and sources of electricity
• Reporting of GHG emission totals, intensities (with Scope included)
• Reporting in consistent units, particularly for energy use and intensity values.
Similar data reporting templates are already in use by the International Aluminium Institute (IAI, 2017,
2018a and 2020a) for primary supply chain activities, including:
• Survey forms for bauxite mining and other life cycle inventory fields for primary activities (link),
• Energy survey forms for alumina refining (link), and
• Energy survey forms for aluminium smelting including power use, anode production and
casting (link).
Other aluminium industry associations (e.g. the European and US Aluminium Associations, or EAA and
AA, respectively) may have similar reporting templates for primary and other downstream activities.
For further discussion on this recommendation, refer to the 2020 assessment report.
4.7.2 Energy Disclosures for Smelters
It is recommended that Entities engaged in aluminium smelting disclose the following, as per IAI’s
energy survey forms for smelters (link – IAI, 2018a):
a) Total electricity use (GWh), ideally split by: (i) the smelting / electrolysis process (at the
rectifier), and (ii) non-electrolytic processes;
b) Primary energy use – this represents the energy required (in GJ) to produce and deliver the
total electricity (GWh) used in (a); and
c) All other energy use (non-electricity sources) by the smelter (in GJ) (including paste and anode
production, casting, etc.).
Note – Smelting Entities with captive power generation will have more ready access to the primary
energy use data (item (b) above). All Entities should ensure that they also report electricity use (GWh)
for the smelting process (item (a).i above), as this allows benchmarking of process energy efficiency.
15
4.7.3 Minimum Data Disclosure Requirements
Given the variation in quality of data disclosure across the cohort of certified ASI Entities, another
suggestion could be the defining of clear minimum requirements for disclosure of energy use and
emissions data. These could incorporate aspects such as:
• Whether both totals and intensity values (per tonne product) for energy and emissions need
to be disclosed, and
• Whether data disclosures need to directly correlate to the certification scope of the ASI entity.
16
5 Analysis of Implementation – Emissions & Energy Data

5.1 GHG Emissions and Energy Profile of ASI Members
This section of the Report summarises the profile of GHG emissions and energy data disclosures for
the ASI membership, particularly across the different supply chain activities, regions and countries. As
comprehensive datasets were not available for the entire ASI member base, the emissions and energy
profile presented here represent only a sub-set of the ASI member base.
Energy use and emissions intensities (GJ/t product and t CO2e/t product respectively) are used for
comparisons across supply chain activities, regions and countries. Care should be taken when
comparing intensities as the denominated products might not be in the same category (e.g. per t Al,
bauxite, alumina or other). Whilst a comparison of totals is possible (see provided database and
graphics), these currently reflect any differences in production scale from one Entity to another and
are less useful for comparison. Graphical illustrations of totals are not a focus of this report, but are
available in Appendix II and in the provided database.
For energy use disclosures, the focus in this Report relates to trends in total final energy consumption
and their intensities (units of TJ and GJ/t product, respectively) from all sources – not only electricity
use, but also other process fuels combusted including natural gas, diesel, coal, steam, etc. This is
because 35% of emissions in the overall aluminium industry are from non-electricity related sources
and these have a material impact on GHG emissions (IAI, 2020b). Electrical power consumption and
intensities (GWh and kWh/t product) can be particularly useful for comparison and benchmarking
process performance in Smelting activities in particular, however they do not fully express the energy
related global warming potential across the entire aluminium supply chain.
For GHG emissions, the focus in this Report is on trends in Scope 1+2 emissions. Although the number
of Entities reporting Scope 3 emissions is increasing, uptake is currently not widespread. Furthermore,
some variation in how Entities interpret and define Scope 3 emissions was observed. Graphical
illustrations for Scope 1+2+3 emissions are available in the provided database.
For comparison along the supply chain, energy and emissions data were analysed by activity (Bauxite,
Alumina, Smelting, Remelt-to-Downstream, Downstream) and by region, and are illustrated using
boxplot charts. Individual value plots (showing individual data entries), histograms and bar charts are
also used as an alternative means of data display.
Introducing the Boxplot

Boxplots or ‘box and whisker plots’ are a useful way to visualise differences amongst groups of
samples (e.g. regions, supply chain activities) – particularly in the range and statistical
distribution of data. As shown in the graphic overleaf, the vertical sides of the ‘box’ illustrate the
position of the 25th and 75th percentiles (or 1st and 3rd quartiles), whereas the line inside the box
denotes the median (50th percentile). The ‘whiskers’ indicate the minimum and maximum
values, thereby showing the range of data. Statistical ‘outliers’ (if any) are denoted by stars (*).
17
A more in-depth explanation of boxplot charts can be found here (Source: McLeod, 2019).
When interpreting the boxplots, note that the number of Entities represented by each ‘box’ category
can vary significantly from one category (e.g. supply chain activity or region) to the next. For instance,
data disclosures were found for only one Entity in the Bauxite activity, up to four Entities in Alumina
refining, and up to 18 Entities in Smelting. The individual value plots provide an alternative view of
data, showing not only the spread of data, but also individual values.
5.2 Energy Profile – by Activity
The profile of disclosed energy intensities (GJ per tonne product) – inclusive of electricity and other
fuel/energy sources – can be seen in Figures 2 and 3, showing the distribution across different supply
chain activities. The individual value plots in Figure 4 provides a deeper view with regional divisions.
Note these show only latest data disclosures and excludes historical data.
Figure 2: Boxplot – Energy intensity (GJ/t product) for ASI Entities by supply chain (latest disclosures only), with
outlier for Smelting category not shown.
18
Figure 3: Histogram – Energy intensity (GJ/t product) by supply chain (latest disclosures only), with outlier in
Smelting category visible.
01_Bauxite 02_Alumina 03_Smelting
04_Remelt-to-Downstream 05_Downstream
Figure 4: Individual value plot – Energy intensity (GJ/t product) by supply chain and region (latest disclosures
only), with outlier in Smelting category visible.
19
Some general findings relating to the energy intensities by Activity is as follows:

• The Smelting activity – with a median of 53 GJ/t Al (n = 13 Entities with data) – is the activity
with the highest intensity energy use and second widest distribution, with most Entities
ranging from 48 to 63 GJ/t. Note that an outlier value (125 GJ/t, from Entity GCC-2 – shown in
Figures 3 and 4, but not Figure 2) is using a different energy accounting basis, representing
total primary energy from power generation in its own captive gas-fired power plants. Whilst
this outlier should not be directly compared with the other Smelting Entities, this data point
has been retained to illustrate the differences in accounting approaches by various ASI Entities,
and the need to standardise energy data disclosures (refer to Section 4.7).
• The Alumina refining activity – with a median of 10 GJ/t – indicates a broad variation in energy
use. However, this is only due to three Entities with energy intensity disclosures (Figure 4),
with one Entity (EEU-4) reporting an energy use (~25 GJ/t) more than double of other Entities.
This is likely due to the inclusion of data from production sites using alternative alumina
refining processes (Nepheline ore and Bayer-Sinter processing), which involve additional
energy-intensive sintering steps compared to the conventional Bayer process (IPCC, 2019).
• The median energy intensities for Remelt-to-Downstream and Downstream activities were 9.3
GJ/t (n = 31 Entities) and 5.5 GJ/t product (n = 6 Entities), respectively, both illustrating a
narrower distribution and lower energy intensity use.
• The single energy intensity observation for Bauxite mining activity (~16 GJ/t) is considered as
an outlier observation (reported by a South American Entity, SAM-4), but data error is
suspected).
The above distributions reflect the fact that energy use is ultimately a function of the processes
involved in each activity and their intrinsic energy requirements, over which an individual Entity’s
performance is then overlain. In the Smelting activity, the electrochemical splitting of strong Al-O
bonds in alumina requires large amounts of (electrical) energy. Similarly Alumina refining involves
significant thermal energy (including steam production) to digest the bauxite ore, extract the
‘hydrated’ alumina, and then calcination (at high-temperature) to produce smelter grade alumina. In
comparison, the Remelting and casting activity (melting solid aluminium scrap and then solidifying)
requires much less energy (mostly thermal). The Downstream activity (the shaping of solid aluminium
into forms, usually with electricity but also with thermal) requires even less energy. The Bauxite mining
activity requires orders of magnitude less energy, involving only mining and transportation. For more
information on global energy requirements by supply chain activity, refer to IAI’s Life Cycle Inventory
Data and Environmental Metrics (IAI, 2018b).
5.3 Energy Profile – Trends over Time
Given a complete data set of energy disclosures for the past five year period is not available for all
certified Entities, a rating of energy intensity trends over time was performed for each Entity.
Qualitative ratings used for this assessment include the following, and were based on a rough visual
assessment of graphical trends:
• “Increasing” – energy intensity appears to be increasing over the past three to five years
• “Stable or variable” – energy intensity appears either stable or variable
20
• “Reducing” – energy intensity appears to be reducing over past three to five years, which is
the target scenario
• For “Only one data point” available or “No disclosures” – no rating of a trend was possible
due to lack of data.
Table 5 illustrates the proportion (%) of all ASI Entities, Alumina refining Entities and Smelting Entities
for each rating level in the 2021 assessment period. Some general observations as follows where
trends could be rated:
• Reducing energy intensity was found for 12% of all Entities, 22% of Alumina refining Entities
and 10% of Smelting Entities.
• Energy intensities remained reasonably stable / variable for 10% of all Entities and 38% of
Smelting Entities.
• However, increases in energy intensity were observed for 13% of all Entities, 11% of Alumina
refining Entities and 10% of Smelting Entities. Note that these recent trends may have been
impacted by greater inefficiencies if production was reduced due to impacts from the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic (e.g. energy usage to keep furnaces or reduction cells running, but less
metal produced).
• Assessment of energy trends was not possible in 64% of ASI Entities, due to lack of sufficient
data.
Table 5: The overall trend in energy intensity (2021 assessment) for all of ASI’s Entities (all activities), as well as
for Alumina Refining and Aluminium Smelting activities.
Trend in Energy Intensity ALL Supply Chain 02_Alumina Refining 03_Aluminium Smelting
(past 3-5 years) Activities Activity Activity
No. Entities % No. Entities % No. Entities %

Increasing ↗︎ 15 13% 1 11% 2 10%
Stable ⟶ or Variable ↝ 12 10% - - 8 38%
Reducing ↘︎ 14 12% 2 22% 2 10%
Only one data point 15 13% - - 1 5%
No disclosures 59 51% 6 67% 8 38%
Total No. of Entities* 115 9 21

5.4 GHG Emissions Profile (Scope 1+2) – by Activity
The profile of disclosed GHG emissions (Scope 1 and 2) intensity (t CO2e/t product) is presented in
Figure 5 to Figure 7, showing the distribution across different supply chain activities. The individual
value plots in Figure 8 provides a deeper view with regional divisions. Note that (a) these show only
21
latest data disclosures and excludes historical data; and (b) ASI’s current 2030 threshold of 8 t CO2e/t
Al for smelters is also highlighted.
Some general observations as are follows:

• The Smelting activity is responsible for the highest emission intensities across the ASI supply
chain – with a median of 2.7 and average of 4.3 t CO2e/t Al – and has the broadest distribution
of all activities – ranging from 1.3 to 14.0 t CO2e/t Al. As discussed later, this wide distribution
is driven by the large energy use (see Figure 2), combined with wide variation of power
sources used, ranging from low-carbon (hydro, nuclear and renewables), to carbon intensive
(gas and coal) and a whole mix in between.
• All other activities exhibit lower GHG emission intensities, with narrower distributions. The
Alumina refining activity has a range of 0.3 to 1.2 t CO2e/t alumina, Remelt-to-Downstream a
range of 0.1 to 4.5 t CO2e/t product, and Downstream activities with a range of 0.3 to 1.4 t
CO2e/t product. An outlier in the Remelt-to-Downstream activity (4.5 t CO2e/t product) is
from multiple region Entity (Multi-11).
• Note that the data set contains only a low number of Bauxite and Alumina Entities (n = 1 and
5 Entities, respectively) as shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8.
• Further commentary on Smelting and Alumina activities is provided in Sections 5.6 and 5.7.
Figure 5: Boxplot – Scope 1+2 GHG emissions intensity (t CO2e/t Product) by activity (latest disclosures only).
22
Figure 6: Individual value plots – Scope 1+2 GHG emissions intensity (t CO2e/t Product) by activity (latest
disclosures only).
Figure 7: Histogram – Scope 1+2 GHG intensities (t CO2e/t Product) for each supply chain (latest disclosures only).
23
8
01_Bauxite 02_Alumina 03_Smelting
04_Remelt-to-Downstream 05_Downstream
Figure 8: Individual value plot – Scope 1+2 GHG emissions intensity (t CO2e/t Product) by supply chain and region
(latest disclosures only).
5.5 GHG Emissions Profile (Scope 1+2) – Trends over Time
As with Energy, a complete data set of GHG emission disclosures for the past three to five years is not
available for all certified Entities. Therefore, a rating of GHG emissions intensity (Scope 1 and 2) trends
over time was made for each Entity. The qualitative ratings used for this assessment were as follows,
and were based on a rough visual assessment of graphical trends:
• “Increasing” – GHG emissions intensity appears to be increasing over past three to five years
• “Stable or variable” – GHG emissions intensity appears either stable or variable
• “Reducing” – GHG emissions intensity appears to be reducing over past three to five years,
which is the target scenario
• For “Only one data point” available or “No disclosure” – no rating of a trend was possible due
to lack of data.
Table 6 illustrates the proportion (%) of all ASI Entities, Alumina refining Entities and Smelting Entities
for each rating level for the 2021 assessment period. Some general observations where trends could
be rated are as follows:
• Reducing GHG emission intensity was found for 16% of all Entities, 22% of Alumina refining
Entities and 19% of Smelting Entities.
• GHG emission intensities remained reasonably stable / variable for 24% of all Entities and 22%
of Alumina refining Entities, and 52% of Smelting Entities.
24
• However, increases in GHG emission intensity were observed for a small number (six percent)
of all Entities, and five percent of Smelting Entities. No increases were found for Alumina
refining Entities. Note that some of these recent trends may have been impacted by greater
inefficiencies if production was reduced due to impacts from COVID-19 (e.g. furnaces or
reduction cells maintained, but less metal produced).
• Assessment of GHG emission trends was not possible in 55% of ASI Entities, due to lack of
sufficient data.
Table 6: The overall trend in Scope 1+2 GHG emissions intensity in the 2021 assessment for all of ASI’s Entities
(all activities), as well as for Alumina Refining and Aluminium Smelting activities.
Trend in GHG Emissions ALL Supply Chain 02_Alumina Refining 03_Aluminium

