Improving the carbon footprint: COSSMA

photos: photo: J.M. Image Factory/Shutterstock.com

With further sustainable developments it is possible to reduce the negative impact of cosmetics packaging on the environment. Lighter packaging, recyclable or recycled raw materials and disclosure of life cycle assessments (LCAs) can achieve a lot here. Lyne Hélène Bouchard knows what is important.

Packaging impacts the environment – that is a simple fact. Minimising that impact, however, is far from straightforward. New solutions must be assessed in a global context, considering the big picture. Three of the biggest environmental challenges faced by the beauty packaging industry today are the waste cri-sis, the carbon crisis and the confusion surrounding sustainability, amid misinformation and greenwashing. As brands and providers work to develop sustainable solutions, each one of these areas must be addressed.

Let’s take a closer look at these challenges, starting with the waste crisis. A sustained year-on-year increase of waste is causing damage to the world’s ecosystems. Today, 90% of marine debris is plastic¹. Global plastic waste equates to 48 million Olympic swimming pools in volume.

The carbon crisis is equally worrying. Some 36.57 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) are emitted into the atmosphere worldwide each year². Emissions of carbon, along with methane, are the leading cause of global warming and climate change.

The third is a little different, but no less serious. It is an information crisis, an imperfect understanding of what is and what is not sustainable. Whatever the agenda or cause, there is a host of bad information mixed in with the good. We are continually being bombarded with contradictory, misleading, and incorrect data. Until a global consensus is created, supported by clear labelling of pro-ducts, there is no easy way to determine the true facts.

figure 1: Overview of the changes in the LCA values of Quadpack’s Regula jar when different materials are used. figure: Quadpack

External pressures

The one thing that is clear, is that we must deal with these crises quickly. They affect us all, and not just us, but our children and future generations, too. The pressure is on for beauty brands to make responsible choices to address these problems. National, regional, and global initiatives are setting targets for packaging in terms of increasing recycled content, recyclability, reusability and compostability, as well as for pha-sing out single-use plastics. These pacts include the EU Plastics Stra-tegy, the worldwide Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s Plastic Pact Network, the European Plastics Pact, the UK Plastics Pact, the Australian Packaging Covenant (APCO) and the Pacte National sur les Emballages Plastiques in France.

In addition, beauty brands are being pressured by consumers, who are changing their purchase behaviour. A CGS study last year showed that a quarter of US and UK customers would pay a premium of up to 25% for a sustainable alternative to a stan-dard product. A Global Web Index survey revealed that 43% of UK female internet users would pay more for cosmetics if the packaging was eco-friendly. In Brazil, a 2020 Mintel study showed that 55% of female skincare users aged 35 – 44 would like to purchase more refill products.

So how do beauty brands minimise the impact of their packaging? There are many ways to achieve a degree of sustainability, from eco-design to the use of recycled materials. In terms of product development, packaging providers should aim to control their impact of its packaging solutions. Through lifecycle assessments and sustainability ratings, transforming their portfolio and helping clients on their own sustainable journey.

Measuring the impact

Life cycle assessments (LCAs) are the most effective method of measuring the environmental impact of a pack from cradle to grave. A typical life cycle goes from extraction of raw materials, manufacturing, and distribution, through use, all the way to disposal or recycling. An LCA takes each of these stages into consideration to understand the true impact of a pack.

There are many different LCA tools on the market, such as Compass by GreenBlue, eToolLCD, PackageSmart by EarthShift Global and the GaBi Packaging Calculator.

Quadpack uses Piqet to conduct LCAs. For each product assessed, a report is generated, presenting data on several KPIs (key performance indicators). Selected in consultation with stakeholders, the company reports on eight KPIs, including climate change, water use, water resource depletion, cumulative energy demand, circularity index, solid waste, and marine and terrestrial litter potential in kg/days. Two metrics are highlighted: carbon footprint and circularity.

Carbon footprint looks at the amount of CO2 that a pack generates throughout its entire life. Circularity refers to the circular economy, which looks to eliminate waste, keep materials and products in use, and regenerate natural systems like sustainably managed forests. In the framework of an LCA, circularity refers to how restorative a pack is through indicators such as recyclability and reusability.

LCAs offer a quantifiable framework to compare data, an unambiguous methodology to eradicate greenwashing. They ensure product traceability and transparency, empowering brands and consumers alike to make more informed packaging decisions.

figure 2: Development of the LCA value of Quadpack’s Regula Airless pack when it is converted to a refill system. figure: Quadpack

Sustainability attributes

Packaging solutions with a positive life cycle assessment have been designed from the ground up to be sustainable. There are many indicators of sustainability and every person, company or brand has its own definition of what it means. Quadpack measures six attributes to indicate a product’s impact:

Reduce: reduced amount of material used, or the amount of energy used to produce it.
Reuse: refill system or reusable format.
Replace: materials replaced with sustainable alternatives like recyclable and/or biodegradable sources.
Recycled material: packs made of post-consumer recycled material.
Recycle: recyclable packs.
Biodegradable/compostable: packs that can disintegrate without leaving permanent microplastics behind.

Quadpack combines the number of sustainable attributes with the two LCA metrics to classify its products’ sustainability into four levels, from minimal, through to intermediate and advanced, to the ultimate goal of positive-impact packaging. The latter indicates a product which is truly circular, plastic-free and biodegradable.

From theory to reality

Let’s look at two interesting exam-ples: One very popular jar³ is on just such a positive-impact journey. Its standard version in SAN has undergone an eco-design process to reduce its impact, taking it from minimal to advanced sustainability.

It has been light weighted, reducing material content by up to 40%, but retaining the same size impression, ensuring its aesthetics are not compromised. Less material often means less weight, further reducing carbon footprint in transportation. SAN has been exchanged for pcrPET (or other PCR material) and it has become recyclable. To reach the highest level, the next phase may involve making it refillable and/or biodegradable.

In data terms, the jar’s carbon footprint has been reduced by two thirds, from 0.35kg to 0.12kg, while circularity has improved from 0.009 to 0.55 (1 being the ideal), which is even better than glass in terms of CO2 emissions, water use, circularity index and solid waste.

On the other hand, glass wins in terms of impact on marine and terres-trial waste potential, water depletion and cumulative energy demand. It is this kind of data that allows brands to compare products and make informed decisions, according to their own sustainability priorities.

A similar treatment was given to an airless pack⁴. Airless packaging is great to protect natural and organic cosmetics products, but they need to evolve if they are to become sustainable. The eco-design process introduced a refill capability. Retaining the exterior dimensions and aspect, it looks and feels the same.

For brands, making the switch to a refill is easy. The filling process remains unchanged and no investment is needed to change to the refill version. For the consumer, the refill is removed and reloaded with a simple twist. rPET material is used for the base and cap, while the whole pack is fully recyclable. This pack’s journey has not finished either, however. The next phase may involve biodegradable material, for instance.

The data reveals a great improvement over the standard, non-refillable SAN version. Carbon footprint drops by more than a half, from 0.35kg to 0.16kg, and the circularity index increases from 0.05 to 0.69, a circularity improvement of 69% – impressive for an airless pack.

A sustainable future

We need to face reality. Solutions need to be found to face the environmental crises of waste, carbon emissions and disinformation. With optimised design, production, and logistics processes, coupled with measurable data for transparency, we can continue the journey towards sustainability. And it is an ongoing one, with continual improvements in the way we approach package design and use – beyond products, on all levels, including processes and behaviours.

Sustainability is for life. Packaging needs to become part of the solution. By working together, we can envision a world in which packaging has a positive impact on people and the planet.