The question of, ‘what makes a formula sustainable?’ has finally been asked enough that regulators and cosmetic brands are now focusing on the ‘ecological footprint’ of a formula to ensure it is not guilty of ‘greenwashing’. While an ‘ecological footprint’ can be much more easily defined, it can be harder to research and calculate! This article will talk you through steps your brand can take to improve its ecological footprint – an essential element to start thinking about, and integrating, as consumers demand transparency in label claims.
Exactly what is an ecological footprint?
The ecological footprint of a product takes into account all environmental resources used in the creation of a product and its ingredients. This includes renewability of source materials, processing methods used to turn the original material into its useable form, the resources used throughout procurement, processing used to create the final product, its’ packaging, and even shipping to its’ final destination. Your brand can also get bonus points if it supports a local community by its ingredient choices.
What does this look like for a cosmetic ingredient?
The best way to explain the ecological footprint of a cosmetic ingredient is to use some examples.
Example 1: In our first example, let’s say we want to use naturally derived esters in our cosmetic formula. To create naturally derived esters we start with sourcing natural raw materials: the fatty acid and fatty alcohol can both be readily obtained from renewable sources (plant oils). However, this seemingly simple story is complicated by several other factors:
- natural fatty acids and fatty alcohols are commonly obtained from abundant sources of short-chain triglycerides, such as coconut or palm oil;
- the starting sources, the coconut or palm oil, may be impacting the local environment unless they are RSPO certified (or otherwise certified to show sustainable harvesting and minimal impact on the surrounding communities and animals);
- fatty acids are most commonly obtained using high temperature and high pressure from the starting oil (creating a significant carbon footprint for the fatty acid created);
- fatty alcohols are most commonly obtained from the fatty acids using another processing step with high temperature and pressure (again, adding to the carbon footprint of the final material);
- the final esterification step commonly combines these already carbon-loaded fatty acids and fatty alcohols in a final processing step at high temperatures with the use of a catalyst (increasing the carbon footprint of the final material yet again).
So, our ‘naturally derived ester’ could be from a non-certified source (meaning its renewability is in question), its impact on the local community could be in question, and it may have undergone three very energy (carbon using) intensive processing steps. We haven’t even considered the carbon footprint of transporting the source materials to the manufacturing facility, or the distance the final material then travels to reach the cosmetic manufacturer who will be using it. Imagine if I was a Canadian company who sourced this non-traceable, carbon-loaded material from a raw material supplier in Europe, who obtained their original non-RSPO material from Malaysia… what an inefficient way to source what a consumer might then be deceived into believing is ‘sustainable’ simply because it contains an ingredient that has naturally derived input! If you are a cosmetic brand using such a material, then you have chosen an ingredient with a very bad ecological footprint.
Quickly identify ingredients by claims such as “organic”, “natural”, “free of” with Prospector Premium, learn more here!
Fortunately, we are seeing more and more raw material suppliers address these sorts of problems. See how one supplier has addressed this exact issue of carbon-intensive processing to provide esters with a greatly improved ecological profile in this video.
Example 2: In our next example, let’s say we are a company in Europe looking to make a body balm including shea butter. We can source a shea butter from a supplier near to us who imports from Africa, but cannot provide traceability of that material, nor the carbon footprint associated with the processing of that material. Alternatively, we can source a shea butter from another supplier who can provide full traceability back to the community where that shea butter was sourced, and can show how that material provides employment to countless local women, whilst also using traditional cultivating and processing methods with a very small carbon footprint. In this case, choosing the second source of shea butter not only confirms a low carbon source of the material, it is also ensuring the ongoing employment of locals to help improve their economy. If you are a cosmetic brand using a material with such traceability and evidence, you would then be choosing a cosmetic ingredient with a good ecological footprint.
How can a cosmetic company improve its’ ecological footprint?
The first and most obvious way a cosmetic company can improve its ecological footprint is to start investigating the ingredients it is using in all of its formulas. This can be as simple as contacting your current cosmetic suppliers and finding out if they have traceability and/or carbon footprint information about the ingredient/s in question, and where they don’t, start looking for suppliers that do have this information.
Another very important consideration is the logistical distance each of your cosmetic ingredients travel. The questions you should be asking, relative to each material, could include:
- could you be sourcing more locally?
- could your suppliers be obtaining their materials more locally?
- could you be sourcing more ingredients to support rural communities in an ecological manner?
- can some of your ingredients be altered to reduce the distance involved with sourcing, or to show support for local communities?