Intensity Activities Activity Smelting Activity
(Scope 1+2; past 3-5 years) No. Entities % No. Entities % No. Entities %
Increasing ↗︎ 7 6% - - 1 5%
Stable ⟶ or Variable ↝ 27 24% 2 22% 11 52%
Reducing ↘︎ 18 16% 2 22% 4 19%
Only one data point 14 12% - - 2 10%
No disclosures 49 43% 5 56% 3 14%
Total No. of Entities* 115 9 21

5.6 Energy & Emissions Profile – Aluminium Smelting Activity
5.6.1 Commentary on Energy Profile – Smelting
An individual value plot of energy intensity (GJ/t Al) for Smelting Entities grouped by region is shown
in Figure 9. Comparisons of energy intensity (GJ/t Al) for individual Entities are shown in Figure 10. As
highlighted earlier, energy intensities here for the Smelting activity refer to electricity usage only (in
GWh or kWh/t Al), which has been converted to GJ/t Al (using a default factor of 3600 J per Wh) as a
proxy for total energy use. This provided a consistent basis to benchmark ASI’s Smelting Entities, as
some disclosed only electricity usage, while others (South American Entities SAM-1 and SAM-4;
multiple region Entity Multi-9) provided total energy use (including fuels and non-electricity sources).
Note that one Entity (GCC-2 in the GCC region) disclosed total primary energy (energy required to
generate and deliver the electricity consumed) and is not directly comparable to the other Smelting
Entities presented; however it is retained here for the purposes of highlighting the differences in
disclosures.
25
Some general observations are as follows:

• Disclosures of energy intensity data were available for only 13 out of 21 Smelting Entities.
• Entities across most regions demonstrate similar ranges of energy intensities, ranging 46-63
GJ/t. Converted back to power units, these relate to approximately 12.8 to 17.5 kWh/kg Al,
which are within the expected range for the aluminium smelters. These span smelters
employing modern reduction cell technologies with prebake anodes, as well as older (but
upgraded) Søderberg cell technologies (Entities WEU-2 in Western Europe, and SAM-4 in
South America), which tend to operate at higher energy intensities.
• As mentioned earlier, one outlier observation with a GCC-based Entity (GCC-2) with energy
intensity of 125 GJ/t Al is due to its disclosure of total primary energy consumed to generate
and deliver electricity in onsite captive gas-fired power plants (typically 35-50% efficient so
this indicates thermal loss). It should be noted that such accounting for the energy required
to produce and transmit the electricity consumed in processes (whether self-generated or
purchased), while not currently in scope of the ASI-mandated disclosures, should be
considered good practice to enable calculation of a more complete global warming potential
of aluminium production.
• The majority of ASI’s Smelting Entities are either stable or trending down in their energy
intensities over time. However, two Smelting Entities in South America (SAM-1 and SAM-4)
appear to be trending up in energy intensity over the past year or two. These increases may
be in part due to greater inefficiencies, with disclosed production recently reduced in the two
Entities, either due to reduced market demand and/or impacts from the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic, i.e. energy usage maintained to keep reduction cells running, but less metal
produced.
Figure 9: Individual Value Plot, Smelting activity – energy intensity (GJ/t Al) by region (past three to five years
data, where available).
26
03_Smelting
Figure 10: ASI Smelting activity – Energy intensity (GJ/t Al) by Entity, with past three to five years data.
5.6.2 Commentary on GHG Emissions Profile – Smelting
To provide additional context of how ASI’s Smelting Entities compare with overall global smelting
production, Figure 11 presents the distribution of smelters globally on a ranked emissions curve
(Scope 1 & 2 intensities, in t CO2e/t Al), obtained using the CRU Group’s (CRU) Emissions Analysis Tool
(CRU International Ltd, 2021).
27
Predominantly coal in energy mix
(production weighted mean)
Natural gas + other

energy mixes
(ASI target for Aluminium Smelters)
Predominantly hydro, nuclear or

other renewables
Figure 11: Aluminium smelting – Ranked global emission curves showing Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions (t CO2e/t Al) vs. cumulative production (kt) in 2021. (Source: CRU
Emissions Tool, © CRU International Ltd, 2021).
28
The CRU emissions curve indicates that the very wide distribution is primarily due to the different
sources of power / electricity production:
• Smelters supplied by 100% low carbon electricity sources (such as hydropower or nuclear) are
at the low end, or left-hand side, of the ranked GHG emission curve (below ~5 t CO2e/t Al).
• Those with power supplied by predominantly natural gas are in the mid-range on the GHG
emission curve (~8 tCO2e/t Al).
• At the upper end of the scale (mid-to-right hand side of the curve, representing smelters in
the upper 50% of global production) are smelters with predominantly coal-fired power. They
have the highest GHG emission intensities (~13 t CO2e/t Al and above).
The first to third quartiles of this global distribution of GHG emissions intensity is reflected in the ASI
cohort of certified Smelting Entities, with a range of 1.3 to 14.0 t CO2e/t Al shown previously (Figure
5). In order to analyse this distribution in more detail, a breakdown of emissions intensity (t CO2e/t Al)
grouped by region is presented below in Figure 12, with comparisons for individual Entities presented
as Figure 13.
Figure 12: Individual Value Plot, Smelting activity – GHG emissions intensity (t CO2e/t Al) by region, with past
three to five years data, where available; also shown is ASI’s current target of 8 t CO2e/t Al.
29
03_Smelting
8 t CO2e/t Al
Figure 13: ASI Smelting activity – Scope 1+2 GHG emissions intensity (t CO2e/t Al) by Entity, with past three to
five years historical data where available.
30
Some general observations for the Smelting activity are as follows:

• The emissions intensity for the fourteen ASI Smelting Entities using hydropower or nuclear
power – the majority of those with ASI certification – is 5 t CO2e/t and below. This includes
Entities in Western and Eastern Europe, North and South America, those in multiple regions
and one Entity in Oceania. In general, smelting Entities in Western Europe tend to have the
lowest emissions intensity.
• Two Smelting Entities from the GCC region – GCC-2 and GCC-1 are at ~8.0 and 9.3 t CO2e/t Al
respectively, reflecting the fact that the smelters are powered by natural gas.
• One Entity in China (CHN-7) – the only ASI Smelting Entity powered by coal – has the highest
emissions intensity at 14.0 t CO2e/t Al in 2019. This compares to a value of 17.8 t CO2e/t Al in
2018 (Figure 13), a difference that reflects the use of an updated power emissions intensity
factor (t CO2e/kWh, obtained by measurement as opposed to the use of an assumed power-
grid mix factor) applied to its captive coal-fired power plant in 2020, and as such does not
necessarily reflect a true reduction in emissions intensity.
• Note that the Oceania region is made up of two data sets, one at 3.4 t CO 2e/t – comprising
two hydro-powered smelters (under the same ASI certification) – and a second group with an
intensity of 9.5 t CO2e/t, which includes two predominantly coal-fired smelters (outside ASI
certification). Note that this second data set is only included for comparison.
• The majority of ASI’s Smelting Entities are either stable or trending down over time in their
disclosed GHG emissions intensity; the only exception is one Entity (SAM-1) which exhibited a
minor upward trend.
5.7 Energy & Emissions Profile – Alumina Refining Activity
5.7.1 Commentary on Energy Profile – Alumina Refining
In the alumina supply chain, a near doubling of ASI certifications has occurred since the 2020
assessment (nine Entities in 2021 compared to five in 2020).
Comparisons of energy intensity (GJ/t Al) for ASI’s Alumina refining activity, by individual Entity, are
shown in Figure 14. Energy intensity disclosures were only available in three of nine Alumina Entities.
Some observations of this data set as follows:
• At the lowest end of energy intensities is the refinery of Entity SAM-5 in South America at ~7.6
GJ/t in 2021, however with fluctuations that are most likely from production disruptions in
2018-19.
• The median intensity of ~10.3 GJ/t is demonstrated by the CHN-7 refinery in the China region.
• The above two Entities (CHN-7 and SAM-5) are within the typical 9-15 GJ/t range reported by
the IAI (2020c) for the alumina refining sector.
• The alumina refineries of EEU-4 (Eastern and Central Europe region) demonstrate the highest
energy intensity of ~25.6 GJ/t. As discussed previously, this is likely due to inclusion of
refineries that employ alternative alumina refining processes, i.e. Bayer Sinter and Nepheline
processing. These involve additional energy intensive, high-temperature processing steps (e.g.
sintering) compared to the conventional Bayer refining process that produces more than 95%
31
of the global output of metallurgical-grade alumina (IPCC, 2019). Whilst the energy intensity
of this Entity is more than double the median, it appears to be demonstrating a downward
trend.
02_Alumina
Figure 14: ASI Alumina activity – Energy intensity (GJ/t Al) by Entity, with past three to five years historical data
where available.
32
5.7.2 Commentary on GHG Emissions Profile – Alumina Refining
GHG emission intensity disclosures were available for just four of nine Entities. An individual value
plot of GHG emission intensity (Scope 1 & 2, in t CO2e/t alumina) for Alumina Entities grouped by
region is illustrated in Figure 15, with comparisons for individual Entities illustrated in Figure 16. These
indicate that:
• Two of four (50%) of Alumina Entities with data disclosures have clear and significant
reductions in carbon emission intensities:
o CHN-7 refinery in China disclosed almost a 20% reduction in emissions (1.45 to 1.19 t
CO2e/t alumina, from 2018 to 2019) through process changes making use of high-
pressure steam more efficient (reducing steam consumption);
o SAM-4 refinery in South America reduced its carbon intensity by 45% (from 0.55 to
0.31 t CO2e/t alumina, over 2019 to 2020) through on-site steam production via
biomass.
• The remaining two of four (50%) Alumina Entities are either stable in emission intensity or
demonstrate a very slight reduction (SAM-5 and Multi-1 alumina refineries).
The ASI data set for Alumina emissions for all Entities, except those in China, are all below the global
industry average emissions intensity for alumina refining of approximately 1.1 t CO2e/t alumina (given
by conversion of 2.1 t CO2e/t primary Al based on the IAI’s GHG Emissions dataset for alumina (IAI,
2020b), and dividing by 1.93 t alumina/t primary aluminium).
Figure 15: Individual Value Plot, Alumina activity – Scope 1+2 GHG emissions intensity (t CO2e/t alumina) by
region (past three to five years data included, where available).
33
02_Alumina
Figure 16: ASI Alumina activity – Scope 1+2 GHG emissions intensity (t CO2e/t Al) by Entity, with past three to five
years historical data where available.
34
5.8 Emissions Profile of ASI Certifications compared with Global Distribution
This section of the Report provides a comparison of the emissions profile of ASI certified Entities (in
bauxite mining, alumina refining and aluminium smelting activities) against the global distribution of
production sites.
To illustrate this, ASI certified Bauxite, Alumina and Smelting production sites have been highlighted
in CRU’s Emission Curves (CRU International Ltd, 2021). These plots provide a ranking of 2021 GHG
emissions intensity (Scope 1+2) across the global cohort of bauxite mines (Figure 17), alumina
refineries (Figure 18) and primary aluminium smelters (Figure 19) by cumulative production.
5.8.1 Bauxite Mining
Figure 17 shows that most of ASI certifications (eight out of 10, exceptions being mines from Entities
SAM-4 and OCN-3) in bauxite mining are below the production-weighted mean (50th percentile by
cumulative production) on the global bauxite emission curve. However, the carbon footprint of the
bauxite mining activity is comparatively minor (two to three orders of magnitude less) compared to
alumina refining and aluminium smelting.
5.8.2 Alumina Refining
Figure 18 demonstrates all ASI certifications in alumina refining are below the production-weighted
mean of 1.29 t CO2e/t alumina on the global alumina emissions curve, with all but two Entities (CHN-
7 and one of EEU-4’s refineries) below the lowest quartile (first 25% of cumulative production) of the
emission curve.
5.8.3 Aluminium Smelting
The Smelting activity is the most significant contributor to the global-average carbon footprint per
tonne of primary aluminium. As such this sector receives the most significant focus with respect to
emissions reduction. Figure 19 demonstrates that almost all ASI certifications (20 out of 21, with Entity
CHN-7 in China the only exception) are again below both the production-weighted mean of 13.45 t
CO2e/t Al (see Figure 11) and the ASI 2030 certification threshold of 8 t CO2e/t Al. These values are
based on CRU’s data set and may differ from Entity disclosures, due to differing bases of accounting.
5.8.4 Suggestions for ASI Engagement
The Smelting emissions curve (both Figure 11 and Figure 19) highlights the scale of challenge faced by
primary smelters in achieving significant GHG emission reductions. Over seventy percent of the
world’s primary production (~45 million tonnes annually) is currently produced using carbon-intensive
energy mixes, resulting in partial carbon footprint (Scope 1+2) greater than 5 t CO 2e/t Al – these
include production using natural gas-based power, and a large upper fifty percent of production using
coal-fired power (with Scope 1+2 carbon footprint greater than 15 t CO2e/t Al) in their energy mix. It
is clear that significant reductions in the primary aluminium sector’s total carbon footprint will not be
possible, unless rapid and major shifts are implemented by all smelters, and must include the upper
35
fifty percent of smelters shifting to a lower point on the sectoral emissions curve (refer to IAI’s Beyond
2 Degrees Scenarios (B2DS), IAI 2021).
Figure 19 also illustrates that the current ‘2030 smelter emissions threshold’ of 8 t CO2e/t Al provides
less incentive for smelters in the upper 50% of the emissions curve to consider ASI certification. To
engage more of these smelters and provide further incentive, ASI could consider the provision of
alternative pathways to certification for smelters above the current 8 t CO2e/t threshold, whilst still
requiring clear, significant and time-bound reductions in GHG emissions. This is currently being
considered in ASI’s Standards Revision process, under Performance Standard Version 3.0 (draft 1.0)
that was recently released for consultation in March-April 2021 (link) (ASI, 2021), with another round
of public consultation expected in January 2022.
Smelters within the lowest fifty percent of the emissions curve – and all Entities in other supply chain
activities – need to continue their contribution to the efforts of the global aluminium sector to
decarbonise (refer to IAI’s B2DS, 2021). ASI may wish to consider additional incentive as part of their
certification to promote further reductions in GHG emissions intensity.
36
01_Bauxite Mining – CRU Emission Curves (with ASI Entities highlighted)
Figure 17: Bauxite Mining – Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions curves (t CO2e/dmt bauxite) vs. cumulative production (million tonnes) with ASI certified Entities highlighted in
colour, compared to CRU’s global data set. (Source: CRU Emissions Analysis Tool, © CRU International Ltd, 2021).
37
02_Alumina Refining – CRU Emission Curves (with ASI Entities highlighted)
Figure 18: Alumina Refining – Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions curves (t CO2e/t alumina) vs. cumulative production (kt) with ASI certified Entities highlighted in colour, compared
to CRU’s global data set. (Source: CRU Emissions Analysis Tool, © CRU International Ltd, 2021)
38
03_Aluminium Smelting – CRU Emission Curves (with ASI Entities highlighted)
Major shifts down the emission curve for ALL smelters

needed, but particularly for this proportion of global
smelting production (predominantly coal-fired)
(ASI target for Aluminium Smelters)
Figure 19: Aluminium smelting – Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions curves (t CO2e/t Al) vs. cumulative production (kt) with ASI certified Entities highlighted in colour, compared to
CRU’s global data set. (Source: CRU Emissions Analysis Tool, © CRU International Ltd, 2021)
39
6 Comparisons with CRU Emissions Tool

