Ball Corporation · NYSE:BALL
Ball — Investor Presentation (December 2023)
62 slides from Ball's investor presentation, December 2023
Slide 1: 50 States of Recycling 2.0
50 STATES OF RECYCLING 2.0 A State-by-State Assessment of 2021 Containers and Packaging Recycling Rates December 2023
Slide 2: Building on the Analysis from the First Report
Building on the Analysis from the First Report In 2021, Eunomia Research & Consulting The 50 States of Recycling 2.0 Provides: and the Ball Corporation released the inaugural edition of the 50 States of • Updated Data and Rankings of State Recycling Rates by Material Type Recycling Report, a first-o
Slide 3: Building on the Comparable State-by-State Recycling Rate
BUILDING ON THE COMPARABLE STATE-BY-STATE RECYCLING RATE FOR CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING WE CREATED IN 2021 The 50 States of Recycling 2.0 provides an update to this analysis, the state recycling rankings are based on the recycling rate of packaging materials minus cardboard, boxboard, paper packaging,
Slide 4: 50 States 2.0: Key Takeaways
50 STATES 2.0: KEY TAKEAWAYS On average, recycling rates across states have stagnated and some of the largest shifts between 2018 and 2021 are the result of the inclusion of new and more accurate data released since 2018. This shows the need for continued action to improve U.S. recycling systems. We
Slide 5: Rankings
Rankings ee THE 50 Ze $333 | STATES OF eeee | RECYCLING
Slide 6: State Recycling Rankings: Excludes Fiber & Flexible Plastics
STATE RECYCLING RANKINGS: EXCLUDES FIBER & FLEXIBLE PLASTICS TOP 10 & BOTTOM 10 RANKING: TOP 10 STATE RECYCLING RATE % RECYCLING REFUND RANKING: BOTTOM 10 STATE RECYCLING % RECYCLING RATE REFUND #1 Maine 65% Yes #41 Colorado 11% No #2 Vermont 51% Yes #42 Texas 8% No #3 Massachusetts 48% Yes #43 Alab
Slide 7: US Packaging Recycling Rates by State
US PACKAGING RECYCLING RATES BY STATE (EXCLUDES FIBER & FLEXIBLE PLASTICS) 23% NEW HAMPSHIRE 25% 51% VERMONT WASHINGTON 12% 21% 65% MONTANA NORTH 37% MAINE 48% DAKOTA MASSACHUSETTS 45% MINNESOTA OREGON 13% 23% 26% 44% IDAHO SOUTH WISCONSIN NEW YORK 17% 12% DAKOTA 40% RHODE ISLAND WYOMING MICHIGAN 45
Slide 8: State Recycling Rankings: Beverage Containers
STATE RECYCLING RANKINGS: BEVERAGE CONTAINERS* TOP 10 & BOTTOM 10 RANKING: TOP 10 STATE RECYCLING RATE % RECYCLING REFUND RANKING: BOTTOM 10 STATE RECYCLING % RECYCLING RATE REFUND #1 Maine 78% Yes #41 Texas 11% No #2 Oregon 68% Yes #42 Nevada 10% No #3 California 60% Yes #43 Alabama 10% No #4 Iowa
Slide 9: US Beverage Containers Recycling Rates by State
US BEVERAGE CONTAINERS* RECYCLING RATES BY STATE 27% NEW HAMPSHIRE 30% 53% WASHINGTON VERMONT 13% 21% 78% MONTANA NORTH MAINE 54% 68% DAKOTA 43% MASSACHUSETTS OREGON MINNESOTA 14% 23% IDAHO SOUTH 29% 55% 34% WISCONSIN RHODE ISLAND 13% DAKOTA 53% NEW YORK WYOMING 56% MICHIGAN 46% 13% 21% CONNECTICUT
Slide 10: State Recycling Rankings: Aluminum Cans
STATE RECYCLING RANKINGS: ALUMINUM CANS TOP 10 & BOTTOM 10 RANKING: TOP 10 STATE RECYCLING % RECYCLING REFUND RANKING: BOTTOM 10 STATE RECYCLING % RECYCLING RATE RATE REFUND #1 Maine 83% Yes #41 Wyoming 14% No #2 Oregon 82% Yes #42 Arizona 14% No #3 California 77% Yes #43 South Carolina 13% No #4 Mi
Slide 11: US Aluminum Can Recycling Rates by State
US ALUMINUM CAN RECYCLING RATES BY STATE 29% NEW HAMPSHIRE 41% #9 59% #1 WASHINGTON VERMONT #2 14% 21% 83% #5 MONTANA NORTH MAINE 74% DAKOTA MASSACHUSETTS 82% 55% OREGON #4 15% 23% MINNESOTA 70% IDAHO SOUTH 28% #8 61% RHODE ISLAND #6 14% DAKOTA WISCONSIN 76% NEW YORK WYOMING #7 MICHIGAN 62% 25% 47%
Slide 12: State Recycling Rankings: PET Bottles