What if your cosmetic formula absolutely needs a certain cosmetic ingredient for stability, efficacy or other reasons, but it can’t be any of these things? Let’s keep it real – consumers ultimately want products that work, and your cosmetic brand won’t be successful if you can’t deliver a fantastic product that lives up to its marketing claims or the needs of your target market. So, if the rest of your formula has been ecologically responsible, there is nothing wrong with a proportionally low amount of your formula using non-ecological ingredients. Just make sure your cosmetic brand is making ecologically sound ingredient choices where it can, and then you are still giving consumers what they want: ecologically responsible products that deliver on their promises.
Discover how ULTRUS™ software can help with Sustainability and Product Compliance, learn more here!
Next, consider the processing involved in manufacturing the final product. Many cosmetic formulas need high temperatures as one of their processing steps. To be commercially suitable, these formulas then need relatively rapid cooling – both energy and/or resource intensive considerations. Could your brand move toward cold processing for some of its formulations? Again, there may be several products in a range that just can’t be created without heating and cooling steps, so could your manufacturer or facility potentially look at how to supplement their energy intensive processing steps with solar panels or similar renewable energy; and/or capturing water used in cooling jackets for first steps of cleaning or in recycled ways?
Just as important as the ingredients and the formulas itself is the packaging! Consider:
- has your cosmetic brand used the minimum packaging components possible to ensure safe shipping of the product, whilst meeting all regulatory obligations?
- is the packaging used recyclable (at least), and potentially using recycled or ecologically friendly materials?
- are you sourcing your packaging in an ecologically (logistically) responsible manner?
- is the packaging – all components included – light in weight to reduce the carbon loading when shipping the finished product to its final destinations? Glass may seem like a ‘natural’ option, but it not only requires very high temperatures to manufacture, it also needs extra padding and packaging to prevent breakages and adds significant weight – often triple the weight of shipping recycled plastic packaging – and thus adds dramatically to the carbon footprint of transporting a finished cosmetic product to its final point of sale.
What about water?
A discussion about water use in a cosmetic formula is always controversial. On one hand, the vast majority of consumers already know, love and trust the cosmetic products they currently use, which are predominantly water rich. On the other hand, we’ve seen countless attempts from various cosmetic brands to incorporate waterless product formulas into their product range, or replace some or all of the water in a formula with alternative sources.
Considering that water can make up to, and in some cases more than 80% of a cosmetic formulation, it is also expensive to ship. But, without that water, the formula just wouldn’t be the same, and your consumers may not be happy. Can you switch to waterless formulation types in some cases? Can you provide concentrated/reduced water input for any of your formulas, particularly if they are wash off products? Can you try incorporating water replacement sources, particularly those which are upcycled?
You may not be able to overcome the water challenge in some of your cosmetic formulations, but try to reduce your water usage where practical, or focus on implementing other ecological improvements to your formulas where they are more suited.
How does this look for cosmetic product claims?
Rather than make a standard claim about ‘sustainability’, your Research & Development department will need to determine how ecologically responsible your formula is. This means conducting the necessary investigations of all materials, processing steps, packaging used and even delivery of items, to calculate the ecological relevance of the product as a whole. See examples of how such calculations can be conducted on your formulas in this blog.
How can your cosmetic brand – and formulas – move toward a better ecological footprint?
There is only one way to determine where your cosmetic formulas and brand stand currently, and how they can improve in the future: conduct the investigations. In the early days of starting the research, you may be surprised at what you find out – both positively and negatively! There may be some positive aspects of your current formulas that can be promoted, as well as areas for improvement that your cosmetic brand could move towards, in the near future.
Ultimately, improving – and reporting on – the ecological footprint of your cosmetic formulas is not going to be an option if you want your brand to be successful in the near future. Consumers are demanding it, regulators are watching it, and your competitors are achieving it!
It’s time to start the investigations, consider your options, and make the hard choices to future proof your cosmetic brand as we move toward a very ecologically responsible society.
Happy formulating!
The views, opinions and technical analyses presented here are those of the author or advertiser, and are not necessarily those of ULProspector.com or UL Solutions. The appearance of this content in the UL Prospector Knowledge Center does not constitute an endorsement by UL Solutions or its affiliates.
All content is subject to copyright and may not be reproduced without prior authorization from UL Solutions or the content author.
The content has been made available for informational and educational purposes only. While the editors of this site may verify the accuracy of its content from time to time, we assume no responsibility for errors made by the author, editorial staff or any other contributor.
UL Solutions does not make any representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy, applicability, fitness or completeness of the content. UL Solutions does not warrant the performance, effectiveness or applicability of sites listed or linked to in any content.