6.1 CRU Emissions Analysis Tool
CRU International Ltd (2021) (‘CRU’) has developed a web-based ‘Emissions Analysis Tool’
(https://emissionsanalysistool.crugroup.com/) which provides a comprehensive, global data set of
GHG emissions, energy use, production and corporate ownership for primary aluminium supply chain
activities, namely bauxite mining, alumina refining and aluminium smelting. The tool does not yet
provide data for aluminium remelting / refining and downstream activities.
The CRU Emissions Analysis Tool:

• Provides GHG emissions data (units, t CO2e) by individual production sites (assets), rather
than by company / entity. This includes Scope 1 and 2 emissions from all energy consumption
(including fuel combustion and electricity).
• Provides energy consumption data for all assets/processes – but for electricity only (units,
GWh), currently not other (non-electricity) energy carriers.
• Is not based on company data disclosures, rather they are based on CRU’s own proprietary
modelling and insights.
This section of the Report provides a comparison of ASI Entity data disclosures against data from the
CRU Emissions Analysis Tool. Given some Entities do not have emissions data disclosures that match
their certification scope, the use of CRU’s data set allows for ‘filling the gaps’ and further
benchmarking of the certified ASI Entities’ GHG emissions.
6.2 Benchmarking Method for Entity Data Disclosures vs. CRU Data
To compare ASI Entity GHG emissions data disclosures (often encompassing multiple production sites),
the CRU Emission Tool data set was collected and processed using the following method:
• Where an ASI Entity certification represents a single production site, CRU’s energy and
emissions data were taken in its entirety, regardless of the Entity’s share (% equity) in the site.
• Where an ASI Entity certification incorporates multiple production sites, the CRU data for each
site is considered in its entirety and aggregated. Exceptions noted include where the ASI
Entity’s own data disclosure has taken a ‘% ownership / equity approach’; to match the same
accounting basis, emissions and energy use are calculated pro-rata against the Entity’s share
in the site.
Three qualitative categories have been used to classify the level of agreement between the data sets
(Entity disclosures vs. CRU tool). These are:
• “Good agreement” – less than 5% discrepancy between the two data sets,
• “Moderate agreement” – discrepancy of 5-20%, and
• “Poor agreement” – discrepancy of greater than 20%.
40
Some general observations on the comparison of these are as follows:

• Comparisons were not possible where ‘gaps’ in the completeness of data disclosures were
noted (Sections 4.3 to 4.4).
• Some data disclosures did not relate to the ASI certification scope, but rather aggregated data
for the entire company or for specific divisions (Section 4.2).
• The naming and identification of production sites in the CRU tool did not always match those
in the ASI certification scope. For example, the naming of the WEU-12 smelter in the ASI
certification differed to the correlated asset in the CRU data set.
• Note that as CRU only provides power use data, comparisons of energy intensities (GJ/t,
converted from GWh) were only possible for the Smelting category. Comparisons with
disclosures for Alumina and Bauxite activities are not valid, as these activities mainly use
thermal sources of energy (rather than electricity).
6.3 Benchmarking Outcomes
In total, there were six Entities compared in bauxite mining, nine Entities for alumina refining and 18
Entities for aluminium smelting. The majority of these Entities were for single production sites, with a
few others comprising aggregated data for multiple sites. Comparisons of Entity disclosed vs. CRU
datasets for power use (total (GJ) and intensity (GJ/t), converted from GWh units), Scope 1+2 GHG
emissions (total (kt CO2e) and intensity (t CO2e/t product)) and production data are discussed as
follows.
Appendix III provides detailed graphical side-by-side comparison plots of data disclosures vs. CRU data
– again by activity and by Entity.
6.3.1 Bauxite Mining
Table 7 provides a comparison of data disclosures against CRU data for the Bauxite mining activity.
Data disclosures from only two out of six entities were available for comparison:
• For Entity SAM-4 (bauxite mine) – there was ‘moderate’ agreement in production figures; no
other data was available for comparison.
• For Entity SAM-2 (bauxite mine) – there was ‘good’ agreement for production figures,
however, ‘poor’ agreement in emissions intensity.
41
Table 7: Comparison of energy use, GHG emission and production “match” between the ASI Entity data disclosure
vs. data obtained from CRU Emissions Tool for Bauxite Mining supply chain activity.
Bauxite Mining Energy Use* GHG Emission Production

Level of discrepancy No. of % No. of % No. of %
Entities Entities Entities
Good agreement (<5%) N/A N/A - 1 17%
Moderate agreement (5-20%) N/A N/A - 1 17%
Poor agreement (>20%) N/A N/A 1 17% -
Entity Data Disclosures not N/A N/A 5 83% 4 67%

available for comparison
Total No. of Entities 6
* Energy use comparisons not valid as CRU provides only data on power usage, not on non-electricity
sources of energy.
6.3.2 Alumina Refining
Table 8 provides a comparison of data disclosures with the CRU data for the Alumina refining activity,
where disclosures were available for five out of nine Entities. For GHG emissions, note that where
Entities did not disclose Scope 2 emissions data, comparisons with CRU data were made on the basis
of Scope 1 emissions only. Comparisons were made for six out of nine Entities, two of which had a
complete data set.
Observations were as follows:

• For GHG emissions, only one ‘good’ agreement was found with CRU figures (SAM-5 alumina
refinery) and one ‘moderate’ agreement (CHN-7 alumina refinery). Note that for two of three
Entities with ‘poor’ agreement, these are based on a comparison of total emissions (not
intensities).
• Production disclosures were in ‘good’ agreement with CRU figures in one Entity (SAM-5
alumina refinery), but in ‘poor’ agreement with two other Entities (CHN-7 and EEU-4 alumina
refineries).
• Direct comparison of energy use is not valid, as the CRU Tool only provides data for electricity
use, which is only a small fraction (<10%) of total energy intensity in the alumina refining
sector (IAI, 2020c). However, as noted previously, Entity disclosures are consistent with typical
industry figures of ~9-15 GJ/t alumina (IAI, 2020b).
42
vs. data obtained from CRU Emissions Tool for Alumina Refining supply chain activity.
Alumina Refining Energy Use* GHG Emission Production

Good agreement (<5%) N/A N/A 1 11% 1 11%
Moderate agreement (5-20%) N/A N/A 1 11% -
Poor agreement (> 20%) N/A N/A 3 33% 2 22%
Entity Data Disclosures not N/A N/A 4 44% 6 67%

