Lowering carbon emissions from beauty packaging is essential to reduce the impact of the industry, in the fight against climate change. The carbon footprint of packaging solutions encompasses their entire lifecycle, from material extraction to end of life. It is a complex issue, but technological advances are improving data collection and calculation methods, helping brands to make more informed purchasing choices.
Despite much debate, target setting and good intentions, the impact of cosmetics packaging on the environment remains significant. Estimates vary but, on average, the beauty industry produces over 120 billion units of packaging globally, with 70% ending up in landfill. According to research from the British Beauty Council, 86% of plastic packaging for beauty products is not recycled. A 2024 survey by CleanHub paints an even bleaker picture: 95% of beauty packaging is discarded after use. Regulatory and consumer pressure is addressing the issue of packaging waste – although much remains to be done in that sense – but it is only a part of the picture. The broader subject of carbon emissions is an enormous and very complex issue to confro
Classifying emissions
To reduce the emissions caused by beauty packaging, we first need to be able to measure them. Carbon footprint refers to the total greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions – both direct and indirect – caused by individuals, organizations or products, expressed in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2 eq). In order to help understand and manage carbon footprint, emissions have been categorized into three ‘scopes’, according to their source:
- Scope 1 emissions are direct emissions from owned or controlled sources. This could come from manufacturing products in a factory or burning fuel in company cars.
- Scope 2 emissions are indirect emissions from purchased energy, like the electricity generated by third-party providers for use in office buildings or factories.
- Scope 3 emissions encompass all other indirect emissions in the value chain, including upstream and downstream activities.
While statistics of the industry’s impact do not make for comfortable reading, important progress has been achieved in reducing carbon emissions, particularly in Scopes 1 and 2. Initiatives like switching to renewable energy, changing to LED lighting, recycling office waste and cutting back on unnecessary business travel have produced some quick wins. Now is the time to concentrate on Scope 3, which is the biggest to tackle, but will also make the biggest difference.
Packaging accounts for much of beauty brands’ Scope 3 carbon emissions, relating to ‘purchased goods and services’. Reducing these emissions presents a real challenge. Besides the basic pack design, raw material sourcing, transport and the transformation process must be considered.
Calculation methods
All stages of beauty packaging – sourcing, design, conversion, as well as end of life – need to be measured to determine its overall carbon footprint. For brands, it is essential to receive reliable data from their suppliers to calculate their Scope 3 emissions. The two main calculation methodologies are ‘spend-based’ and ‘weight-based’. Spend-based carbon accounting estimates emissions based on the financial cost of a product, multiplied by an emission factor. This method is useful when data is hard to obtain, but it is not very precise and is prone to price distortions.
Weight-based (or activity-based) carbon accounting is much more accurate, as it uses physical quantities or activities to calculate emissions. However, it requires collecting detailed data and dedicated systems to carry out the calculations. Companies like Quadpack use a hybrid approach, using weight-based calculations wherever possible and spend-based estimates where hard data is not available.
To measure the carbon footprint of specific beauty packaging solutions, emissions data of their full life cycle is included in life-cycle assessments (LCAs). LCAs look at indicators such as waste potential, water use and, of course, carbon emissions. They can be a useful tool for comparison, between the impact of using virgin plastic and PCR components, for example, or between a single use and five uses of a refillable pack. Interpreting the data can be hard at first, but it is a worthwhile exercise, allowing brands to use the emission factors for their Scope 3 purchased goods and services calculatio
Product design
Reducing emissions from beauty packaging starts on the drawing board. Material choice, configuration, refillability, reusability and weight all contribute to a pack’s carbon footprint and can be mitigated from the outset. For example, monomaterial design encourages recycling, as the pack will not require dismantling before it is thrown into the correct container. Multimaterial packs can be a good option, provided they are easily separated and consumers are willing to make the effort. Even if they are, not all sorting machines are set up to capture the smaller sizes used for cosmetics. Recycling stations need to be adapted if those alarmingly high waste figures are to come down. Advocacy, awareness, consumer pressure and government incentives are urgently required to address this much-overlooked issue.
Circular design like refillable packaging is a surefire way to drastically reduce a product’s carbon footprint with multiple uses. While there is no shortage of refillable solutions offered to brands, retail logistics and consumer engagement are twin barriers to their uptake. Nevertheless, they are slowly gaining in popularity across all segments, from mass market to luxury. Packaging designed for a second life – a jar as a jewellery box, for instance – will also lower its impact, although not all formats are suited for the purpose.
Of course, minimizing the total amount of material has a big impact on emissions reduction. For beauty brands, this can present a real challenge, especially in the prestige segment, where look-and-feel is paramount for differentiation. However, smart design and expertly-applied decoration techniques can elevate a lightweighted packaging solution into the realm of luxury.
Material matters
Choosing which material to use is far from easy. The topic of materials is a minefield. Most plastics are made from fossil fuels and therefore contribute towards climate change. One kilogram of plastic creates approximately three kilograms of CO2 during manufacture, so reducing plastic content is a critical issue.
If plastics are used, the material input should at least be recyclable, such as PET and PP. Using recycled plastics goes a step further by reducing waste and creating a circular loop. Recycled materials come either from production scrap (post-industrial recycled or PIR) or domestic waste streams (post-consumer recycled or PCR). Regulations like the upcoming PPWR are pushing the industry to increase PCR content, so now the race is on to scale up the infrastructure to meet demand.
‘Natural’ materials also come with trade-offs. Glass is natural and recyclable, but takes an enormous amount of energy to smelt and recycle, and is heavy to transport. Aluminum is endlessly recyclable with no loss of quality, but is energy-intensive to extract. Even bio-plastics come with logistical and structural challenges. Wood is one of the most environmentally-friendly options, if sourced from sustainably-managed forests and used in monomaterial designs. Even without a domestic waste stream, tests have shown it to be generally safe and non-toxic, including after conversion and finishing.1 Moreover, young forests are a more efficient carbon sink than old ones, making them an active participant in the fight against climate change.
Conversion emissions
The manufacture of packaging solutions is responsible for much of the industry’s emissions. Many brands are starting to look closer to home when selecting packaging partners, to reduce transport emissions. Packagers servicing a global client base are rethinking business models, in order to deliver solutions locally – through co-manufacturing and other collaborative initiatives.
On a factory level, the primary focus is efficiency. Production processes are being optimized with the help of technology, from manufacturing execution systems to Industry 4.0, increasingly powered by artificial intelligence. Production scrap is being minimized and, in the case of wood, can even be used to power the facilities. Emissions control systems like regenerative thermal oxidizers can convert volatile organic compounds into harmless substances.
Regenerative beauty
Sustainability is a journey that is constantly evolving, a dynamic process of continuous improvement. Carbon emission factors are being refined all the time and reporting must adapt accordingly. What is clear is that the time for ‘easy wins’ has passed. Now, the industry must invest in long-term measures, to reduce the carbon footprint of beauty packaging. This cannot be a lone effort. All players in the value chain are implicated and need to look beyond their own operations. The real difference will made through collective action, with partners and customers.
The B Beauty Coalition – an alliance of B Corporations in the cosmetics sector – demonstrates a willingness in the industry to work together to address the issues, envisioning a world where beauty is not only skin-deep, but also regenerative. Its aim is “to lead the beauty industry towards a future where every product enhances both individual well-being and the health of our planet and people, creating a ripple effect of positive impact for generations to come.” The moment has come to create real momentum.
References:
1 Evidenced by eco-toxicity tests at ITENE Research Center, meeting the criteria set out in EN 13432-2001 annex E modifying OECD 208:2006.
Marleen Swart
Sustainability Director, Quadpack,
Barcelona, Spain,
www.quadpack.com