It's the line on every aluminium window brochure: infinitely recyclable, close the loop, good for the planet. It's also true. Aluminium really can be melted down and reused over and over with a fraction of the energy of making it new. The problem isn't the claim — it's that "recyclable" gets used as if it settles the sustainability question, when it's only one of three words that matter, and the weakest of them.
Three words, three different meanings
Recyclability is a property of the material: can this be recycled? For aluminium, yes, essentially forever. Recycled content is about what went in: how much of the metal in this frame was already recycled when it was made? And recovery is what happens at the end: does the frame actually get pulled out and recycled, or does it go to landfill with the demolition? Three separate questions — and only the last two change anything in the real world.
A fully recyclable frame made from brand-new metal is still brand-new metal.
Why recycled content is the one that counts
Here's the link people miss: recyclability doesn't move the carbon, but recycled content does. Making aluminium from recycled scrap carries only a fraction of the embodied carbon of making it from primary ore. So two frames can both be "100% recyclable" and have wildly different footprints — the one made with high recycled content starts far lower. If you're reporting a window as a sustainability win on recyclability alone, you've said the easy, true thing and skipped the one that actually shows up in the numbers. (This is why recyclability and embodied carbon belong in the same conversation.)
What the schemes are starting to want
Green Star and the broader circular-economy push are moving past "is it recyclable" toward "how much recycled content, and what's the end-of-life plan." It's the same direction of travel as embodied carbon: a claim that used to be a tick is becoming a figure you have to back. For a window that means knowing the recycled content and the recoverable fraction of the actual system, not quoting the material's theoretical best case.
BTW gives you a screening read on this — recyclability, recycled content and end-of-life tiers estimated from the system's materials, sitting right next to the embodied-carbon estimate from the same model. It won't replace a certified EPD, but it stops you leaning on the one word that sounds good and proves least. As with a lot of this, there isn't much rigorous, window-specific work on it in Australia yet — which is precisely why "it's recyclable" has been able to do so much heavy lifting for so long.
Know what your frame's actually made of.
Send us a system and we'll return a screening read on its recyclability, recycled content and end-of-life alongside its embodied carbon — so your sustainability claim rests on the number that counts, not just the one that sounds good.
Check one system → Try BTW yourself →About these figures. Recyclability, recycled-content and end-of-life results from BTW are a screening estimate derived from the system's materials — indicative, not a certified EPD or a full life-cycle assessment, and dependent on the recycled-content and recovery data available for the specific system. BTW models glazed façade products (windows, doors, glazing). AFRC Lab (Advanced Fenestration Research & Certification) is an independent consultancy; it is not the AFRC and is not affiliated with WERS or the Australian Fenestration Rating Council.