* Energy use comparisons not valid as CRU provides only data on power usage, not on non-electricity
sources of energy.
6.3.3 Aluminium Smelting
Table 9 provides a comparison of data disclosures with CRU data for the aluminium smelting activity.
Comparisons were from 18 Entities, four of which include multiple production sites:
• Energy use disclosures (essentially electricity consumption) were in ‘good’ or ‘moderate’
agreement with the CRU data set for 67% of Entities (12 out of 18). Whilst one Entity (GCC-2)
was in ‘poor’ agreement with CRU’s figures, the comparison is not valid as the Entity’s energy
disclosures relate to primary energy (that is consumed to generate and deliver the electricity
consumed), which is a different accounting basis.
• For GHG emissions, disclosures for almost 85% of Entities (15 out of 18) were in ‘good’
or ’moderate’ agreement with the CRU data set, whereas two Entities (SAM-1 and WEU-2)
were in ‘poor’ agreement.
• For metal production disclosures, 67% of Entities (12 out of 18) were in ‘good’ or ‘moderate’
agreement, with four of 18 Entities with ‘poor’ agreement.
• In some Entities, total energy use and emission figures compare better than energy and
emission intensities due to poor production matches, and vice versa. These are highlighted in
Appendix III.
43
vs. data obtained from CRU Emissions Tool for Aluminium Smelting supply chain activity.
Aluminium Smelting Energy Use GHG Emission Production

Good agreement (<5%) 9 50% 7 39% 10 56%
Moderate agreement (5-20%) 3 17% 8 44% 2 11%
Poor agreement (> 20%) 1 6% 2 11% 4 22%
Entity Data Disclosures not 5 28% 1 6% 2 11%

6.3.4 Summary
Discrepancies between the two datasets are expected as they are derived differently, especially with
the CRU Emissions Tool energy modelling being limited to electricity usage only, and due to varying
accounting bases taken by individual ASI Entities. In general, the Smelting category had the best
matches in Entity disclosures vs. CRU tool data sets. This is likely to be due to: (a) a more complete set
of Entity disclosure data to compare with for Smelting, compared to other supply chain activities; (b)
electricity use in Smelting being the most significant component of total energy consumption and
therefore being a closer match to CRU’s basis for power consumption figures. It is important to
emphasise that even with “poor” agreement noted in some cases, the two datasets are still in
relatively similar ballpark numbers and does not render one higher quality than the other.
Overall therefore, the CRU Emissions Tool is a very useful tool for benchmarking of ASI certified
Entities throughout the primary aluminium supply chain, especially for the GHG emissions. It also
provides asset-level data for existing ‘gaps’ in data disclosures, where they do not directly correlate
to the scope of ASI certification. Appendix III provides energy and emissions profiles for ASI certified
primary production sites using CRU data as a basis (in comparison with Entity Disclosures with ‘gaps’).
This is an example of how an independent and more ‘complete’ benchmarking of ASI certified sites
could be developed over time.
44
7 References
Aluminium Stewardship Initiative (ASI) (2017a) ASI Performance Standard, Version 2, published
December 2017, available online: https://aluminium-stewardship.org/asi-standards/asi-
performance-standard/
Aluminium Stewardship Initiative (ASI) (2017b) ASI Chain of Custody (CoC) Standard, Version 1,
published December 2017, available online: https://aluminium-stewardship.org/asi-
standards/chain-of-custody-standard/
Aluminium Stewardship Initiative (ASI) (2021) ASI Performance Standard, Version 3.0 Draft 1.0 for
Consultation, March 2021, available online:
https://aluminium-stewardship.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/ASI-Performance-Standard-V3.0-
Draft-1.0-For-Consultation.pdf
CRU International Ltd (2021) CRU Emissions Analysis Tool, available online:
https://emissionsanalysistool.crugroup.com/
International Aluminium Institute (IAI) (2017) IAI Statistical Survey Forms: Energy – Refining,
accessed 12 October 2021, available online: https://international-aluminium.org/resource/iai-
statistical-survey-forms-energy-and-anode-effect-pfcs/
International Aluminium Institute (IAI) (2018a) IAI Statistical Survey Forms: Energy – Smelting,
statistical-survey-forms-energy-and-anode-effect-pfcs/
International Aluminium Institute (IAI) (2018b) 2015 Life Cycle Inventory Data and Environmental
Metrics, Appendix A – Life Cycle Inventory Data, accessed 12 October 2021, available online:
https://international-aluminium.org/resource/life-cycle-inventory-data-and-environmental-metrics/
International Aluminium Institute (IAI) (2020a) IAI Statistical Survey Forms: Life Cycle Inventory,
statistical-survey-forms-life-cycle-inventory/
International Aluminium Institute (IAI) (2020b) World Aluminium — Metallurgical Alumina Refining
Energy Intensity, accessed 12 October 2021, available online: https://international-
aluminium.org/statistics/metallurgical-alumina-refining-energy-intensity/
International Aluminium Institute (IAI) (2020c) World Aluminium — Metallurgical Alumina Refining
Fuel Consumption, accessed 12 October 2021, available online: https://international-
aluminium.org/statistics/metallurgical-alumina-refining-fuel-consumption/
45
International Aluminium Institute (IAI) (2020d) GHG Emission Data for Aluminium Sector (2005-
2019), published September 2020, accessed 12 October 2021, available online: https://international-
aluminium.org/resource/ghg-emissions-data-for-the-aluminium-sector-2005-2019/
International Aluminium Institute (IAI) (2021) Aluminium Sector Greenhouse Gas Pathways to 2050,
published March 2021, accessed 12 October 2021, available online: https://international-
aluminium.org/resource/aluminium-sector-greenhouse-gas-pathways-to-2050-2021/
IPCC (2019) 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories,
Volume 3: Industrial Processes and Product Use, Chapter 4 Metal Industry Emissions, Section 4.4.5
Methodological Issues for Alumina Production, available online: https://www.ipcc-
nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/vol3.html
McLeod, S. A. (2019) What does a box plot tell you? Simply psychology, available online:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/boxplots.html
46
Appendices
A brief description of the list of appendices are as follows:
Appendix I – List of ASI Entities

This is a list of certified ASI Entities reviewed in this 2021 assessment of GHG emissions and energy
data disclosures.
Appendix II – Dashboard Graphics (Entity Data Disclosures only)

This provides graphical dashboards for Entity disclosed data, categorised by supply chain activity,
specifically for (a) overall energy intensity (GJ/t product) and total energy use (TJ), and (b) Scope 1 and
2 GHG emissions intensity (t CO2e/t product) and total Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions (kt).
Appendix III – Graphical Comparisons, Entity Data Disclosures vs. CRU Emissions Tool Data
This provides graphical comparisons for latest Entity Data Disclosures vs. corresponding data from the
CRU Emissions Tool, categorised by bauxite, alumina and smelting supply chain activities, specifically
for (a) power intensity expressed as energy intensity (GJ/t product) and total energy use (TJ), and (b)
Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions intensity (t CO2e/t product) and total Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions (kt).
47
Appendix I – List of ASI Entities