STATE RECYCLING RANKINGS: PET BOTTLES TOP 10 & BOTTOM 10 RANKING: TOP 10 STATE RECYCLING % RECYCLING REFUND RANKING: BOTTOM 10 STATE RECYCLING % RECYCLING RATE RATE REFUND #1 Maine 75% Yes #41 Oklahoma 7% No #2 Oregon 71% Yes #42 Florida 6% No #3 California 56% Yes #43 Alabama 5% No #4 Connecticut 4
Slide 13: US PET Bottles Recycling Rates by State
US PET BOTTLES RECYCLING RATES BY STATE 29% NEW HAMPSHIRE #10 #1 28% #5 44% WASHINGTON #1 #9 2 15% VERMONT #2 12% NORTH 75% MONTANA MAINE 31% 71% DAKOTA 27% MASSACHUSETTS OREGON MINNESOTA #10 13% 16% 18% #6 31% IDAHO SOUTH #6 42% WISCONSIN NEW YORK RHODE ISLAND 12% DAKOTA #7 29% WYOMING MICHIGAN 38%
Slide 14: State Recycling Rankings: Glass Bottles and Jars
STATE RECYCLING RANKINGS: GLASS BOTTLES AND JARS TOP 10 & BOTTOM 10 RANKING: TOP 10 STATE RECYCLING % RECYCLING REFUND RANKING: BOTTOM 10 STATE RECYCLING % RECYCLING RATE RATE REFUND #1 Maine 76% Yes #41 Nebraska 9% No #2 Iowa 68% Yes #42 New Mexico 9% No #3 New York 61% Yes #43 Oklahoma 8% No #4 Ve
Slide 15: US Glass Bottles and Jars Recycling Rates by State
US GLASS BOTTLES AND JARS RECYCLING RATES BY STATE 22% NEW HAMPSHIRE 27% #4 57% WASHINGTON VERMONT #7 14% 28% #9 76% #1 MONTANA NORTH MAINE 57% #5 DAKOTA MASSACHUSETTS 51% 46% OREGON MINNESOTA 15% 30% 40% 0% IDAHO SOUTH #6 #3 61% WISCONSIN NEW YORK RHODE ISLAND 14% DAKOTA #2 53% WYOMING MICHIGAN #10
Slide 16: Impact Analysis
Impact Analysis ee THE 50 Ze $333 | STATES OF @eee | RECYCLING
Slide 17: The Real Recycling Rate Measures Material Actually Recycled
THE REAL RECYCLING RATE MEASURES THE QUANTITY OF MATERIAL THAT IS ACTUALLY RECYCLED AND RE-INCORPORATED INTO A NEW PRODUCT Collection and recycling are not synonymous, as the quantity of material collected for recycling today is often greater than what is actually processed and recycled into new pro
Slide 18: Material Loss Rates Under Different Collection Modalities
MATERIAL LOSS RATES UNDER DIFFERENT COLLECTION MODALITIES The real recycling rate accounts for material losses throughout the recycling value chain from collection to processing. The graph on the left details losses for material collected through single stream systems. The difference between the col
Slide 19: Recycling Preserves the Value of Materials
RECYCLING PRESERVES THE VALUE OF MATERIALS Since not all material is recycled in a closed-loop and large volumes of material go to recycling applications that limit the ability of the material to be recycled again. Much of this non-closed-loop recycling has a % OF VALUE COLLECTED lower monetary valu
Slide 20: Closed Loop Recycling
CLOSED LOOP RECYCLING A closed-loop system enables materials to not only be collected and repurposed once but channeled back into systems multiple times. Currently less than 20% of all packaging waste (not including FFP) generated in the U.S. is of sufficient quality to be recycled through closed lo
Slide 21: The 10 States with Recycling Refunds Represent…
THE 10 STATES WITH RECYCLING REFUNDS REPRESENT… 100% 80% 60% 66% 60% RR SHARE OF PET RR SHARE OF BEVERAGE CONTAINERS 50% 51% 51% 51% BOTTLES RECYCLED IN THE 40% 47% RR SHARE OF ALL RR SHARE OF RR SHARE OF BEVERAGE RR SHARE OF GLASS BOTTLES & RR SHARE OF ALUMINUM CANS RECYCLED NATIONALLY CLOSED LOOP
Slide 22: Beverage Container Recycling Rates in RR States vs. Non-RR States
COMPARED BEVERAGE CONTAINER RECYCLING RATES IN RR STATES VS. NON-RR STATES States with recycling refunds achieve much high recycling rates for beverage containers than states without
Slide 23: Redemption Rates in Recycling Refund States Have Decreased
REDEMPTION RATES IN RECYCLING REFUND STATES HAVE DECREASED OVER TIME. MODERNIZATION AND HARMONIZATION IS NEEDED Source: Container Recycling Institute & ReLoop
