Monomaterial:Less is more

COSSMA: How did research into cosmetic packaging made from monomaterials come about?

Maud Lelièvre: It is a subject related to sustainability and more specifically to the recyclability and recycling of packaging. The current objective for materials – which are becoming rare – is to use them several times by entering them into a circular economy process. The principle of using recyclable materials in the packaging is clearly acquired by the brands, but we must also ensure that the packaging is actually recycled. So, as far as possible, we must think about the design of monomaterial packaging from the start. Because these are the best to recycle.

What materials are we talking about?

In the cosmetics industry, we use a selection of materials that we know will actually be recycled and are not just declared as recyclable. These include mainly PP (Polypropylene), PE (polyethylene), PET (Polyethylene terephthalate), paper/cardboard, aluminium, and stainless steel, also depending on the existing recycling chains. Some are well established, others in progress, with, let us note, strong geographical disparities at the international level. In any case, it is virtuous to adopt a long-term mindset and to use materials that we know are easily recyclable.

What are the limits to the design of mono-material packaging?

There are indeed limits. Remember that the packaging plays a protective role for the formula and therefore the consumer. Cosmetic tubes can be monolayer or multilayer – possibly in PCR – and brands are responsible for carrying out compatibility tests. We can kindly invite them to multiply these tests to find an optimised compromise between number of layers/materials and safety.

It should also be noted that the concept of packaging with applicator is now part of the user experience, which should provide well-being. The use of monomaterial is not always possible. But it is possible to solve the problem by offering removable and reusable applicators on refills which can be in recyclable monomaterial, also possibly from PCR material.

For independent applicators, there are several options. We can resume the design by minimising the number of parts, which often goes with the number of materials used, and reducing their weight. Let’s mention a ridoki (massage roller for face care) with a metal tip. Three years ago, it could be composed of a handle, itself composed of three parts in three different materials, then of a fixed stainless-steel roller. Today, this ridoki has a mono-material handle whereby weight has been reduced by 30% and a removable, reusable, and recyclable stainless-steel roller.

As for the brushes, which have undergone an incredible evolution over the past 40 years, the challenge was to eliminate the ferrule and the glue and to have a material that could be used in the composition of the handle and the tuft, while ensuring outstanding user experience and cosmetic performance: sensory experience and efficiency on application.

What is ultimately at stake and what are the prospects?

The challenge is to design packaging that meets the criteria of protection, safety, efficiency, desirability, and well-being, while preserving the environment and resources.

Plastic has become a high value-added material with many advantages, which is not so easy to replace. And it remains a challenge to design a monomaterial packaging made of plastic, although the craze for solid formulas has led to thinking about it and has led to innovations. It is possible today to find a stick in plastic monomaterial, waterproof, refillable, and recyclable.

It’s not just plastic. We are seeing more and more exploration of paper and cardboard solutions even if they are still often associated with polymer lamination and are used in the design of simple packaging. The challenge will therefore be to design and develop elaborate paper/cardboard packaging, offering a real user experience, in addition to their ecological qualities. It stimulates creativity!