ASI Entities reviewed in this work, including region, country and listed supply chain activity (as per ASI certification) are as follows:
ASI Member Entity Name Region Country Bauxite Alumina Aluminium Aluminium Cast- Down-
Mining Refining Smelting Re-melting/ houses stream
Refining
ALBRAS - Alumínio ALBRAS - Alumínio Brasileiro S/A South America Brazil Yes Yes
Brasileiro S/A
Alcoa Corporation Alcoa Aluminerie de Baie-Comeau North America Canada Yes Yes
Alcoa Corporation MULTIPLE MULTIPLE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Alcoa Fjarðaál ASI Performance West Europe Iceland Yes Yes
Standard
Alcoa Lista West Europe Norway Yes Yes Yes
Alcoa Mosjøen West Europe Norway Yes Yes Yes
Alcoa San Ciprián Smelter West Europe Spain Yes Yes
Alcoa Western Australia Operations Oceania Australia Yes Yes
Alcoa World Alumina (AWA) Juruti South America Brazil Yes
Mine
Consórcio de Alumínio do South America Brazil Yes
Maranhão – ALUMAR
San Ciprián Refinery West Europe Spain Yes
Aleris Aleris Aluminium Duffel BV West Europe Belgium Yes Yes Yes
Alu Met GmbH (Austria) Aluminium GmbH Nachrodt West Europe Germany Yes Yes
Speedline Aluminium Gießerei West Europe Germany Yes Yes
GmbH
Aludium Premium Aludium Transformación de West Europe Spain Yes Yes
Aluminium Productos Alicante
48
Refining
Aludium Transformación de West Europe Spain Yes Yes Yes
Productos Amorebieta
Aluminerie Alouette Alouette Aluminium Smelter North America Canada Yes Yes
Aluminium Bahrain Aluminium Bahrain B.S.C. (Alba) GCC Bahrain Yes Yes
Aluminium Norf GmbH Aluminium Norf GmbH (“Alunorf”). West Europe Germany Yes Yes Yes
ALVANCE Aluminium ALVANCE Aluminium Dunkerque East & Central France Yes Yes
Dunkerque Europe
AMAG Austria Metall AG AMAG Austria Metall AG West Europe Austria Yes Yes Yes
Amcor AF Froges Self Assessment West Europe France Yes
AF Teningen Self-Assessment West Europe Germany Yes
Amcor Flexibles 5 sites West Europe MULTIPLE Yes
Amcor Flexibles Rorschach West Europe Switzerland Yes
Amcor Flexibles Sarrebourg SAS West Europe France Yes
Amcor Flexibles Singen West Europe Germany Yes
ARCONIC Arconic Corp MULTIPLE MULTIPLE Yes Yes
Assan Alüminyum Assan Alüminyum East & Central Turkey Yes Yes Yes
Europe
AUDI Audii C-BEV High-Voltage Battery MULTIPLE MULTIPLE Yes
Ball Corporation Ball Beverage Packaging EMEA MULTIPLE MULTIPLE Yes
(Europe, Middle East and Africa)
BMW AG BMW Group Werk Landshut -Light- MULTIPLE MULTIPLE Yes
metall Foundry
Bridgnorth Aluminium Bridgnorth Aluminium Limited West Europe UK Yes Yes Yes
C.S. Aluminium C. S. Aluminium Corporation Asia (ex-China) Taiwan Yes Yes Yes
Corporation
49
Refining
Carcano Carcano West Europe Italy Yes
Century Aluminum Norðurál Grundartangi West Europe Iceland Yes Yes
Company
Chalco Ruimin Co.,Ltd. Chalco Ruimin Co., Ltd. China China Yes Yes
Companhia Brasileira de Companhia Brasileira de Alumínio South America Brazil Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Alumínio
Constantia Flexibles Constantia Teich, Weinburg, West Europe Austria Yes
International GmbH Austria
Constellium Constellium Neuf-Brisach West Europe France Yes Yes Yes
Constellium Rolled Products Singen West Europe Germany Yes Yes
GmbH & Co. KG
Constellium Singen AS&I, West Europe Germany Yes
Dahenfeld & Gottmadingen
ELVAL Hellenic Aluminium Elval at Oinofyta West Europe Greece Yes Yes Yes
Industry
Emirates Global Emirates Global Aluminium PJSC - GCC UAE Yes Yes
Aluminium PJSC Al Taweelah
Eurofoil Eurofoil France West Europe France Yes
Eurofoil Luxembourg SA West Europe Luxembourg Yes
Eurofoil Rugles and Eurofoil West Europe MULTIPLE Yes Yes
Dudelange CoC
Gränges Gränges Aluminium (Shanghai) Co., China China Yes Yes
Ltd.
Gränges Sweden AB Finspång West Europe Sweden Yes Yes
Gulkula Mining Company Gulkula Mining Company Pty Ltd Oceania Australia Yes
Pty Ltd
50
Refining
Hammerer Aluminium HAI Santana SRL East & Central Romania Yes Yes
Industries Europe
Hammerer Aluminium Industries West Europe Austria Yes Yes
Holding GmbH
Hydro Hydro Aluminium Extruded West Europe MULTIPLE Yes Yes Yes
Solutions
Hydro Aluminium Primary Metal MULTIPLE MULTIPLE Yes Yes Yes
Hydro Aluminium Rolled Products West Europe MULTIPLE Yes Yes Yes Yes
Hydro Bauxite & Alumina South America Brazil Yes Yes
Impol d.o.o. Impol Group East & Central MULTIPLE Yes Yes Yes
Europe
IPI srl Pierantonio West Europe Italy Yes
Jiangsu Dingsheng New Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials China China Yes Yes Yes
Materials Joint-Stock Co., Joint-Stock Co., Ltd
Ltd
Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Anhui Maximum Aluminium China China Yes Yes
Materials Co., Ltd Industries Co., Ltd.
Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination China China Yes
Materials Co., Ltd
Jupiter Aluminum Jupiter Aluminum Corp. North America USA Yes Yes Yes
Corporation
Laminazione Sottile S.p.A. Laminazione Sottile S.p.A. ; Italcoat MULTIPLE MULTIPLE Yes
S.r.l; Laminazione Sottile S.p.A
Lotte Aluminium Co., Ltd Lotte Aluminium Co., Ltd. Ansan Asia (ex-China) South Korea Yes
Plant
Luoyang Wanji Aluminium Luoyang Wanji Aluminum China China Yes
Processing Co.,Ltd Processing Co., Ltd.
51
Refining
Novelis Inc. Novelis Deutschland GmbH Werk West Europe Germany Yes
Ohle
Novelis Europe West Europe MULTIPLE Yes Yes Yes
Raffmetal and Fondital Stabilimento di Casto & Odolo West Europe Italy Yes
Rio Tinto Aluminium Rio Tinto MULTIPLE MULTIPLE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Division
RTA Canada North America Canada Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
RTA ISAL West Europe Iceland Yes Yes
RTA Pacific Operations Oceania MULTIPLE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
S.A.DAMM SA DAMM initial West Europe Spain Yes
Schueco International KG Schüco KG Metallbau in MULTIPLE MULTIPLE Yes
DE,IT,UK,FR
Shandong Nanshan Shandong Nanshan Aluminium Co., China China Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Aluminium Co. Ltd. Ltd.
Yantai Donghai Aluminium Foil Co., China China Yes
Ltd.
Shanghai Shenhuo Shanghai Shenhuo Aluminium Foil China China Yes
Aluminium Foil Co., Ltd Co.,Ltd
Shangqiu Yangguang Shangqiu Yangguang Aluminium China China Yes Yes
Aluminium Product Co., Product Co., Ltd
Ltd.
SIG Combibloc SIG Group - Curitiba Site MULTIPLE MULTIPLE Yes
StockachAlu Stockach Alu West Europe Germany Yes Yes
Suntown Technology Suntown Technology Group China China Yes Yes Yes
Group Corporation Limited Corporation Limited
Tianjin Zhongwang Tianjin Zhongwang Aluminium China China Yes Yes Yes
Aluminium Co.,Ltd Co.,Ltd
52
Refining
UC Rusal UC Rusal East & Central Russia
Europe
Xiamen Xiashun Xianmen Xiashun Aluminium Foil China China Yes Yes Yes
Aluminium Foil Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd
Yunnan Yongshun Yunnan Yongshun Aluminium Co., China China Yes Yes
Aluminium Co., Ltd. Ltd
53
Appendix II – Dashboard Graphics (Entity Data Disclosures only)

