Development of An LCA Based Tool To Assess The Environmental Sustainability Level of Cosmetics Products

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2023) 28:1261–1285
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02219-0
LCA AND CHEMISTRY
Development of an LCA‑based tool to assess the environmental

sustainability level of cosmetics products
Roberto Rocca1 · Federica Acerbi1 · Luca Fumagalli1 · Marco Taisch1
Received: 15 May 2023 / Accepted: 9 August 2023 / Published online: 24 August 2023
© The Author(s) 2023
Abstract
Purpose The depletion of natural resources and the downgrading of the environment, driven by globalization and consumer-
ism phenomena, are worldwide pushing the interest in sustainable manufacturing paradigm and environment preservation. It
is moreover clear to academia and practitioners that the cosmetics industry needs to update its current operations to face new
sustainable requirements and norms due to its ever-growing size and massive consumption of natural resources. Different
methodologies, metrics, and indicators have been and are being proposed for solving the complex issues of environmental
sustainability evaluation of cosmetics processes and products.
Methods Among these approaches and methods, product-related assessment tools (e.g., life cycle assessment) are usually
more focused on the environmental dimension of sustainability, and they are always based on the life cycle of the product.
The core of this paper is on the development of a novel tool to classify cosmetics products based on the results of LCA: the
eco-friendliness assessment tool (EFAT). The methodology of the work is structured into 5 main phases: definition of the
scientific background of the work, definition of the tool requirements, tool development, testing of the tool, analysis of the
results. The eco-friendliness assessment tool proposed is structured into two main parts: (i) process flow 1: environmental
impact score and (ii) process flow 2: supplier environmental sustainability assessment.
Results The tool has been tested on a cosmetics product manufactured in a cosmetics company located in Italy. The acquisi-
tion of raw material process and primary packaging process are the two most critical processes resulting from the impact
analysis of LCA methodology. The application of the EFAT tool shows the two possible most sustainable improved scenarios
are as follows: (i) exploiting transportation of the primary packaging by sea and (ii) adopting the European location of the
primary packaging supplier. The results coming from the tool application allowed the definition of the company product
eco-friendliness. The eco-friendliness is symbolized by an alphabetical letter and a color.
Conclusions The paper proposes a practical tool to assess the environmental sustainability level of cosmetics products,
with the intention to overcome two of the main literature gaps found in the state of the art: (i) absence of LCA methodol-
ogy implementation in the cosmetics industry on makeup products, (ii) absence of tools that rely on the results of the LCA
analysis of a cosmetic product for understanding its sustainability level of sustainability.
Keywords Sustainability · Life cycle assessment · Cosmetics industry · Cosmetics product · Environmental assessment · Mascara
1 Introduction the depletion of natural resources and their price increase,

other drivers have been identified in the literature review
The organizations’ interest in the implementation of sustain- carried out by Neri et al. (2021) that are leading the com-
able practices is nowadays evident (Abubakr et al. 2020). panies to embrace the path toward sustainability. Accord-
Besides the necessity to overcome the problems related to ing to Neri et al. (2021), those drivers can be divided into
external (i.e., regulatory, support, external pressures, and
Communicated by Peter Rudolf Saling. market) and internal ones (i.e., organization, staff, informa-
tion, innovation, and economic). Since brand image and
* Roberto Rocca
roberto.rocca@polimi.it firm reputation are the world’s new opinion makers (Suresh
et al. 2011), the agenda for most organizations include
1
Department of Management, Economics and Industrial building and maintaining strong corporate reputations and
Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza L. da Vinci 32, brands by integrating environmental, social, and economic
20133 Milan, Italy
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
1262 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2023) 28:1261–1285
responsibility issues into daily business operations (Suresh environmental and social sustainability of its activities and
et al. 2011). Also, the management support and commitment products (Acerbi et al. 2023; Rocca et al. 2022a). Rocca et al.
to enhance sustainability are recognized as relevant, along (2022a, b, c) present a systematic literature review aimed to
with personal management satisfaction (Neri et al. 2021). identify the assessment tools that can be applied to evaluate
Among many sectors of modern societies, manufacturing environmental sustainability performances in the cosmet-
contests negatively affect the environment and communi- ics industry and to understand the state of the art of LCA
ties (Saad et al. 2019). Regarding the environmental dimen- methodology application in the cosmetics industry (Rocca
sion, the massive extraction of virgin raw materials to create et al. 2022c). Among the most often cited methods in the
new products and components and the energy consumption literature for assessing the environmental sustainability of
required for the production processes are some of the main cosmetics, the LCA methodology is the most used. Beyond
issues hurting our planet (Garetti and Taisch 2012). Thus, the objective results on environmental loads, a LCA study
the current global focus is on supporting and coercing man- can provide very few tools and methodologies available to
ufacturing industries to implement cleaner and more effi- assess the level of sustainability of a product, and none of
cient production practices that enable the development of them is based on LCA (Rocca et al., 2022c). The core of
products and services with reduced negative environmental this paper is therefore on the development of a novel tool
and societal impacts (Gbededo et al. 2018). Considering the to classify cosmetics products based on the results of LCA.
previous reflection, sustainable manufacturing approaches The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Sect. 2 shows
become key to pursuing the goals of sustainable develop- the methodology underlines the work; Sect. 3 describes the
ment. From the 1970s until the late 1990s, tools, initiatives, development of the tool, while Sect. 4 proposes an applica-
and approaches evolved from purely “end-of-pipe” solutions tion of the tool to a real industrial case. Finally, the paper
(which are usually costly and inefficient) toward whole sys- ends with Sect. 5 highlighting some conclusions and possible
tem approaches, by changing products, processes, services, future developments of the work.
and systems, so that waste is minimized, and resources are
used more efficiently and effectively, in almost closed loops
(Acerbi et al. 2021; Lozano 2020; Sassanelli et al. 2019). 2 Research methodology
Different methodologies have been and are being pro-
posed for solving these complex issues, from the well-known In this section, the research methodology of the work is pre-
Design for X (Sassanelli et al. 2020) to new concept like sented. The methodology is structured into 5 main phases:
product assessment throughout its entire life cycle. Other (1) definition of the scientific background of the work, (2)
methodologies, metrics, and indicators are related to the definition of the tool requirements, (3) tool development, (4)
circular economy paradigm (Rocca et al. 2021), specifi- testing of the tool, (5) analysis of the results. A schematiza-
cally to the adoption of the 6R methodology which offers a tion of the research methodology process is also reported in
closed-loop, multiple-product life cycle system as the basis Fig. 1, while each single phase of the methodology is better
for sustainable manufacturing (Abubakr et al. 2020; Acerbi explained in the sub-sections below.
et al. 2021; Sassanelli et al. 2020). Also, eco-efficiency initia-
tives (methods such as energy modelling, eco-design, lean- 2.1 Scientific background and state of the art
green, and energy management systems) can allow the firm
to reduce the amount of resources used to produce goods, As it emerged from the literature analysis proposed by Rocca
which in turn decreases the organization’s operating cost et al. (2022a), there is enough evidence of a trend of green
while decreasing its environmental impact (Suresh et al. purchasing in the cosmetics market. The authors point out
2011). All these approaches and methods have been designed that the aspects related to cosmetic product sustainability
with specific objectives and have different scopes and data should always encompass the entire product life cycle.
requirements. Also, product-related assessment tools (Ness According to the analysis conducted, it is indeed widely
et al. 2007) are usually more focused on the environmental accepted that adopting a triple bottom line (TBL) (Okorie
dimension of sustainability, and they are always based on et al. 2021) and a LCT approach is the direction to take when
the life cycle of the product. The most established and well- dealing with sustainable issues. Moreover, there is clear evi-
developed tool in this category is life cycle assessment (LCA) dence that LCA is widely used to quantitatively measure
(Curran 2013). Because of its continuous growth world- cosmetic products’ environmental impact, which brings as
wide and due to its high consumption of natural resources, a major advantage the fact of providing decision-makers
the cosmetics industry represents one of the main sectors with objective results. The confusion which characterizes
requiring a long-term vision to manage sustainability (Rocca this sector for what regards laws and regulations can lead
et al. 2022a). The need to guide the sector toward a green cosmetics companies to feel lost in their soon-to-become
transition is pushed by a strong emphasis on improving the inevitable transition to a sustainable business. According
13
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2023) 28:1261–1285 1263
Fig. 1 Research methodology

process
instead to the literature review conducted by Rocca et al. Among these gaps, the present contribution tries to
(2022c), the environmental impact assessment methods most develop an innovative sustainability tool able to overcome
found in the literature are four: (i) LCA, (ii) carbon footprint, the shortage of instruments for the sustainability level evalu-
(iii) water footprint, and (iv) environmental risk assessment. ation of a cosmetics product starting from LCA results (Gap
The LCA is applied to quantify the environmental impacts 2) testing it on a makeup product (Gap 1). The proposed
of cosmetics ingredients and their extraction process, cos- tool has been named the eco-friendliness assessment tool
metics packaging, and skincare products. Usually, the criti- (EFAT). Starting from these considerations, a literature
cal phase of the life cycle that negatively affects the most search has been conducted aiming to identify models or
the environment is the raw materials extraction process. In tools (not strictly developed for or applied in the cosmetics
the case of rinse-off products or products that can be carried industry) allowing the interpretation, in environmental sus-
around by consumers, the use phase can be critical in terms tainability terms, of the results obtained from the LCA and
of sustainability. Considering the above considerations, the to have a complete view of the state of the art to spot pos-
main research gaps outlined in the previous works of the sible gaps to be addressed. Google Scholar was chosen as the
authors are reported below (Rocca et al. 2022a, c): scientific database to be consulted. The keywords entered
in the search bar were as follows: “Sustainability tool based
(1) The implementation of the LCA methodology in the on LCA” and the papers resulting from the first 30 pages of
cosmetics industry does not cover makeup products. In research, ordered by relevance, were analyzed. Tools meet-
fact, although case studies have been found in the litera- ing the goal of this literature search were not found. How-
ture applied to makeup packaging, LCA analyses cover- ever, the authors found relevant highlights, recounted in the
ing the life cycle of a makeup product are not present. following bulleted list.
(2) No tool that relies on the results of the LCA analysis
of a cosmetic product exists in the literature for under- (a) Streamlined LCA tools instead of complex LCAs: A full
standing their level of sustainability. LCA conducted in accordance with the ISO standards is
(3) Currently adopted methodologies are focused on meas- usually too time-consuming and expensive for industrial
uring the environmental impacts of products (e.g., companies (Heidari et al. 2019). Therefore, there is an
LCA), neglecting social and economic considerations, increasing demand for simpler methods to demonstrate
especially from social and economic perspectives. a company’s resource efficiency potential without the
(4) The cosmetics industry is characterized by a lack of exploitation of more complex software for LCA.
standards and precise regulations, for what regards the (b) Eco-efficiency tools to compare economic and envi-
transition to sustainability. ronmental sustainability: Eco-efficiency assessments
(5) It is not yet developed a comprehensive framework can support companies in developing and successfully
that enables and guides the shift to a sustainable busi- implementing a business strategy toward sustainability
ness in the cosmetics sector (considering the triple since their objective is to obtain more service, function,
perspective of consumers, cosmetic product lifecycle, and hence value with less environmental impact (Grosse-
and managerial practices), especially regarding small Sommer et al. 2020). Usually, the final output of the eco-
medium enterprises (SMEs), which usually have not efficiency tools consists of a matrix allowing the compar-
the resources to develop their own frameworks and sus- ison of environmental impacts in relation to a product’s
tainable business models. cost-effectiveness (Grosse-Sommer et al. 2020).
13
(c) Normalization and weighting to compare environmen- having different formulas and packaging, the customer
tal indicators of different products: This is the most can have a clear idea about the level of sustainability of
interesting aspect of the development of the tool to the different alternatives.
assess products’ eco-friendliness. For a holistic com-
parison of product or process alternatives, a single
environmental score is needed (Grosse-Sommer et al. 3 Tool development
2020), and many papers suggest a two-step approach
constituted by normalization and weighting. Normali- A detailed explanation of the development of the tool is
zation is a procedure needed to compare across impact displayed in this section. The tool aims at classifying cos-
categories to prioritize or to resolve trade-offs between metics products based on their environmental sustainability
product alternatives by eliminating the units of measure level. To depict the sustainability level, a previous LCA of
of the environmental impact indicators (Pieragostini the product must be conducted. The same scoring system
et al. 2012). The impacts can be further aggregated into integrated within the environmental sustainability assess-
a single environmental impact function by attaching ment tool allows to compare cosmetics products belonging
weights to the impacts to indicate their relative impor- only to the same category. Specifically, as Cosmetics Europe
tance (Pieragostini et al. 2012). declares, there are seven categories of cosmetics and per-
(d) Colour scale to represent the level of sustainability. sonal care items: (i) oral care, (ii) skincare, (iii) sun care, (iv)
Some scoring systems found on the scientific database hair care, (v) decorative cosmetics, (vi) body care, and (vii)
end by assigning each material, product, and process a perfumes (Cosmetics Europe website 2022). The tool not
color representing the level of sustainability (Curzons only allows comprehending the sustainability level of differ-
et al. 2007; Ladu and Morone 2021). The simple color ent products but can also be exploited to compare a product
coding system is used to flag differences in environmen- with its improved or worsened versions resulting from the
tal scores. Usually, green, yellow, and red are the most what-if analyses conducted in the interpretation phase of
used colors to express something acceptable (good), the LCA. Under a life cycle perspective, in order to propose
intermediate, or not acceptable (bad) respectively. a comprehensive tool able to consider also the relationship
with the stakeholders of the cosmetics supply chain, the sup-
plier’s sustainability assessment model presented in Acerbi
2.2 Tool requirements et al. (2023) has been integrated into the tool. This model
is based on a questionnaire to be filled out by the suppliers
According to the main gaps and elements analyzed from the of a cosmetics manufacturer to understand their interest in
literature and explained in the previous sections, the scope sustainability and the actions they are carrying out to achieve
of the paper is to propose a practical tool to assess the envi- economic, social, and environmental sustainability goals.
ronmental sustainability level of cosmetics products, based The integration of the supplier’s sustainability assessment
on the following elements and requirements: model ensures better visibility of the sustainability of the
upstream supply chain actors.
– LCA results-based: the tool has to be developed start-
ing from the results of the LCA analysis conducted on
cosmetics products. Therefore, it must be preceded by a 3.1 Structure of the tool
detailed implementation of the LCA.
– Simplicity and ease of use: in a short period, the features The eco-friendliness assessment tool proposed in this
of the tool and how to use it must be explained to the paper is structured into two main parts, as reported in
practitioners. Hours of training should not be necessary Fig. 2: (i) process flow 1: environmental impact score
since the tool has to be simple. In this way, it is possible and (ii) process flow 2: supplier environmental sustain-
to immediately comprehend how it should be applied. ability assessment. The following diagram points out all
Moreover, the output of the tool should be clear and the relevant steps required to design the eco-friendliness
instantly understandable. assessment tool.
– Suitable for a cosmetics manufacturer: the eco- The output of Process 1 is the environmental impacts
friendliness assessment tool (EFAT) is not intended for score (EIS), a number between 1 and 4 expressing the
final consumers. The tool is thought to be used by a degree of environmental sustainability of a cosmetic prod-
cosmetics manufacturer to show customers (i.e., other uct considering the impacts it generates in its life cycle.
cosmetics brands) the sustainability of their products. Process 1 is composed of three steps:
Therefore, when the marketing department presents dif-
ferent products to the clients, with the same function but – Step 1: quantification of environmental impacts through LCA
13
Fig. 2 Steps required to design

the eco-friendliness tool
– Step 2: assignment of numerical scores to environmen- International EPD® System is taken as reference (Cosmet-
tal impacts ics (Soap, Perfume and Toilet Preparations) - Product Cat-
– Step 3: computation of the environmental impacts score egory Classification: UN CPC 35321 and 35323, 2020).
The activities to be included in the LCA analysis can be
Process 2 aims at computing the suppliers environ- grouped into upstream processes, core processes, and
mental sustainability assessment score (SESAS) by inter- downstream processes, as highlighted in Table 1.
preting the results of a questionnaire filled by the raw Some of the activities depicted in Table 1 may be over-
materials suppliers of the cosmetic product under study looked by the LCA practitioner because of the following:
presented in Acerbi et al. (2023). Also, process 2 is made (i) they are not relevant in terms of the environmental
up of three steps: impacts they generate, (ii) or the cosmetics manufacturer
does not have enough visibility over certain upstream
– Step 4: creation of the suppliers’ environmental sus- or downstream stages of the supply chain. Regarding
tainability assessment questionnaire the quantification of the environmental impacts, many
– Step 5: calculation of the grade of the suppliers’ envi- assessment methods are available. Taking the CML-
ronmental sustainability questionnaire IA impact assessment method as a reference (Simapro
– Step 6: computation of the Suppliers Environmental Database Manual 2020), the most relevant impact catego-
Sustainability Assessment Score ries possible to consider are as follows: global warming
(climate change), abiotic depletion (elements), abiotic
By integrating the outputs of the two processes in a depletion (fossil fuels), acidification, eutrophication,
matrix (step 7), it is possible to find out four levels of eco- photochemical oxidation.
friendliness for a cosmetic product. A detailed description of
all the steps is provided in the following paragraphs. 3.1.2 Step 2: assignment of numerical scores
to environmental impacts
3.1.1 Step 1: quantification of environmental impacts
through LCA After obtaining the LCA results, the goal is to simplify the
comparison of environmental impacts, eliminating the units
The starting point for the implementation of the eco-friend- of measure. Two alternative solutions are available in the
liness assessment tool is the LCA of a cosmetic product literature for this scope: (a) normalization, the division of
since it allows the estimation of the environmental impact all indicators by a reference value; (b) assignment of a score
indicators. For the definition of the activities to be included to each environmental indicator according to its value. The
within the system boundaries, the product category rules second option is chosen for the eco-friendliness assessment
(PCR) for the assessment of the environmental perfor- tool since it is not dependent on the choice of the reference
mance of cosmetics developed in the framework of the value. In fact, different reference values can lead to different
13
Table 1 Activities within the system boundaries of the LCA

Upstream processes Core processes Downstream processes
▪ Extraction of raw materials ▪ Transport of raw materials and packing from ▪ Transportation from the production facility to
▪ Transport of raw materials to refinement suppliers to cosmetics manufacturer client’s warehouses
▪ Refinement of raw materials ▪ Fabrication processes of the cosmetic ▪ Consumer use of the product (only for rinse-
▪ Generation of electricity and production of product off products)
fuels used in the upstream processes ▪ Storage ▪ End-of-life processes of any wasted part of
▪ Production of auxiliary products (e.g., ▪ Cleaning operations the product after use
detergents for cleaning) ▪ Treatment of production waste ▪ End-of-life processes of packaging waste
▪ Manufacturing of packaging ▪ Generation of electricity and production of
fuels used in the core processes
quotients. Referring to the second option, each environmen- values and the average value. Steps 1, 2, and 3, needed to
tal indicator is assigned a score between 1 and 4 depending define the ranges, have to be carried out for each impact
on its value. The choice linked to the adoption of this scor- category to create a different scale for each indicator. The
ing scale system can be traced back to the use of a top-down scoring scales must be updated each time a new LCA is
thinking approach for designing the eco-friendliness assess- introduced in the system. What remains invariant is the pres-
ment tool. In fact, the starting point was to depict what the ence of the four scores (1, 2, 3, and 4). This approach can
final output of the tool should be: placing a cosmetic product push cosmetics manufacturers to become more sustainable.
within a matrix consisting of four quadrants corresponding
to four levels of eco-friendliness. Consequently, to ensure
linearity, it was decided to maintain four levels also for the 3.1.3 Step 3: computation of the environmental impacts score
definition of the scoring scale system regarding the environ-
mental impacts. From a score equal to 1, which corresponds Different modalities are available to attribute weights to the
to the lowest degree of environmental sustainability, each indicators. It was decided to exploit a “distance to target”
impact category can grow up to a score equal to 4, indica- weighting approach linked to the concept of “planet bounda-
tive of the highest degree of environmental sustainability. ries” and “carrying capacity” to prioritize the environmen-
Therefore, each impact category has a specific scale that tal impact categories that need to be urgently addressed.
defines the ranges in which the indicator value is assigned a In the literature review considered, it was pointed out the
score equal to 1, a score equal to 2, 3, or 4 (Figs. 3, 4, and 5). approach introduced by Bjørn et al. (2015) and revised by
The steps needed to define the ranges are described below. Vargas-Gonzalez et al. (2019), according to which a set of
planetary boundaries–based weighting factors is proposed.
• Calculation of the average value for each impact category. These weighting factors result from a comparison between
The average value is the boundary between score 2 and the carrying capacity of planet Earth and current emissions or
score 3. The maximum value and the minimum one for each consumption levels. Therefore, they can be used also to pin-
impact category are the outer extremes of the scoring scale. point the issues where current emissions or consumptions are
• The boundary between score 1 and score 2 is the average higher than the defined carrying capacity (Vargas-Gonzalez
of the indicator values that are higher than or equal to the et al. 2019). The ratio used as a weighting factor is referred
average itself. to (Vargas-Gonzalez et al. 2019) as a “reduction factor” and
is defined for each impact category by the following formula:
Current Global Impact
If all the values (it can be one value or more than one) Reduction Factor = (1)
Carrying Capacity
that are higher than the average value are equal to the upper
extreme value, the upper average is the mean between those The list of the suggested weighting factors developed by
values and the average value. Bjørn et al. (2015) and Vargas-Gonzalez et al. (2019) is shown
in Table 2.
• The boundary between score 3 and score 4 is the average Observing Table 2, climate change is considered the most
of the indicator values that are lower than or equal to the urgent environmental challenge. Additionally, resource over-
average itself. use has become a political priority with international gov-
erning bodies encouraging the implementation of circular
If all the values (it can be one value or more than one) economy approaches (Vargas-Gonzalez et al. 2019). The final
that are lower than the average value are equal to the lower weights allocated to the environmental impact indicators are
extreme value, the lower average is the mean between those normalized with the mathematical formula reported in Fig. 6.
13
∑ =1
=
Where:
ic = impact category
= impact category value of the product j
j = index representing the cosmetic product
n = number of cosmetics products considered
Fig. 3 Formulas for the definition of the boundary between score 2 and score 3, and of the outer extremes of the impact category scoring scale
The same impact categories quantified in the previously single score from all the values of the environmental impact
conducted LCA analysis should be considered for the weight indicators. The score of each indicator is multiplied by the
setting. At this point, a weighted sum is required to obtain a indicator weight, and then all these products are summed
Where:
k = number of cosmetics products having the value of the impact category higher than or equal to
the average value
Fig. 4 Formulas for the definition of the boundary between score 1 and score 2 of the impact category scoring scale
13
Where:
x = number of cosmetics products having the value of the impact category lower than or equal to
the average value
Fig. 5 Formulas for the definition of the boundary between score 4 and score 3 of the impact category scoring scale
together. The result of these calculations is called the “Envi- the number of questions of the survey and their weights;
ronmental Impacts Score” (Fig. 7). therefore, the maximum score achievable by filling the sur-
vey depends on these two factors. If the form consists of
3.1.4 Step 4: creation of the suppliers’ environmental n questions with equivalent weight and equal to 1 and the
sustainability assessment questionnaire supplier can assign a score from 0 to 5 to each question, the
maximum score that can be obtained is 5.
The goal of creating a survey to be sent to the suppliers of the
cosmetics manufacturer is to investigate if and how the sup-
pliers are embracing a sustainability path. Questions should Table 2 Reduction Factors linked to the impact assessment indica-
tors. The reduction factors includes improved weighting factor from
be formulated to cover all the facets of the environmental Bjørn et al. (2015) as well as revised or developed values from Vargas-
dimension since the EFAT aims to figure out the level of envi- Gonzalez et al. (2019)
ronmental sustainability of a cosmetic product. According to
Impact assessment indicator Reduction
Acerbi et al. (2023), eleven criteria can be considered for the factor
environmental evaluation of suppliers and, therefore, for the
creation of the questionnaire: cruelty-free programs and cer- Climate change 9.36
tifications, water pollution, toxicity level of production activi- Ozone depletion 0.28
ties (e.g., freshwater ecotoxicity, acidification), local territory Human toxicity (cancer effects) 0.26
safeguard and correct harvest practices, circular practices, Human toxicity (non-cancer effects) 0.90
recycling initiatives, plastic reduction policies, supply chain Particulate matter 5.97
traceability, energy consumption, production practices and Ionizing radiation 0.01
operations impacts’ traceability, ISO 14001 (environmental Photochemical ozone formation 0.54
management system), time needed to be compliant with envi- Acidification 0.53
ronmental requirements, willingness to be audited and share Terrestrial eutrophication 0.30
information about environmental performance improvement. Freshwater eutrophication 3.22
The sustainability survey must be sent to all the suppliers Marine eutrophication 0.55
of the cosmetics manufacturer producing the raw materials Land use 9.33
included in the formula of the cosmetic product under evalu- Freshwater ecotoxicity 0.85
ation. The extraction and manufacturing of raw materials Water resource depletion 0.51
are often the most critical phases of the LCA analyses in the Mineral & fossil resource depletion 4.08
cosmetics sector. The cosmetics manufacturer can decide
13
Where:
= reduction factor of the impact category i
= weight allocated to the impact category i
= number of impact categories
Fig. 6 Formula for the definition of the weights allocated to the environmental impact indicators
3.1.5 Step 5: calculation of the grade of the suppliers’ 3.1.6 Step 6: computation of the supplier’s environmental
environmental sustainability questionnaire sustainability assessment score
Cosmetics companies can purchase the inputs for their The suppliers environmental sustainability assessment score
production processes from different types of actors hav- is the mathematical average of all suppliers’ grades obtained
ing different roles in the supply chain. Instead, a producer from the questionnaire submitted to the raw materials pro-
owns factories to manufacture the ingredients that will be viders of the cosmetic product under study (Fig. 9).
included in the cosmetics formulas. Therefore, two alter-
natives are available for the design of the questionnaire: 3.1.7 Step 7: assessment of the eco‑friendliness
(i) a personalized questionnaire is built for each supplier
considering its role in the supply chain, (ii) a single ques- One of the requirements of the tool is the immediate compre-
tionnaire is created and sent to all suppliers regardless of hension of the final output. Therefore, for a clear understand-
their type. In this case, maybe not all questions can be ing of the level of eco-friendliness, the creation of a matrix is
answered by all suppliers, so the “not applicable” option employed. A 2 × 2 matrix is a useful instrument for represent-
is accepted. Always looking at the requirements the tool ing results and comparing them based on two factors. As previ-
must satisfy, option number two is less time-consuming ously stated, even some articles found in the literature dealing
and easier to implement, also to interpret results and cal- with the concept of eco-efficiency place different alternatives
culate scores for each supplier. Therefore, accepting the in a matrix depending on their economic and environmental
possibility of receiving “not applicable” as answers to the sustainability. In this case, the two dimensions of the matrix are
questionnaire, for each supplier is computed a grade fol- as follows: (i) X-axis, environmental impacts score; (ii) Y-axis,
lowing the process illustrated in Fig. 8. supplier’s environmental sustainability assessment score.
= ( )
Where:
= score between 1 and 4 aributed to the impact category i
= weight allocated to the impact category i
n = number of impact categories
Fig. 7 Formula for the definition of the environmental impacts score
13
. = ( )
= ( )
= 100
.
Where:
i = index representing the question of the survey having an answer other than “not applicable”
n = number of questions of the survey having an answer other than “not applicable”
= maximum assignable score to question i
= score assigned to question i
= weight aributed to question i
Fig. 8 Process for the determination of the supplier’s grade
The final eco-friendliness matrix allowing the defini- 4 Application of the tool: the mascara
tion of the product eco-friendliness is shown in Table 3. case study
The eco-friendliness is symbolized with an alphabetical
letter and a color (Fig. 10). There are four possible scenar- The eco-friendliness assessment tool (EFAT) has been tested
ios and, therefore, four possible levels of eco-friendliness. and validated on a cosmetic product manufactured by a com-
It was decided to confer more relevance to the EIS with pany located in northern Italy. Since the object of the study
respect to the SESAS for the eco-friendliness levels defi- is a mascara, it was decided to use the tool to understand
nition. In fact, the EIS is based on the results of the LCA the level of eco-friendliness of products belonging to the
analysis and is a better indicator of the eco-friendliness level macro-category “eye makeup products” and sub-category
than the questionnaire, which relies on the subjectivity of the “mascaras,” according to cosmetics product categorization
person filling it out. (Cosmetics Europe website 2022). The seven steps for the
Where:
j = index representing the supplier
n = number of suppliers
yj = grade of supplier j obtained from the environmental sustainability questionnaire
Fig. 9 Formula for the determination of the supplier’s environmental sustainability assessment score
13
tool development applied to the case study are described in

the next sections. The company involved is specialized in the
development and manufacturing of makeup products, and,
among its creations, mascaras are the flagship line.
4.1 Step 1: quantification of environmental impacts

through LCA
As described above, the first step for the development of the

tool consists in the application of the LCA methodology.
The four LCA phases for the evaluation of the environmental
impacts of the product analyzed are described below.
4.1.1 Goal and scope definition
This LCA analysis was performed with the primary goal

of measuring the environmental impacts generated by a
mascara along its life cycle. By highlighting the life cycle
phases, processes, and materials impacting the most, the
company is intended to evaluate alternative sourcing, manu- Fig. 10 Final matrix to assess the level of eco-friendliness of a cos-
metic product
facturing, and packaging solutions to reduce harmful envi-
ronmental damages. To carry out the LCA, all inputs and
outputs of processes were referred to one mascara: the func- collect because the same supplier may be sourcing from
tional unit. The activities within the system boundaries, and different manufacturers. In turn, the manufacturer may
thus included in the LCA analysis, are reported in Table 4. be purchasing its inputs from suppliers around the world.
The activities outside the system boundaries and not con- • Finish product transportation from the company client’s
sidered in the study were: warehouses to final customers: The company does not
have any information regarding where the final consum-
• Raw material transportation from producers to distribu- ers are located.
tors: More than twenty raw materials are included in the • Use phase: The use phase is related to the cosmetics uti-
product formula. The company mainly buys raw materi- lization by the final consumer. Normally, in the case of
als from distributors, while, in some cases, it also pur- a cosmetic product, the consumption of resources does
chases the raw materials directly from manufacturers. not happen when the consumer applies the product but
Not all manufacturers and distributors specify where the during its removal phase. Nowadays, many solutions are
raw materials come from in their packing list or other available to remove cosmetics: oily detergents, micellar
documentation. In addition, these data are difficult to water, makeup remover wipes, soap, and simply water.
Table 3 The four possible levels of eco-friendliness
Suppliers
Environmental Impacts Environmental
Eco-friendliness level Meaning
Score Sustainability
Assessment Score
Medium or High Medium or High A very sustainable
Medium or High Low B prey sustainable
Low Medium or High C poorly sustainable
Low Low D not sustainable
13
Table 4 Activities within the system boundaries of the product analyzed

Upstream processes Core processes Downstream processes
▪ Extraction of raw materials ▪ Transport of raw materials and packing from ▪ Transportation from the production facility to
▪ Refinement of raw materials suppliers to cosmetics manufacturer client’s warehouses
▪ Production of auxiliary materials ▪ Fabrication processes of the cosmetic product ▪ End-of-life processes of any wasted part of the
▪ Manufacturing of packaging ▪ Cleaning operations product after use
▪ Treatment of production waste ▪ End-of-life processes of packaging waste
▪ Generation of electricity and production of fuels
used in the core processes
The consumer habits and choices significantly affect the of the Excel file was beneficial in facilitating future data
environmental impact generated during product use, but entry into the SimaPro software, used for environmental
strong assumptions should be made to consider the use impacts calculation. All the data related to the quantifica-
phase in the LCA. This is the reason why this life cycle tion of inputs and outputs were referred to the functional unit
stage was not considered for the determination of the of one mascara. As previously declared, to be coherent with
environmental impacts that will then be used as inputs the concept of life cycle assessment, a scenario where the
for the creation of the tool. However, in the end, a test use phase is considered was built. To conduct the study of
scenario has been implemented where the use phase is the environmental impacts generated during the use phase
included in the LCA. (i.e., makeup removal phase), the following assumptions
were made:
It was decided also to exclude from the analysis the com-
ponents of mascara that are considered negligible, meaning • Mascara can be applied 50 times (about 0.25 g of product
the ones under a cutoff value of 0.05% (Table 5). Regard- are used per application)
ing instead the allocation procedure, the physical allocation • The consumer uses 2 g of facial soap and one dispos-
method was used to weigh a multi-output process. The data able cotton to remove mascara
collected to carry out the investigation were related to 2020. • Soap is rinsed-off using 0.5 l of lukewarm water (40 °C)
Most of the data on the consumption of resources (materi- • One cotton pad weighs 0.5 g, and in a plastic package
als and energy) were taken directly from the production site (weight of the plastic package: 10 g) there are 80 cotton pads
through interviews organized with the departments’ managers
of the company (i.e., quality department, purchasing depart- The end-of-life waste scenario is, together with the use
ment, bulk production department, warehouse, general ser- phase, a downstream process meaning that is carried out
vices). Moreover, data were collected from the manufacturing outside the company production site. When the product
execution system adopted by the company, from business finishes, it was assumed that the final consumer discards
documents, and directly from the field through weighting it in the undifferentiated waste that will end up in landfills
operations, material inspection activities, and label reading. as inert waste. Regarding the samples (i.e., bulk sample
To obtain data related to the impacts due to the production and mascara in primary packaging sample), they are dis-
of raw materials and auxiliary materials, transport emissions, carded by the external laboratory. It was assumed they
and waste treatment, it was necessary to rely on international are hazardous waste and are incinerated. All the data col-
databases (mainly ELCD database and Ecoinvent). Moreover, lected during the inventory analysis were entered into the
Google Maps was used to determine the distances between SimaPro software, while the databases considered for the
suppliers and customers and the company. study were Ecoinvent v3, Agri-footprint, and ELCD.
The analysis in SimaPro was conceived as follows:
4.1.2 Inventory analysis
Table 5 Functional unit and cutoff value
Many interlinked steps characterize the mascara fabrication
process. A process flow diagram was developed to have a Functional unit = one mascara 0.0379 kg = 37.9 g
clear idea of all the activities within the plant. Then, all the (bulk + P1 + P2 + P3)
P1 = primary packaging
unit processes were grouped into ten macro-processes that P2 = secondary packaging
are illustrated in Fig. 11. P3 = tertiary packaging
For these processes, data related to inputs and outputs
Cutoff value 0.05%
were collected and entered into an Excel file. The creation
13
Fig. 11 The 10 macro-processes

considered in the analysis
(a) Processes creation and, for each process, inputs and (b) To each assembly, one for each of the three main pro-
outputs were highlighted. Under the SimPro “materials” cesses outputs, the transportation activity, either to go from
category, the outputs of these processes were as follows: the company to the external laboratory or to move the fin-
(i) raw materials, (ii) bulk, (iii) bulk sample, (iv) primary ished products to the client’s warehouses, was added.
packaging, (v) mascara in P1, (vi) mascara in P1 sample, (c) To represent the end-of-life of outputs, it was first cre-
(vii) secondary packaging, (viii) mascara in P2, (ix) ter- ated, among the processes, the waste disposal scenario, and
tiary packaging, (x) mascara packed and ready for ship- then, among the “life-cycle phases,” the end-of-life scenario.
ping (mascara in P3). (d) Three life cycles, related to the three main outputs,
Among these outputs, the three final ones of the mas- were realized by adding the assembly (therefore considering
cara production process were as follows: (i) “Mascara all the impacts generated by the production of the assembly),
packed and ready for shipping,” (ii) “Bulk sample,” and the end-of-life scenario, and, potentially, the use phase previ-
(iii) “Mascara in P1 sample” (see Fig. 10). At this point, ously created.
three assemblies have been created in the SimaPro “assem- The following diagram summarizes how the analysis was
bly” section, and then three waste disposal scenarios, and, built in SimaPro (Fig. 12).
finally, three life cycles.
Fig. 12 Logical scheme accord-

ing to which the LCA was built
in SimaPro
13
Table 6 Value of the environmental impact categories for the mascara life cycle, without considering the use phase
Impact category Description Unit of measure LCA value
Global warming (GWP100a) Quantity of greenhouse substances produced within a process g CO2 eq 320
Acidification Anthropogenic air pollution from sulfur (S) and nitrogen (N) g SO2 eq 1.59
Eutrophication Ecosystem pollution from nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) g PO43− eq 0.296
Photochemical oxidation Estimation of airborne substances leading to the formation of atmospheric g C2H4 eq 0.0974
oxidants
Abiotic depletion (elements) Consumption of non-biological resources such as minerals and metals. The g Sb eq 0.00335
scarcity of the substance and speed of extraction are considered
Abiotic depletion Fossil fuel consumption. The scarcity of the substance and speed of extraction are MJ 5.37
(fossil fuels) considered
4.1.3 Impact assessment impacts due to the samples were negligible compared to

those from the production of mascara. For this reason, they
The impact assessment method selected and used to cal- have been disregarded in subsequent analyses. The envi-
culate impact assessment results was CML baseline. This ronmental impacts obtained for the product were evaluated
method was created by Leiden University in 2001 (Muthu without considering the use phase. These results are shown
2020) and can be distinguished into a baseline version and a in Table 6 and in Fig. 13.
non-baseline one. The baseline version is suggested since it On the other hand, in Table 7 and Fig. 14, the use phase
considers the most common impact categories used in LCA is also considered. These results are compared with those in
and is recommended by the environmental product declara- which the use phase is not considered.
tion (EPD). Six impact categories were considered in the
LCA analysis because they are the most relevant ones (EPD
and Unifarco S.p.a., 2016, 2017, 2018): (i) abiotic deple- 4.1.4 Interpretation of the results
tion (kg Sb eq.), (ii) abiotic depletion (fossil fuels) (MJ),
(iii) global warming (GWP100a) (kg C O2 eq.), (iv) photo- The acquisition of raw material process and primary pack-
chemical oxidation (kg C2H4 eq.), (v) acidification (kg SO2 aging process are the two most critical processes resulting
eq.), (vi) eutrophication (kg P
O43−eq.). The impacts of the from the impact analysis. A detailed study of these processes
second and the third life cycles had been created (i.e., bulk is proposed, considering possible environmental impact
sample life cycle, and mascara in P1 sample life cycle) were improvements. A more in-depth analysis of the impacts of
negligible with respect to the mascara life cycle. In fact, the the mascara production carried out within the company pro-
quantity transported in both cases was minimal if allocated duction site is also proposed. Finally, considerations regard-
to the single mascara. Consequently, the environmental ing the use phase are reported.
Fig. 13 Histograms represent the environmental impact categories with respect to the life cycle processes of mascara, without considering the
use phase
13
Table 7 Value of the Impact category Unit of measure LCA value (without LCA value
environmental impact categories use phase) (with use
for the mascara life cycle, phase)
considering the use phase
Global warming (GWP100a) g CO2 eq 320 2000
Acidification g SO2 eq 1.59 6.05
Eutrophication g PO43− eq 0.296 2.71
Photochemical oxidation g C2H4 eq 0.0974 0.595
Abiotic depletion (elements) g Sb eq 0.00335 0.00468
Abiotic depletion (fossil fuels) MJ 5.37 13.9
Acquisition of raw materials Raw materials are difficult to of transportation necessary for the acquisition of the pri-
optimize from a sustainability standpoint as the mascara for- mary packaging from air to ship, impacts are considerably
mula can hardly change. The company could try to under- reduced (Table 9). In this scenario, Shanghai (China) and
stand what potential replacement raw materials for those with Trieste (Italy) were assumed as the port of origin and des-
more impact could be. However, this analysis would take tination, respectively. An on-carriage transportation phase
months to be carried out because, even if replacement raw by truck from the port of Trieste to the company production
materials were found, tests would have to be implemented plant was also considered. The airplane has advantages in
to understand whether they alter the formula and, therefore, terms of delivery speed. A ship coming from China takes
whether the mascara’s performance would remain the same. from 30 to 40 days to reach the Italian coasts; consequently,
it is necessary to plan the shipping and be punctual in fin-
Packaging The high environmental impacts attributed to the ishing the production process of the primary packaging.
acquisition of the primary packaging are due to the Chinese Another potential improvement action the company
location of the supplier, implying intercontinental transpor- could implement is to select suppliers that offer primary
tation from China to Italy. Around 60% of global warm- packaging of materials other than plastic. A significant
ing impacts related to all the activities necessary to fill the negative impact (26.9%) on global warming is caused by
mascara are due to the transportation activity of the primary the manufacturing of plastic bottles. Therefore, another
packaging. As an example, assuming that the primary pack- what-if analysis was conducted to evaluate the benefits of
aging supplier is in Europe (for example, in Berlin) instead choosing primary packaging components in recycled alu-
of Shanghai, it can be seen in Table 8 that the value of all minum and recycled plastics. It was decided to include the
impact indicators decreases dramatically. wiper in the assessment since the supplier is the same as
the bottle, and both components are made of plastic mate-
Aircraft is a highly polluting means of transport. It rial. The following assumptions were considered to carry
has been noted that even by simply changing the means out the what-if analysis:
Fig. 14 Histograms represent the environmental impact categories with respect to the life cycle processes of mascara, considering the use phase
13
Table 8 Differences in the value Impact category Unit of measure LCA value LCA value ∆value [%]
of the environmental impact (P1 supplier in (P1 supplier in
category indicators by changing Shanghai) Berlin)
the location of the primary
packaging supplier Global warming (GWP100a) g CO2 eq 320 135 − 57.8%
Acidification g SO2 eq 1.59 0.896 − 43.6%
Eutrophication g PO43− eq 0.296 0.181 − 38.9%
Photochemical oxidation g C2H4 eq 0.0974 0.0675 − 30.7%
Abiotic depletion (elements) g Sb eq 0.00335 0.00334 − 0.3%
Abiotic depletion (fossil fuels) MJ 5.37 2.55 − 52.5%
– The weight of the bottle and wiper remains unchanged Taking into consideration the entire product life cycle,
– To produce 1 ton of primary aluminum, 14,000 KWh of the impacts generated by the production processes within
energy is needed (Educazione Digitale 2018a). the production plant are not so relevant. Also considering
– The production of recycled aluminum requires 95% the use phase, soap and water consumption determines an
less energy than the production of primary aluminum environmental impact of this phase significantly higher than
(Educazione Digitale 2018b). the one related to the production of mascara. Therefore, con-
– One thousand liters of water and 950 kWh of energy sumer habits and choices significantly affect the environ-
are needed to produce 1 ton of recycled plastic (Romei mental impact generated during product use.
RePlastics website 2022).
4.2 Step 2: assignment of numerical scores
In Table 10, the results of this analysis are shown. to environmental impacts
Finally, the last what-if analysis performed is related to
the unit carton material (Table 11). It is quantified how the The EFAT offers the possibility to compare both different
environmental impacts change if mascara’s secondary pack- products belonging to the same sub-category and to observe
aging is made of recycled cartons. how potential improvement actions, highlighted in the inter-
The histograms of Fig. 15 summarize the results of the pretation phase of the LCA methodology, can improve the
what-if analyses with respect to the AS-IS situation. level of environmental sustainability of a product. In this
Narrowing the focus on the impacts generated by the case, the impacts values of the mascara AS-IS situation
company production plant, the resources consumed for (without considering the use phase) and of the what-if anal-
which the company is directly responsible are as follows: yses scenarios were the starting point for the definition of
(i) micro-filtered water, used as raw material and to clean the scoring scale of the environmental impacts (Table 13).
machinery equipment and bins; (ii) electric energy, neces- Following the directions of Figs. 3, 4, and 5, the scor-
sary to power the production machinery; (iii) natural gas, ing scale for each environmental impact was determined
exploited for warming physical spaces and water. Moreover, (Table 14). As an example, it is provided the complete cal-
the impacts of the treatment processes linked to the waste culation procedure only for the global warming impact cat-
produced during the mascara fabrication cannot be neglected egory since for the other categories, the calculations are the
by the cosmetics manufacturer (Table 12). The waste is same (Fig. 16, Table 15).
related to the containers (of raw materials and packaging Table 16 exhibits the scores assigned to each environmental
components) and the wastewater. impact indicator.
Table 9 Differences in the value Impact category Unit of measure LCA value (P1 LCA value (P1 ∆value [%]
of the environmental impact transport by air) transport by sea)
category indicators by changing
the transportation means of Global warming (GWP100a) g CO2 eq 320 137 − 57.2%
shipping the primary packaging
from Shanghai to the company
13
Table 10 Differences in the value of the environmental impact category indicators by changing the material of the primary packaging
Impact category Unit of measure LCA value LCA value (recycled ∆value [%] (plastic LCA value ∆value [%] (virgin
(plastic bottle aluminum bottle and vs. recycled (recycled plastic plastic vs. recycled
and wiper) wiper) aluminum) bottle and wiper) plastic)
Global warming g CO2 eq 320 308 − 3.75% 309 − 3.44%

(GWP100a)
Acidification g SO2 eq 1.59 1.56 − 1.89% 1.56 − 1.89%
Eutrophication g PO43− eq 0.296 0.293 − 1.01% 0.293 − 1.01%
Photochemical g C2H4 eq 0.0974 0.0947 − 2.77% 0.095 − 2.46%
oxidation
Abiotic depletion g Sb eq 0.00335 0.00336 0.30% 0.00336 0.30%
(elements)
Abiotic depletion MJ 5.37 4.88 − 9.12% 4.89 − 8.94%
(fossil fuels)
4.3 Step 3: computation of the environmental practices, supplier’s selection choices, energy consumption,
impacts score environmental certifications, environmental management
systems. Each question had a weight equal to 1. Some sup-
The weight of each environmental category and the calculation pliers are distributors who buy and resell raw materials with-
of the EIS are proposed in Table 17. It is provided the complete out making any modifications. These suppliers do not own
calculation procedure only for the AS-IS scenario since the any production sites. Therefore, for some questions related
same procedure is valid also for the other scenarios. to possible eco-friendly solutions implemented in the plants,
Looking at the summary reported in Table 18, the scenario the answer “not applicable” was also accepted.
related to the change in the geographical positioning of the pri-
mary packaging supplier corresponds to the best value, in terms 4.5 Step 5: calculation of the grade of the suppliers’
of sustainability, of the EIS. This is consistent with the quan- environmental sustainability questionnaire
titative estimate of the environmental impacts, illustrated in
Fig. 14. The worst value relates to the AS-IS situation; in fact, Upstream stakeholders in the cosmetics supply chain are
all the what-if analyses coincide with improvement actions. increasingly involved in projects concerning environmen-
The results of the EIS depend on how the scoring scale tal sustainability. Some of the seventeen surveyed suppliers
is built. In turn, the scoring scale depends on how many and have a robust environmental management system in place
which LCA analyses are considered. and they report their sustainability results in an annual
report. The supplier’s grade was calculated for fourteen
4.4 Step 4: development of the suppliers’ environmental suppliers that sell the 68% product raw materials. Table 19
sustainability assessment questionnaire highlights the computation of the grade for each player.
The questionnaire (Acerbi et al. 2023), was sent to the sev- 4.6 Step 6: computation of the supplier’s
enteen suppliers of the raw materials included in mascara environmental sustainability assessment score
formula. A rate from 0 to 5 has been assigned to each of the
thirty-three questions covering many environmental topics Just one value of the SESAS can be computed since, in this case,
as follows: animal testing, water consumption and treatment, the raw materials suppliers of the mascara are always the same
toxicity emissions, harvesting procedures, circular economy regardless of the considered scenario. The SESAS resulted to
Table 11 Differences in the Impact category Unit of measure LCA value (AS LCA value ∆value (%)
value of the environmental IS unit carton) (recycled carton P2)
impact category indicators by
changing the material of the Global warming (GWP100a) g CO2 eq 320 318 − 0.63%
secondary packaging
13
Fig. 15 Histograms represent

the value of the environmental 3.2
Global warming 1.35
impact indicators of the what-if 1.37
analyses with respect to the [hg CO2 eq.] 3.08
3.09
AS-IS situation 3.18
1.59
Acidification 0.896
0.967
[g SO2 eq.] 1.56
1.56
1.56
2.96
Eutrophication 1.81
1.86
[dg PO43- eq.] 2.93
2.93
2.94
Impact category
0.974
Photochemical oxidation 0.675
0.699
[dg C2H4 eq.] 0.947
0.95
0.962
3.35
Abiotic depletion (elements) 3.34
3.34
[mg Sb eq.] 3.36
3.36
3.3
5.37
Abiotic depletion (fossil fuels) 2.55
2.58
[MJ] 4.88
4.89
5.33
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Impact value
AS IS situation P1 supplier in Berlin P1 sea transportation
P1 in recycled aluminium P1 in recycled plastic P2 in recycled carton
be 79, a signal value of the concrete interest in becoming more The high value of the SESAS resulted in the positioning of
sustainable from an environmental point of view. the six scenarios at the top quadrants of the eco-friendliness
matrix. Consequently, the green area (eco-friendliness
4.7 Step 7: assessment of the eco‑friendliness level A) and the orange area (eco-friendliness level C) were
the only ones affected by this case study. As was already
The final position of mascara within the eco-friendliness predictable by looking at the values of the environmen-
matrix, considering the six scenarios, is shown in Fig. 17. tal impacts, the two most sustainable scenarios were as
Table 12 Impact percentage of energy, natural gas, water consumption, and waste treatment process on the environmental indicators
Impact category Unit of measure Energy (%) Natural gas (%) Water (%) Waste (%)
Global warming (GWP100a) g CO2 eq 1.39% 0.53% 0.04% 0.58%

Acidification g SO2 eq 1.24% 0.77% 0.02% 0.30%
Eutrophication g PO43− eq 0.54% 0.16% 0.03% 0.84%
Photochemical oxidation g C2H4 eq 0.96% 0.80% 0.02% 1.18%
Abiotic depletion (elements) g Sb eq 0.15% 0.02% 0.00% 0.03%
Abiotic depletion (fossil fuels) MJ 1.17% 2.17% 0.02% 0.15%
13
Table 13 Values of the environmental impact categories indicators considering the AS-IS situation and the alternative scenarios resulting from
the what-if analyses
Impact category LCA value LCA value LCA value (P1 LCA value (recycled LCA value LCA value
AS-IS (P1 supplier in transport by aluminum bottle (recycled plastic (recycled
Berlin) sea) and wiper) bottle and wiper) carton P2)
Global warming (g 320 135 137 308 309 318

CO2 eq.)
Acidification (g SO2 1.59 0.896 0.967 1.56 1.56 1.56
eq.)
Eutrophication (g 0.296 0.181 0.186 0.293 0.293 0.294
PO43− eq.)
Photochemical 0.0974 0.0675 0.0699 0.0947 0.095 0.0962
oxidation (g C2H4 eq.)
Abiotic depletion 0.00335 0.00334 0.00334 0.00336 0.00336 0.0033
(elements) (g Sb eq.)
Abiotic depletion 5.37 2.55 2.58 4.88 4.89 5.33
(fossil fuels) (MJ)
follows: (i) transportation of the primary packaging by sea, in the cosmetics sector. More in detail, the LCA is mainly
(ii) European location of the primary packaging supplier. used for assessing the environmental impacts generated by
Changing the primary and secondary packaging material raw materials, production processes, packaging components,
caused an increase in the EIS compared to the base case and skincare products. The output of the LCA are absolute
even though, in the end, the levels of eco-friendliness were numbers associated with the environmental impact category
C, like the AS-IS situation. indicators, and this analysis does not display a level of sus-
tainability of products and processes analyzed. To fill the
gaps found in the literature, the goal of this paper was to
5 Discussions, conclusions, and future conceptualize and develop an LCA-based tool to assess the
development level of eco-friendliness of cosmetics products to classify
them from an environmental sustainability point of view.
The cosmetics industry is living a worldwide expansion The tool, characterized by easiness of use and simplic-
and the growth of the sector implies increasing in natural ity, is suitable for a cosmetics manufacturer. Two parallel
resources consumption, emissions, and waste production. process flows are required to implement the tool. The first
Moreover, society is nowadays concerned about environ- one is finalized with the computation of the environmental
mental issues, and many businesses are aware of the impor- impacts score (EIS) which is based on the LCA analysis
tance to monitor the environmental performance of products (steps 1, 2, and 3). The second process is intended to calcu-
and processes. LCA is the most implemented methodology late the supplier’s environmental sustainability assessment
Table 14 Scoring scale details

for the global warming impact GW Range GW Score
category
135 ≤ x ≤ 136 4
136 < x ≤ 254.5 3
254.5 < x ≤ 313.75 2
313.75 < x ≤ 320 1
13
Table 15 Global warming values of the AS-IS situation and what-if analyses scenarios
LCA value
LCA value
LCA value LCA value (Recycled LCA value
Impact LCA value (Recycled
(P1 supplier in (P1 transport aluminum (recycled
category AS-IS plastic bole
Berlin) by sea) bole and carton P2)
and wiper)
wiper)
Global
warming 320 135 137 308 309 318
[g CO2 eq.]
score (SESAS) starting from a questionnaire sent to the raw 5.1 Discussion on the mascara case study
material suppliers of the cosmetics manufacturer to investi-
gate their interest in environmental sustainability (steps 4, The environmental impacts generated by a mascara pro-
5, and 6). By integrating the outputs of the two processes duced by the company selected for the validation of the
in a matrix (step 7), it is possible to find out four levels of tool have been calculated with respect to six impact cat-
eco-friendliness for a cosmetic product: A (green), B (yel- egories. This activity constituted the first step for the
low), C (orange), and D (red). The tool was implemented implementation of the EFAT. Excluding the use phase, the
and tested on a mascara manufactured by an Italian SME. most harmful processes of the product life cycle were the
The authors proposed a practical tool to assess the environ- acquisition of raw materials and the acquisition of primary
mental sustainability level of cosmetics products, based on packaging. The latter is due to the emissions related to the
the elements and requirements described in Sect. 2.2, with transport activity. By conducting a simple what-if analysis,
the intention to overcome two of the main literature gaps it was possible to see that the impacts decreased dramati-
found in literature in this field: (i) absence of LCA method- cally if local suppliers were selected, or transportation by
ology implementation in the cosmetics industry on makeup sea was preferred. Considering that LCA is based on sev-
products, (ii) absence of tools that relies on the results of eral assumptions made by practitioners, the environmental
the LCA analysis of a cosmetic product for understanding impacts are also different depending on the hypotheses the
its sustainability level of sustainability. The eco-friendliness study is conducted. A scoring scale definition is necessary
assessment tool was designed for a cosmetics manufacturer, for assigning a score between 1 and 4 to each environmen-
but one of its strengths is its potential exploitation also in tal indicator depending on its value. Every time a new
other sectors. In fact, all the steps required to implement the LCA of a cosmetic product enters the set of conducted
tool, from the LCA analysis to the EIS and SESAS calcula- LCAs, the scoring scale is updated. The weighted sum
tion, are independent of the industry being considered. And of the scores and the weight of each indicator allows the
since the analysis of the literature revealed that these kinds estimation of the EIS, a first signal of the level of eco-
of tools are not so widespread, the eco-friendliness assess- friendliness. The scenario related to the change in the geo-
ment tool can be extended in the future to other sectors. graphical positioning of the primary packaging supplier
Fig. 16 Scoring scale for the (320 + 135 + 137 + 308 + 309 + 318)
global warming impact category = = 254,5
6
= 320
= 135
= (320 + 308 + 309 + 318)/4 = 313,75
= (135 + 137)/2 = 136
13
Table 16 Score assignment
LCA value Score

LCA value Score
LCA value Score LCA value Score (Recycled (Recycled LCA value Score
Impact LCA value Score (Recycled (Recycled
(P1 supplier (P1 supplier (P1 trasport (P1 trasport aluminium aluminium (recycled (recycled
category AS-IS AS-IS plastic bole plastic bole
in Berlin) in Berlin) by sea) by sea) bole and bole and carton P2) carton P2)
and wiper) and wiper)
wiper) wiper)
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2023) 28:1261–1285
GW
320 1 135 4 137 3 308 2 309 2 318 1
[g CO2 eq.]
AC
1.59 1 0.896 4 0.967 3 1.56 2 1.56 2 1.56 2
[g SO2 eq.]
EP
0.296 1 0.181 4 0.186 3 0.293 2 0.293 2 0.294 2
[g PO43- eq.]
PO
0.0974 1 0.0675 4 0.0699 3 0.0947 2 0.095 2 0.0962 1
[g C2H4 eq]
ADE
0.00335 2 0.00334 3 0.00334 3 0.00336 1 0.00336 1 0.0033 4
[g Sb eq.]
ADFF
5.37 1 2.55 4 2.58 3 4.88 2 4.89 2 5.33 1
[MJ]
13
1281
Table 17 Weights allocated to the impact categories considered in the case study
Impact assessment indicator Reduction factor (Bjørn et al. (2015) Indicator weight LCA value AS-IS Score AS-IS
and Vargas-Gonzalez et al. (2019))
Global warming 9.36 9.36/18.58 = 0.50 320 1

Photochemical oxidation 0.54 0.54/18.58 = 0.03 1.59 1
Acidification 0.53 0.53/18.58 = 0.03 0.296 1
Eutrophication 0.30 + 3.22 + 0.55 = 4.07 4.07/18.58 = 0.22 0.0974 1
Abiotic depletion (elements) 4.08/2 = 2.04 2.04/18.58 = 0.11 0.00335 2
Abiotic depletion (fossil fuels) 4.08/2 = 2.04 2.04/18.58 = 0.11 5.37 1
Total 18.58 1
Environmental Impact ScoreAS−IS =
= 1 ∙ 0.50 + 1 ∙ 0.03 + 1 ∙ 0.03 + 1 ∙ 0.22 + 2 ∙ 0.11 + 1 ∙ 0.11 = 1.11
corresponded to the best value, in terms of sustainability, the economic and social sustainability dimensions. Social life
of the EIS. This is consistent with the quantitative estimate cycle assessment (SLCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) could
of the environmental impacts. The worst value is related be included in the LCA to guarantee a more comprehensive
to the AS-IS situation; in fact, all the what-if analyses sustainability analysis. A second limitation is represented
coincided with improvement actions. by the fundamental importance of basing the implementa-
Then, the integration of the suppliers environmental sus- tion of the tool on assumptions that must remain unchanged
tainability assessment score ensured the positioning of the throughout the entire application of the tool and for all the
cosmetic product under study within an eco-friendliness products belonging to the same sub-category that are com-
matrix. The most eco-friendly scenarios corresponded to pared in terms of eco-friendliness. The most complex and
the ones with the highest value of EIS (i.e., P1 transport time-consuming activity when applying the tool is the detailed
by sea and P1 supplier located in Berlin) since the SESAS implementation of the LCA. The greater the level of detail
was always 79, regardless of the considered scenario. In according to which this analysis is carried out, the more truth-
the future, the company may extend the tool implemen- ful will be the level of eco-friendliness obtained for a certain
tation to other makeup and skincare categories to under- product. The third limitation regards the questionnaire nec-
stand which ones are currently the most sustainable and essary to compute the SESAS. The survey, in fact, should be
to identify, through LCA, the production activities that sent also to the packaging suppliers of the cosmetics manu-
negatively affect the environment. The company could facturer and not only to the raw materials ones to get a more
think also about spotting alternative solutions that could be complete view of upstream supply chain sustainability.
introduced to enhance the eco-friendliness of its products.
A cost–benefit analysis must be undertaken to understand Table 19 Supplier’s grade computation of mascara
the feasibility of the improvement actions.
Supplier Actual Maximum Supplier’s
questionnaire obtainable grade
5.2 Limitations and future development score score
Supplier 1 142 165 86

One of the limitations of the tool refers to its environmental
Supplier 2 126 165 76
focus. In fact, the EFAT considers only environmental sus-
Supplier 3 135 160 84
tainability. Therefore, the tool could be updated by adding
Supplier 4 140 160 88
Supplier 5 113 140 81
Supplier 6 145 160 91
Table 18 Environmental impact scores
Supplier 7 129 165 78
Scenario Environmental Supplier 8 117 140 84
impact score
Supplier 9 144 165 87
AS-IS 1.11 Supplier 10 115 155 74
P1 supplier in Berlin 3.89 Supplier 11 124 160 78
P1 transport by sea 3 Supplier 12 115 160 72
Recycled aluminum bottle and wiper 1.89 Supplier 13 62 105 59
Recycled plastic bottle and wiper 1.89 Supplier 14 115 165 70
13
Fig. 17 Positioning of mascara’s

six scenarios within the eco-
friendliness matrix
Trying to boost the cosmetics product sustainability A second possible further development is the integration
under a LCT perspective, the authors suggest integrating of EFAT in flexible industrial architecture enabled by digital
EFAT with specific circular economy (CE) metrics, able technologies. Digital transformation is globally recognized
to quantify the circularity degree of a cosmetic product. as the transition enabled by Industry 4.0 (I4.0) technologies
Both cosmetic products and packaging indeed are looking (Quadrini et al. 2021). It allows new automation architec-
for more sustainable solutions, addressing the research and tures for production processes: (i) enhancing flexibility and
development especially toward bio-based and biodegradable scalability (Yoh 2001), (ii) enabling the integration of mod-
materials. The cosmetic industry depends on biodiversity as ern information and communication technologies (ICTs),
it provides a source of innovation and raw materials. Nature and (iii) increasing efficiency and production performances
is established as a source of fundamental inputs and ingredi- (Tao et al. 2019). Together, technologies like machine-to-
ents. As confirmed by the scientific literature, it is important machine (M2M) communications (Cimino et al. 2019),
for cosmetic companies to keep up with the expectations cyber-physical systems (CPSs) (Negri et al. 2017), internet
of consumers (Chin et al. 2018), as a crescent number of of things (IoT), and cloud computing (CC), allow companies
people are slowly shifting their mindset, seeking sustain- to manage manufacturing processes in a more intelligent and
ability through their purchases. Consequently, national and agile way (Rocca et al. 2022b). Many works in literature
international policies are continuously increasing, and sus- have already assessed the interaction between I4.0 sustain-
tainability standards and certifications are on the rise (Rocca ability. Trying to put together the sustainability-oriented
et al. 2022a). One solution is to use innovative natural ingre- and technology-oriented views under the same umbrella,
dients and circular resources to meet sustainability and per- the concept of smart sustainability has been proposed by
formance demands in categories such as skin care, hair care, experts as a new way of making circular economies and
bath and shower products, and color cosmetics. sustainable practices (Rocca et al. 2020; Rosa et al. 2019).
13
The integration of novel tools and metrics for environmen- references at midpoint level. Int JLCA 20(7):1005–1018. https://
tal evaluation of cosmetics products within data-driven and doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0899-2
Chin J, Jiang BC, Mufidah I, Persada SF, Noer BA (2018) The inves-
interoperability-oriented industrial architectures can provide tigation of consumers’ behavior intention in using green skincare
a state-of-the-art advancement in the field of information products: a pro-environmental behavior model approach. Sustain
and communication technology (ICT) design for resource (Switzerland) 10(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10113922
consumption assessment and traceability for manufacturing Cimino C, Negri E, Fumagalli L (2019) Review of digital twin
applications in manufacturing. Comput Ind 113(103130):1–15.
systems in the cosmetics industry. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2019.103130
Cosmetics Europe website (2022) Cosmetic products.
Cosmetics (2020) (soap, perfume and toilet preparations) - product
Author contribution Roberto Rocca: conceptualization; methodology; category classification: UN CPC 35321 and 35323.
formal analysis; writing—original draft; resources. Federica Acerbi: Curran MA (2013) Life Cycle Assessment: a review of the meth-
data curation; methodology; writing—original draft; investigation. Luca odology and its application to sustainability. Curr Opin Chem
Fumagalli: project administration; supervision; validation; writing— Eng 2(3):273–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coche.2013.02.002
review & editing. Marco Taisch: supervision; validation; writing— Curzons AD, Jiménez-González C, Duncan AL, Constable DJC,
review & editing. Cunningham VL (2007) Fast life cycle assessment of synthetic
chemistry (FLASC™) tool. Intern JLCA 12(4):272–280. https://
Funding Open access funding provided by Politecnico di Milano doi.org/10.1065/lca2007.03.315
within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. Educazione Digitale (2018a) Alluminio: produzione e caratteristiche
Educazione Digitale (2018b) Il ciclo virtuoso dell’alluminio
Data availability The data that support the findings of this study are EPD and Unifarco S.p.a. (2016) Dichiarazione Ambientale di Pro-
available from the company involved in the study, but restrictions apply dotto (EPD – Environmental Product Declaration) dei prodotti
to the availability of these data, which were used under license for cosmetici rinse-off in conformità alla ISO 14025. 0–16
the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are however EPD and Unifarco S.p.a. (2017) DICHIARAZIONE AMBIENTALE
available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permis- DI PRODOTTO (S-P-01257) PRODOTTI LEAVE ON Dolomia
sion of the company. Skincare e Fragranze. 0–26
EPD and Unifarco S.p.a. (2018) DICHIARAZIONE AMBIENTALE DI
Declarations PRODOTTO PRODOTTI RINSE OFF Dolomia Skincare. 0–23
Garetti M, Taisch M (2012) Sustainable manufacturing: trends and
Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests. research challenges. Prod Plan Control 23(2–3):83–104. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2011.591619
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- Gbededo MA, Liyanage K, Garza-Reyes JA (2018) Towards a life cycle
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- sustainability analysis: a systematic review of approaches to sus-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long tainable manufacturing. J Clean Prod 184:1002–1015. https://doi.
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.310
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes Grosse-Sommer AP, Grünenwald TH, Paczkowski NS, van Gelder
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are RNMR, Saling PR (2020) Applied sustainability in industry: the
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated BASF eco-efficiency toolbox. J Clean Prod 258:120792. https://
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120792
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not Heidari MD, Mathis D, Blanchet P, Amor B (2019) Streamlined life
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will cycle assessment of an innovative bio-based material in con-
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a struction: a case study of a phase change material panel. Forests
copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 10(2):1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10020160
Ladu L, Morone PP (2021) Holistic approach in the evaluation of the
sustainability of bio-based products: an integrated assessment
tool. Sustain Prod Consum 28:911–924. https://d oi.o rg/1 0.1 016/j.
spc.2021.07.006
References Lozano R (2020) Analysing the use of tools, initiatives, and approaches
to promote sustainability in corporations. Corp Soc Responsib
Abubakr M, Abbas AT, Tomaz I, Soliman MS, Luqman M, Hegab Environ Manag 27(2):982–998. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1860
H (2020) Sustainable and smart manufacturing: an integrated Muthu SS (2020) Estimating the overall environmental impact of
approach. Sustain (switzerland) 12(6):1–19. https://doi.org/10. textile processing: life cycle assessment of textile products. In
3390/su12062280 Assessing the Environmental Impact of Textiles and the Clothing
Acerbi F, Sassanelli C, Terzi S, Taisch M (2021) A systematic litera- Supply Chain (Second Edition). 105–129
ture review on data and information required for circular manu- Negri E, Fumagalli L, Macchi M (2017) A review of the roles of digital
facturing strategies adoption. Sustain (switzerland) 13(4):1–27. twin in CPS-based production systems. Procedia Manuf
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042047 Neri A, Cagno E, Trianni A (2021) A triple bottom line balanced set
Acerbi F, Rocca R, Fumagalli L, Taisch M (2023) Enhancing the of key performance indicators to measure the sustainability perfor-
cosmetics industry sustainability through a renewed sustain- mance of industrial supply chains. Sustain Prod Consum 26:648–691
able supplier selection model a renewed sustainable supplier Ness B, Urbel-Piirsalu E, Anderberg S, Olsson L (2007) Categoris-
selection model. Prod Manuf Res 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/ ing tools for sustainability assessment. Ecol Econ 60(3):498–508.
21693277.2022.2161021 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.023
Bjørn A, Hauschild MZ (2015) Introducing carrying capacity- Okorie O, Obi M, Russell J, Charnley F, Salonitis K (2021) A tri-
based normalisation in LCA: framework and development of ple bottom line examination of product cannibalisation and
13
remanufacturing: a review and research agenda. Sustain Prod literature review. Int J Prod Res 0(0):1–26. https://doi.org/10.
Consum 27:958–974 1080/00207543.2019.1680896
Pieragostini C, Mussati MC, Aguirre P (2012) On process optimization Saad MH, Nazzal MA, Darras BM (2019) A general framework for
considering LCA methodology. J Environ Manage 96(1):43–54. sustainability assessment of manufacturing processes. Ecol
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.10.014 Indic 97:211–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.09.062
Quadrini W, Galparoli S, Nucera DD, Fumagalli L, Negri E (2021) Sassanelli C, Rosa P, Rocca R, Terzi S (2019) Circular economy perfor-
Architecture for data acquisition in research and teaching labo- mance assessment methods: a systematic literature review. J Clean
ratories. Procedia Comput Sci 180:833–842. https://doi.org/10. Prod 229:440–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.019
1016/j.procs.2021.01.333 Sassanelli C, Urbinati A, Rosa P, Chiaroni D, Terzi S (2020) Address-
Renukappa S, Egbu C, Akintoye A, Suresh S (2011) Drivers for embed- ing circular economy through design for X approaches: a system-
ding sustainability initiatives within selected UK industrial sec- atic literature review. Comput Ind 120:103245. https://doi.org/10.
tors. INTREST 3(22) 1016/j.compind.2020.103245
Rocca R, Rosa P, Sassanelli C, Fumagalli L, Terzi S (2020) Integrating Simapro Database Manual (2020) 3–48
virtual reality and digital twin in circular economy practices: a Tao F, Zhang H, Liu A, Nee AYC (2019) Digital twin in industry:
laboratory application case. Sustain (Switzerland) 12(2286) state-of-the-art. IEEE Trans Ind Infor 15(4):2405–2415. https://
Rocca R, Sassanelli C, Rosa P, Sergio T (2021) Circular economy doi.org/10.1109/TII.2018.2873186
performance assessment. In New Business Models for the Reuse Vargas-Gonzalez M, Witte F, Martz P, Gilbert L, Humbert S, Jolliet
of Secondary Resources from WEEEs 17–33 O, van Zelm R, L’Haridon J (2019) Operational life cycle impact
Rocca R, Acerbi F, Fumagalli L, Taisch M (2022a) Sustainability assessment weighting factors based on planetary boundaries:
paradigm in the cosmetics industry: State of the art. Clean W applied to cosmetic products. Ecol Indic 107. https://doi.org/10.
Syst 3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clwas.2022.100057 1016/j.ecolind.2019.105498
Rocca R, Santacruz RFB, Sassanelli C, Rosa P, Fumagalli L, Negri E Yoh MS (2001) The reality of virtual reality. Proceedings - 7th
(2022b) Digital twin and extended reality: strategic approach and International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia,
practical implementation. In Springer Handbook of Augmented VSMM 666–674. https://doi.org/10.1109/VSMM.2001.969726
Reality 853–880. https://d oi.o rg/1 0.1 007/9 78-3-0 30-6 7822-7_3 41
Rocca R, Perossa D, Fumagalli L (2022c) Environmental sustainability Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
performance assessment tools in cosmetics industry: state of the art. jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
XXVII Summer School “Francesco Turco” – Unconventional Plants.
Romei RePlastics website (2022) Reshaping by nature
Rosa P, Sassanelli C, Urbinati A, Chiaroni D, Terzi S (2019) Assessing
relations between circular economy and industry 4.0: a systematic
13

Development of An LCA Based Tool To Assess The Environmental Sustainability Level of Cosmetics Products

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Development of An LCA Based Tool To Assess The Environmental Sustainability Level of Cosmetics Products

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Development of An LCA Based Tool To Assess The Environmental Sustainability Level of Cosmetics Products

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2023) 28:1261–1285

LCA AND CHEMISTRY​

Development of an LCA‑based tool to assess the environmental

1 Introduction the depletion of natural resources and their price increase,

Fig. 1 Research methodology

Fig. 2 Steps required to design

Table 1 Activities within the system boundaries of the LCA

 = impact category value of the product j

 j = index representing the cosmetic product

 n = number of cosmetics products considered

= impact category value of the product j

the average value

= impact category value of the product j

the average value

= reduction factor of the impact category i

= weight allocated to the impact category i

= number of impact categories

= score between 1 and 4 aributed to the impact category i

= weight allocated to the impact category i

n = number of impact categories

Fig. 7 Formula for the definition of the environmental impacts score

= maximum assignable score to question i

= score assigned to question i

= weight aributed to question i

Fig. 8 Process for the determination of the supplier’s grade

j = index representing the supplier

yj = grade of supplier j obtained from the environmental sustainability questionnaire

tool development applied to the case study are described in

4.1 Step 1: quantification of environmental impacts

As described above, the first step for the development of the

4.1.1 Goal and scope definition

This LCA analysis was performed with the primary goal

Table 3 The four possible levels of eco-friendliness

Medium or High Medium or High A very sustainable

Medium or High Low B prey sustainable

Low Medium or High C poorly sustainable

Low Low D not sustainable

Table 4 Activities within the system boundaries of the product analyzed

Fig. 11 The 10 macro-processes

Fig. 12 Logical scheme accord-

4.1.3 Impact assessment impacts due to the samples were negligible compared to

Global warming g ­CO2 eq 320 308 − 3.75% 309 − 3.44%

Fig. 15 Histograms represent

AS IS situation P1 supplier in Berlin P1 sea transportation

P1 in recycled aluminium P1 in recycled plastic P2 in recycled carton

Global warming (GWP100a) g ­CO2 eq 1.39% 0.53% 0.04% 0.58%

Global warming (g 320 135 137 308 309 318

Table 14 Scoring scale details

136 < x ≤ 254.5 3

254.5 < x ≤ 313.75 2

313.75 < x ≤ 320 1

= (320 + 308 + 309 + 318)/4 = 313,75

= (135 + 137)/2 = 136

LCA value Score

Global warming 9.36 9.36/18.58 = 0.50 320 1

Supplier 1 142 165 86

Fig. 17 Positioning of mascara’s

You might also like

LCA AND CHEMISTRY

= impact category value of the product j

j = index representing the cosmetic product

n = number of cosmetics products considered

= score between 1 and 4 aributed to the impact category i

= weight aributed to question i

4.1 Step 1: quantification of environmental impacts

4.1.1 Goal and scope definition

Medium or High Low B prey sustainable

4.1.3 Impact assessment impacts due to the samples were negligible compared to

Global warming g CO2 eq 320 308 − 3.75% 309 − 3.44%

Global warming (GWP100a) g CO2 eq 1.39% 0.53% 0.04% 0.58%