Slide 24: US Recycling Refund States vs. World Benchmarks
US RECYCLING REFUND STATES STILL HAVE PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITIES TO CATCH UP AGAINST WORLD’S BENCHMARKS RETURN RATES OF EVERY RECYCLING REFUND SYSTEM IN THE WORLD US Source: Container Recycling Institute & ReLoop
Slide 25: RR States Perform Well but Modernization Is Needed
WHILE RR STATES PERFORM WELL MODERNIZATION IS NEEDED: THE NEED TO EXPAND TO INCLUDE NEARLY ALL BEVERAGE CONTAINERS While RR states achieve higher recycling rates in Non-RR States – it's important to recognize these programs need to be modernized Most RR states only place a deposit on a portion of th
Slide 26: Characteristics of a Modernized, High Performing Recycling Refunds Program
CHARACTERISTICS OF A MODERNIZED AND HIGH PERFORMING RECYCLING REFUNDS PROGRAM Create Consumer-Driven and Include All Beverage Containers of All Convenient Return Points Sizes and Formats COMBINING RR AND EPR FOR EXTRA CONVENIENCE British Columbia (Canada) empowers producers to design and manage diff
Slide 27: 50 States of Recycling 2.0: Case Studies
50 States of Recycling 2.0: Case Studies
Slide 28: State Policy Case Studies
STATE POLICY CASE STUDIES MODERNIZING POLICIES TO MATCH BEST IN CLASS RR: Impact Assessment in the Northeast: This analysis illustrates Geographic Scope of State Deep Dives the impact of modernizing these RR based on best-in-class principles to maximize beverage containers recycled, create program e
Slide 29: Northeast Case Study: Modernizing Policies to Match Best in Class RR
Northeast Case Study: Modernizing Policies To Match Best In Class RR
Slide 30: Impacts of Modernizing Recycling Refunds in the Northeast
IMPACTS OF MODERNIZING RECYCLING REFUNDS IN THE NORTHEAST Over 27 billion containers would be recycled when an optimized RR is delivered alongside existing curbside containers. • 9 billion more containers than currently recycled. 1.8 million tons of recycled content to support circular supply chains
Slide 31: Impact of EPR + RR Case Studies
Impact Of EPR + RR Casestudies
Slide 32: Implementing EPR + RR Programs Together Provides Many Benefits
IMPLEMENTING EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY (EPR) + RECYCLING REFUNDS (RR) PROGRAMS TOGETHER PROVIDES A MULTITUDE OF BENEFITS Accelerates Maximum Recovery Rates to Maximize Co-Develop Programs to Drive Efficiency: Develop Environmental Benefits: Achieves highest infrastructure in tandem to maximiz
Slide 33: Protect and Enhance Local Recycling Programs
PROTECT AND ENHANCE LOCAL RECYCLING PROGRAMS Shifts Financial Responsibility: Well-designed EPR policies can provide a more stable source of funding for MRFs and financially offset the loss of beverage containers to a RR system. Under EPR, producers become financially responsible for end-of-life man
Slide 34: Timeline of Policy Implementation
TIMELINE OF POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
Slide 35: Washington State Case Study: Impact of EPR+RR
Washington State Case Study : Impact of EPR+RR
Slide 36: Washington
WASHINGTON (6 RECYCLING RATE ) WITHOUT FIBER AND FLEXIBLE PLASTICS (FFP) RANKING RECYCLING RANK @aqy = #15 & RECYCLING RANK [ 2018 } #1 5 @) POPULATION 7,740,745 ZETMATED POPULATION WITH ACCESS 0 CENSUS SUB REGION PACIFIC LING: 89 © RECYCLING REFUND STATE NO @ bata Quatity oop FAIR LIMITED ANALYSIS
Slide 37: Case Study: Washington (EPR Only)
CASE STUDY WASHINGTON (sox recycuncrate MMe WITHOUT FIBER AND FLEXIBLE PLASTICS (FFP) @) HIGHLIGHTS The implementation of EPR could substantially impact recycling rates in WA. Currently, the recycling rate for ‘Packaging without FFP’ is 26%, but with EPR, it could potentially increase to 59%. The re
Slide 38: Case Study: Washington (EPR + RR)
CASE STUDY WASHINGTON WITHOUT FIBER AND FLEXIBLE PLASTICS (FFP) @) HIGHLIGHTS If WA were to implement RR+EPR legislation, there's a potential for significant improvements in recycling rates compared to the ‘EPR only’ scenario. The overall recycling rates for ‘Packaging (3) without FFP’, currently at
Slide 39: EPR + RR Delivers Better Performance at Faster Pace for Washington
EPR + RR DELIVERS BETTER PERFORMANCE AT FASTER PACE – DELIVERING MAXIMUM RECYCLING RATES FOR WASHINGTON Impact of Policy on Recycling Rates in Washington Excluding FFP Well-designed RR programs can achieve 90% recovery within just a few years while EPR programs take 5-10 years to achieve peak recycl
Slide 40: EPR + RR for Washington Beverage Containers
EPR + RR DELIVERS BETTER PERFORMANCE AT FASTER PACE – DELIVERING MAXIMUM RECYCLING RATES FOR WASHINGTON BEVERAGE CONTAINERS While EPR can be an important first step to increasing recycling rates for beverage Impact of Policy on Beverage Container Recycling in Washington packaging, relying on EPR alo
Slide 41: Cumulative Tons Recycled Over 15 Years (Including FFP)
IMPACT OF POLICY ON CUMULATIVE TONS RECYCLED OVER 15 YEARS (INCLUDING FFP)
Slide 42: Cumulative Packaging Tons Recycled Over 15 Years (Excluding FFP)
IMPACT OF POLICY ON CUMULATIVE PACKAGING TONS RECYCLED OVER 15 YEARS (EXCLUDING FFP)
Slide 43: Cumulative Beverage Container Tons Recycled Over 15 Years
IMPACT OF POLICY ON CUMULATIVE BEVERAGE CONTAINER TONS RECYCLED OVER 15 YEARS
Slide 44: Washington Closed-Loop Recycling Potential
WASHINGTON CLOSED-LOOP RECYCLING POTENTIAL Recycling Refunds achieve máximum Recycling rates while also enabling higher-quality recycled content, which increases closed-loop recycling for beverage containers. • At full implementation, EPR improves the amount of beverage container recycling in a clos
Slide 45: Washington: Economic and Environmental Outcomes of EPR + RR
WASHINGTON @) CURRENT STATE OF RECYCLING + In 2021, Washington recycled approximately 25% of packaging materials without FFP. This recycling performance increases to 46% when considering materials with FFP. + The value of the material captured for recycling was $69 million, just 47% of the total val
Slide 46: Colorado Case Study: Impact of EPR+RR
Colorado Case Study : Impact of EPR+RR
Slide 47: Colorado Packaging Recycling Rate
Packaging Recycling Rate Without FFP COLORADO G RECYCLING RATE) WITHOUT FIBER AND FLEXIBLE PLASTICS (FFP) Material Value Captured Without FFP Beverage Containers Aluminum RANKING cans © RECYCLING RANK @py «= #41 Ov RECYCLING RANK @27E> #35 @ POPULATION 5,811,297 Glass Bottles & Jars 00: 11% 11% 12%
Slide 48: Case Study: Colorado (EPR Only)
CASE STUDY COLORADO (ror recyc no Rate ues WITHOUT FIBER AND FLEXIBLE PLASTICS (FFP) @) HIGHLIGHTS The introduction of EPR holds the potential to significantly transform recycling rates in Colorado. Presently, the recycling rate for ‘Packaging without FFP! stands at 11%, but with EPR, there's a poss
Slide 49: Case Study: Colorado (EPR + RR)
CASE STUDY COLORADO [ 82% RECYCLING RATE AMUSE WITHOUT FIBER AND FLEXIBLE PLASTICS (FFP) @) HIGHLIGHTS If Colorado implements EPR+RR legislation, recycling rates could see significant improvement compared to 'EPR only: Recycling rates for ‘Packaging without FFP; currently at 11%, might rise to 82% w
Slide 50: EPR + RR Delivers Better Performance for Colorado
EPR + RR DELIVERS BETTER PERFORMANCE AT FASTER PACE – DELIVERING MAXIMUM RECYCLING RATES FOR COLORADO Impact of Policy on Recycling Rates in Colorado Excluding FFP Well-designed RR programs can achieve 90% recovery within just a few years while EPR programs take 5-10 years to achieve peak recycling
Slide 51: EPR + RR for Colorado Beverage Containers
EPR + RR DELIVERS BETTER PERFORMANCE AT FASTER PACE – DELIVERING MAXIMUM RECYCLING RATES FOR COLORADO BEVERAGE CONTAINERS Impact of Policy on Beverage Container Recycling in Colorado Baseline: 30% recycling rate EPR alone is estimated to achieve a peak recycling rate of 54% within 9 years However, E
Slide 52: Cumulative Tons Recycled Over 15 Years (Including FFP)
IMPACT OF POLICY ON CUMULATIVE TONS RECYCLED OVER 15 YEARS (INCLUDING FFP)
Slide 53: Cumulative Packaging Tons Recycled Over 15 Years (Excluding FFP)
IMPACT OF POLICY ON CUMULATIVE PACKAGING TONS RECYCLED OVER 15 YEARS (EXCLUDING FFP)
Slide 54: Cumulative Beverage Container Tons Recycled Over 15 Years
IMPACT OF POLICY ON CUMULATIVE BEVERAGE CONTAINER TONS RECYCLED OVER 15 YEARS
Slide 55: Closed Loop Recycling and Material Value Captured Under Policy Scenarios
CLOSED LOOP RECYCLING AND MATERIAL VALUE CAPTURED UNDER DIFFERENT POLICY SCENARIOS CLOSED-LOOP RECYCLING IMPACTS A system with RR creates a less contaminated material stream that enables more closed-loop recycling for beverage containers specifically. • At full implementation, EPR alone improves the
Slide 56: Colorado: Economic and Environmental Outcomes of EPR + RR
X& CO LO RAD 6) THE ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES OF WELL-DESIGNED EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY (EPR) + RECYCLING REFUND (RR) PROGRAMS EPR assumes an overall recycling rate of 65% for residential packaging @ CURRENT STATE OF RECYCLING and RR assumes a 90% recycling rate for beverage contai
Slide 57: Conclusions
Conclusions es THE 50 Bs $338 | STATES OF e@eee | RECYCLING
Slide 58: Current Closed Loop Recycling (%) W/O FFP
CURRENT CLOSED LOOP RECYCLING (%) W/O FFP 6% NEW HAMPSHIRE 13% 33% VERMONT WASHINGTON 3% 4% 55% MONTANA NORTH 20% MAINE 26% DAKOTA MASSACHUSETTS 34% MINNESOTA OREGON 4% 5% 13% 38% IDAHO SOUTH WISCONSIN NEW YORK 10% 4% DAKOTA 30% RHODE ISLAND WYOMING MICHIGAN 41% 31% 6% IOWA 13% CONNECTICUT 7% PENNSY
Slide 59: Future State EPR+RR: Closed Loop Recycling (%) W/O FFP
FUTURE STATE EPR+RR: CLOSED LOOP RECYCLING (%) W/O FFP 53% NEW HAMPSHIRE 46% 55% VERMONT WASHINGTON 50% 52% 55% MONTANA NORTH 55% MAINE 54% DAKOTA MASSACHUSETTS 57% MINNESOTA OREGON 50% 52% 48% 57% IDAHO SOUTH WISCONSIN NEW YORK 48% 51% DAKOTA 52% RHODE ISLAND WYOMING MICHIGAN 50% 60% 58% IOWA 49% C
Slide 60: Economic & Environmental Outcomes of Well-Designed EPR+RR at a National Level
ECONOMIC & ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES OF WELL-DESIGNED EPR+RR AT A NATIONAL LEVEL Nationally a 24% recycling rate provide approximately $35 billion in economic and environmental benefits annually. If effective recycling policies were enacted nationwide such as pairing Extended Producer Policy alongside
Slide 61: Conclusions for Policy Makers
CONCLUSIONS FOR POLICY MAKERS RECYCLING REFUND STATES REPRESENT BENEFITS OF EPR+RR POLICY APPROACH EMPOWERING CHANGE • 9 of the top 10 states with the highest • EPR can be an important first step to • This is the first report the models recycling rates increasing recycling rates for beverage the out
Slide 62: Forward-Looking Statements
Forward-Looking Statements This release contains “forward-looking” statements concerning future events and financial performance. Words such as “expects,” “anticipates,” “estimates,” “believes,” and similar expressions typically identify forward looking statements, which are generally any statements