01_Bauxite Supply Chain – Energy Use Disclosures, both intensity (GJ/t Product) and total (TJ)
54
01_Bauxite Supply Chain – GHG Emission (Scope 1 + Scope 2) Disclosures, both intensity (t CO2e/t Al) and total (kt CO2e)
55
02_Alumina Supply Chain – Energy Use Disclosures, both intensity (GJ/t Product) and total (TJ)
56
02_Alumina Supply Chain – GHG Emission (Scope 1 + Scope 2) Disclosures, both intensity (t CO2e/t Al) and total (kt CO2e)
57
03_Smelting Supply Chain – Energy Use Disclosures, both intensity (GJ/t Product) and total (TJ)
58
03_Smelting Supply Chain – GHG Emission (Scope 1 + Scope 2) Disclosures, both intensity (t CO2e/t Al) and total (kt CO2e)
8 t CO2e/t Al
59
04_Remelting-to-Downstream Supply Chain (Asia, China, Eastern / Central Europe) – Energy Use Disclosures, both intensity (GJ/t Product) and total (TJ)
60
04_Remelting-to-Downstream Supply Chain (North America, Western Europe, Multiple regions) – Energy Use Disclosures, both intensity (GJ/t Product) and
total (TJ)
61
04_Remelting-to-Downstream Supply Chain (Asia, China, Eastern / Central Europe) – GHG Emission (Scope 1 + Scope 2) Disclosures, both intensity (t CO2e/t
Al) and total (kt CO2e)
62
04_Remelting-to-Downstream Supply Chain (North America, Western Europe, Multiple regions) – GHG Emission (Scope 1 + Scope 2) Disclosures, both
intensity (t CO2e/t Al) and total (kt CO2e)
63
05_Downstream Supply Chain – Energy Use Disclosures, both intensity (GJ/t Product) and total (TJ)
64
05_Downstream Supply Chain – GHG Emission (Scope 1 + Scope 2) Disclosures, both intensity (t CO2e/t Al) and total (kt CO2e)
65
Appendix III – Graphical Comparisons, Entity Data Disclosures vs. CRU Emissions Tool Data
Note – CRU data set provides energy consumption data for all assets/processes – but for electricity only (units, GWh), currently not other (non-electricity)
energy carriers. Therefore, comparisons Entity disclosed energy intensities (GJ/t) and CRU power intensities (GJ/t, converted from GWh) are only valid for the
Smelting activity (where electricity is a reasonable proxy for total energy use). This is not the case for Bauxite mining or Alumina refining, where electricity is
not the major source of energy.
The following graphs provide comparisons of Data Disclosures and CRU Data for only the latest year of data disclosure (typically 2019 or 2020).
66
01_Bauxite Supply Chain – Energy Use Disclosures vs. CRU Emissions Tool data, both intensity (GJ/t Product) and total (TJ)
67
01_Bauxite Supply Chain – GHG Emission (Scope 1 + Scope 2) Disclosures vs. CRU Emissions Tool data, both intensity (t CO2e/t Al) and total (kt CO2e)
68
02_Alumina Supply Chain – Energy Use Disclosures vs. CRU Emissions Tool data, both intensity (GJ/t Product) and total (TJ)
69
02_Alumina Supply Chain – GHG Emission (Scope 1 + Scope 2) Disclosures vs. CRU Emissions Tool data, both intensity (t CO2e/t Al) and total (kt CO2e)
70
03_Smelting Supply Chain – Energy Use Disclosures vs. CRU Emissions Tool data, both intensity (GJ/t Product) and total (TJ)
71
03_Smelting Supply Chain – GHG Emission (Scope 1 + Scope 2) Disclosures vs. CRU Emissions Tool data, both intensity (t CO2e/t Al) and total (kt CO2e)
8 t CO2e/t Al
72

ASI GHG Validation Report - v2.0 - GENERIC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASI GHG Validation Report - v2.0 - GENERIC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASI GHG Validation Report - v2.0 - GENERIC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of Implementation of

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

Client: Aluminium Stewardship Initiative (ASI)

Atmolite Consulting Pty Ltd

Assessing Quality of Data Disclosures from ASI Entities

Trends in Energy Intensity from ASI Entities

Trends in GHG Emission Intensity (Scope 1+2) from ASI Entities

Comparing Data Disclosures with the CRU Emissions Tool

Appendix I – List of ASI Entities ............................................................................................................ 48

The main objectives of the project were to:

1.2 ASI Performance Standard – Principle 5

*The GHG Protocol standards (https://ghgprotocol.org/) defines:

1.3 ASI Chain of Custody Standard – Criterion 9.3

2 Data Collection and Scope

55 ASI Members, under which there are:

8 regions 27 Countries 6 supply chain activities

2.2 Collection of Data Disclosures from ASI Entities

2.2.1 Timing of Data Collection

2.2.2 Data Disclosure Sources

2.2.3 Disclaimer on Data Collection and Validation

3 Development of a GHG Emissions Database

3.1 ‘Filling the Gaps’ for Data Completeness

3.2 Classifying Data for Entities with Multiple Supply Chains

Some further notes regarding the classification of supply chain activities:

Modified ‘Supply Chain’ ASI Supply Chain Activities included

- Bauxite-to-Downstream Bauxite Mining, Alumina Refining, Aluminium Smelting, Casthouse,

4 Analysis of Implementation – Quality of Data Disclosure

4.1 Range of Data Sources, Varying Formats and Units

4.2 Data Disclosures not Representing Certification Scope of ASI Entities

4.4 Assessing Quality of Data Disclosure (2021 assessment)

No. of data entries* 115 9 21

4.6 Outcomes from ASI Certification – Promising Uptake of Data Disclosures

4.7 Recommendations on Data Disclosures

4.7.1 Standardising Data Disclosures

4.7.2 Energy Disclosures for Smelters

4.7.3 Minimum Data Disclosure Requirements

5 Analysis of Implementation – Emissions & Energy Data

Introducing the Boxplot

5.2 Energy Profile – by Activity

01_Bauxite 02_Alumina 03_Smelting

Some general findings relating to the energy intensities by Activity is as follows:

5.3 Energy Profile – Trends over Time

No. Entities % No. Entities % No. Entities %

Total No. of Entities* 115 9 21

5.4 GHG Emissions Profile (Scope 1+2) – by Activity

Some general observations as are follows:

5.5 GHG Emissions Profile (Scope 1+2) – Trends over Time

Trend in GHG Emissions ALL Supply Chain 02_Alumina Refining 03_Aluminium

Total No. of Entities* 115 9 21

5.6 Energy & Emissions Profile – Aluminium Smelting Activity

5.6.1 Commentary on Energy Profile – Smelting

Some general observations are as follows:

5.6.2 Commentary on GHG Emissions Profile – Smelting

Predominantly coal in energy mix

(production weighted mean)

Natural gas + other

Predominantly hydro, nuclear or

Some general observations for the Smelting activity are as follows: