Household and personal care

Authors: Maximilian Eimer, Tom Büttner, Nina Chanin Schänzel, Oliver Schmidt, August 20. 2024

1 Definition

1.1 Household and personal care products

Household care products (HCPs) are a wide variety of products for cleaning household objects, which range from all-purpose cleaners to disinfectants.1 A brief overview of the variety of products is given in the following table.

Personal care products (PCPs) are “[…] a category of self-care products generally used for personal hygiene, cleaning, and grooming.”3 These products are broadly applied in everyday life. Examples are shampoos, soaps and cosmetics.4 PCPs are categorized according to their form of application, where these are differentiated as rinse-off, leave-on, general hygienic and decorative cosmetics, examples of which are shown in the table below.5

Both PCPs and HCPs are part of the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) and are in general mass products with high turnover rates, rather low acquisition costs as well as short utilization periods.6

1.2 Sector

The development of ancient civilizations can be traced through the use of cleaning agents and cosmetics.7 The production of soap, as an example for a PCP, has been known to humanity for at least 5000 years.8 It was not until the middle of the 19th century that improvements in personal hygiene, among other things, led to a rapid increase in the quality of life and a “health revolution”.9 The first soap to be marketed across borders was introduced by Procter & Gamble in 1878.7
Today, the sector consists of companies that produce a wide range of products. Despite their differences, these products utilize comparable manufacturing techniques and raw materials, leading to overlapping environmental impacts and resource dependencies.10 Due to the composition of the products from various specialty chemicals, such as preservatives, surfactants and fragrances, the sector is closely interlinked with the chemical industry.11,12 According to the World Economic Forum (WEF), the sector generates annual worldwide revenues of $700 billion.10 In Europe, the personal care products industry alone accounts for annual sales of €88 billion with over 250,000 direct employees, while reinvesting 5% of annual sales in research and development.13 The sector is extremely relevant to everyday life. Some PCPs, such as shampoo, liquid soap and body lotion, are used in more than 90% of all households.14 A typical US household spends up to $866 per year for personal care products and related services with expenditure on PCPs increasing by 15.5% within one year.15
Consumers are placing more and more value on the environment in their purchasing decisions, for instance when it comes to sustainable packaging.16 The sector is actively involved in sustainability, for example through the “Charter for Sustainable Cleaning”, which was launched by the International Association for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance Products (A.I.S.E.) in 2005 and which aims to encourage companies and consumers to improve in terms of sustainability.17

2 Sustainability impact and measurement

The household and personal care sector is named as one of the 12 sectors with the greatest environmental impact.10 As outlined in the economic importance of the sector, the market for these products is growing steadily. With an increase in demand and therefore production, not only their economic but also their environmental and social impact needs to be considered.

2.1 Environmental impacts

2.1.1 Terrestrial ecosystems

The sector’s upstream operations rely on raw materials and the use of land. Adding to this are the animals used for safety tests. The sector also uses non-renewable resources such as minerals. These impact the land quality as well as biodiversity through extraction activities. Lastly, the ingredients as well as packaging end up in landfills and the soil environment.

2.1.1.1 Impact: Land conversion and deforestation

To discuss the sector’s contribution to land conversion and deforestation, an important upstream activity was looked at, which is the palm oil industry. 27% of the global palm oil supply is used in industrial applications such as consumer goods.18 Only the food sector uses more palm oil with 68%. Palm oil is widely used for soaps, detergents, or shampoos.19,20 Most palm oil is produced in Indonesia and Malaysia, accounting for 70% of the supply.18 For the environmental impacts, this section focuses on land use, deforestation, and habitat destruction. As the oil palm is a productive crop, both in yield and longevity, it has been continuously used since the 70s to feed the demand for vegetable oil.21 The popularity of palm oil, however, has also led to millions of hectares of land being used for plantations. Here it is important to mention that in terms of absolute land use, other crops such as soybean and rapeseed require more land than the oil palm, despite yielding a smaller output and being less present in world production. This makes palm oil a sustainable vegetable oil choice in general, that is hard to substitute.22 Adding to this is that palm oil cultivation is not the main driver of deforestation worldwide. It is among the main drivers of deforestation when it comes to tropical forests.23
Still, palm oil production has led to considerable deforestation, especially in Southeast Asia, where areas are usually densely forested. Between the years 2000 and 2010, 40% of tropical forests were lost due to large-scale agriculture.24 Due to the expansion of said cultivation, many areas have recorded a loss of ecological ecosystem services such as soil nourishment or habitat provision.21 Adding to this are the cultural functions, such as the loss of traditional hunting grounds. Deforestation facilitates rapid biodiversity loss due to habitat destruction as well as higher greenhouse gas emissions.25 More information on the topic of deforestation and biodiversity loss can be found in the respective articles. Firms can navigate this supply chain risk by sourcing certified oil and joining non-profits such as the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). The RSPO aids consumer goods manufacturers in switching to sustainable palm oil. One example is Procter and Gamble, which became a member in 2011 and since 2021 only uses certified palm oil.26

2.1.1.2 Impact: Land degradation and pollution

The following section examines two sources of pollution due to the sector’s products, mainly wastewater carrying chemicals, and mining and drilling activities. The sector significantly contributes to terrestrial pollution through its formulations. Furthermore, fossil fuel-derived ingredients degrade soil health and biodiversity through extraction.
Terrestrial pollution through wastewater
Ingredients in the products can cause environmental pollution, as traces have been found in soil and biota. This soil contamination can lead to land degradation. Such chemical groups are, for instance, disinfectants, preservatives, or fragrances. As they enter the wastewater system after usage, instead of being filtered out, they persist in our terrestrial system.27

These chemicals can enter biota through the air, water, and soil, or are ingested.32 They pass through the wastewater and enter the terrestrial ecosystem.33 With plants being irrigated with treated wastewater, these chemicals still accumulate in plant tissue.34 Through dietary intake, these chemicals can then enter higher organisms.34,35 This has been observed in earthworms.36 For animals, especially mammals, bioaccumulation can prove toxic over time.36

Apart from higher organisms, research also shows that these chemicals can affect soil microbial communities. Chemicals such as triclosan have antimicrobial properties and thus also decrease soil bacteria. This can impact the degradation of pesticides in agricultural soil. Fossil fuels such as mineral oils can also be found in many personal care products. They usually appear on labels under names such as paraffin, a wax derived from highly purified petroleum. It softens the skin and acts as a barrier. However, mineral oils, together with heavy metals are the most frequent soil contaminants.37 Industrial activities and municipal wastewater disposal are the main contributors. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are components of mineral oil and are concerning because they penetrate the soil and do not biodegrade.29,30 Such mineral oil contamination causes the soil to be less water absorbent as well as altering other physical properties, decreasing its health.29 Studies on other mineral oil products show a negative impact on earthworms through high concentrations of PAH. These results showed that the reproduction success and survival of juveniles was negatively affected.30,38
Terrestrial pollution due to fossil fuel extraction
Other activities included in the value chain are metal mining, such as aluminum for deodorant39, mineral mining such as mica for cosmetics, as well as drilling for fossil fuels. More information on the topic of mining can be found in the respective article. As many ingredients in the sector are based on fossil fuels from formulation to packaging, their extraction and consequent impact on the environment need to be looked at. Extraction activities cause pollution, leading to land degradation and biodiversity loss. The exploitation of fossil fuels goes hand in hand with deforestation, soil pollution, and water contamination.40 Adding to this is that extraction usually happens in remote areas around the globe, which first needs to be made accessible via infrastructure and later pipelines for transportation. This disturbs terrestrial ecosystems, and fragments habitats, ultimately leading to a loss in biodiversity.41

2.1.1.3 Impact: Animal Welfare

The research dealing with the effects of chemicals often makes use of studies with animals. For instance, in testing the toxicity of fragrances, rats and zebrafish have been used.42,43 The European Union has made efforts to phase out animal testing.44,45 Bans have been put into place to end certain tests, such as for finished cosmetic products. Funding has been used to validate alternative methods. One such method is in vitro technology, which allows to test outside of a living organism, on isolated cells.46 Still, not for all areas there are replacements, and animal testing is still necessary. This is the case for the effects of chemicals on the human reproductive system, which is so complex that it cannot be replicated.47 Reproductive toxicity is a major issue when it comes to the safety of household and personal care products. These safety evaluations account for 8.7% of animal testing still done in the EU, the majority is used for medical research.47
Another aspect of animal welfare is animal-derived ingredients. Those ingredients mostly come from insects, such as beeswax. They can be obtained without hurting the animal. Other ingredients are regarded as more problematic, as they indirectly support the breeding and slaughtering of animals, such as in the case of wool wax.48 However, as many animal-derived ingredients are also allergens and consumers have raised ethical concerns, these ingredients are often replaced.48,49 Some firms in the sector have even built their business model on being cruelty-free and vegan such as the British cosmetics retailer, Lush. Similar business models can be found in the household sector with firms such as Sodasan, a German company producing vegan and cruelty-free cleaning products. Bigger corporations also have brands that have vegan and cruelty-free offerings, such as Ecover, owned by SC Johnson.

2.1.2 Aquatic ecosystems and Water usage

The sector also has a considerable impact on the resource water and the aquatic ecosystem. Water is an important resource used in various parts of its value chain.50 For instance, lotions contain up to 90% water, and shampoos and shower gels up to 95%.51

To assess the impact and dependency on water there are several tools, one of them is the “Water Watch” by the Carbon Disclosure Project.52 The activity of producing “personal care & household products” has been given the rating of “critical” regarding water impact and an overall ranking of 16 out of 18 in 2023.53 This tool not only considers the sector’s direct operations but also operations further up the supply chain and the end-use of the products. Other tools such as the water footprint or the WWF Water Risk Filter can further help firms identify their water risks and raise awareness.54 The water footprint assessment can be applied to a product, a facility, or the whole firm.55 Some firms have already put measures into place to reduce water usage. This includes waterless formulations, such as shampoo, conditioner, or razor foam bars, by Foamie, or even toothpaste tablets by Lush. Adding to the benefits, these waterless products often come with compact and plastic-free packaging.

2.1.2.1 Impact: Pollution to Aquatic ecosystems

As already addressed, the chemicals of the products are often stable and not removed fully in the wastewater treatment process.56 This can affect surface water as well as groundwater, impacting the water quality as well as biota.57 In 2023, one of the most frequently reported risks in the European Commission’s annual report on dangerous non-food products, were related to chemicals and environmental threats.58 Cosmetics were the top category for product notifications, followed by toys and motor vehicles. Plastic is also a major issue when it comes to aquatic pollution, with 22% of plastic waste being mismanaged globally.59
Example: Ingredients
Synthetic Musk: A study found that 80% of personal care products contained synthetic musk making the sector a significant source of chemical pollution.60,61 The two most common types are nitro musk and polycyclic musk, with the latter replacing the former due to toxicity concerns.62 Nitro musk is currently banned in several countries.63 However, both types can prove an ecological risk.64 High concentrations of polycyclic musk have been found in the air and wastewater of manufacturing plants, as well as in aquatic environments where they bioaccumulate.61,65 Various studies in Asia and Europe have shown that synthetic musk can accumulate in wildlife such as sturgeons or carps.66-69 Scientists fear that continuous exposure could lead to chronic effects.60 Studies done to fish such as trout70 and goldfish71 show that polycyclic musk may cause oxidation stress. This state can lead to cell damage and impedes brain functions.72
Disinfectants: These ingredients are hard to degrade and bioaccumulate.73 They have been detected in water, biota as well as sediment.74 Studies have shown that both triclosan and triclocarban can inhibit the growth of algae and can even be toxic for them.75,76 Triclosan is also suspected of disrupting the hormone function of fish.77 As an endocrine disruptor it can then potentially lead to reproductive and developmental issues, influencing for example fertility.78 There has also been concern about antimicrobial agents leading to a resistance development in bacteria, similar to antibiotics.27,73,79
Parabens: Parabens is a name given to a class of preservatives that are found in many products.80 Tests done on fish and rodents62,80 revealed that they can also act as an endocrine disruptor, influencing the nervous and reproductive system.78 Like microbial agents, parabens could also contribute to bacterial resistance.81 Due to those concerns the EU has a law, setting a maximum concentration for certain parabens in personal care products. Denmark has banned the use of some parabens in children’s products.82
UV Filters: Ultraviolet (UV) filters make their way into the aquatic ecosystem by bathing and swimming.57 Ingredients which can block ultraviolet radiation, for example oxybenzone, have been shown to cause coral bleaching.83,84 UV filters inhibit the growth and photosynthetic activity of phytoplankton and algae. Algae live in a symbiotic relationship with corals, functioning as an energy source for the coral and give it its color. Without the algae’s ability to photosynthesis, the coral appears white and due to the loss in energy grows slower and becomes susceptible to disease. This can cause the collapse of coral reef habitats and the degradation of beaches. Additionally, UV filters can also act as endocrine disruptors62,85 having estrogenic effects on fish.57
Example: Plastic Waste
Plastic packaging can be found with most consumer goods. Estimations show that 12% to 20% of all plastic waste is from the sector.86 Personal care products alone saw an increase of 286% in plastic production, resulting in 27.000 tons of plastic needed in 2019 and up to 21% of global plastic waste resulting from the products.87 This is one of the highest relative changes in all industrial sectors. If plastic waste is mismanaged, as currently is the case with 1 to 2 million tons, it enters rivers and oceans, impacting aquatic ecosystems.87 With these numbers the sector contributes considerably to plastic pollution. This pollution is mostly due to larger pieces of plastic, but also due to microplastics, pieces smaller than 5 millimeters.88 The so-called microbeads are found in formulations rather than packaging and make their way into the ecosystem via wastewater.89 Products containing these beads are toothpastes or facial cleansers.88 Due to their small size the particles get ingested by a plethora of wildlife such as fish.90 While it is hard to assess the health impacts this has on wild animals, laboratory studies have shown that ingesting plastic can lead to gut blockages, inflammatory reactions and oxidative
stress.91-93 For firms, various initiatives can help them in managing their plastic use. One of them is A.I.S.E., which also helped to develop the product environmental footprint method, a measure for the environmental performance of a product throughout its life.94 For personal care and cosmetic products there is the EcoBeautyScore Consortium, which works on an environmental impact assessment for cosmetics and has a database of the environmental impact of ingredients and raw materials.

2.1.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, contribute to man-made climate change by facilitating global warming. To get a holistic view of these emissions generated by the sector, the entire value chain and product life cycle needs to be considered. A useful measurement is carbon foot printing. Emissions occur along the entire value chain. Household and personal care products also generate emissions when in use by the consumer. This includes volatile organic compound emissions, where chemical substances come into contact with air when the product is used and function as an air pollution source.95 More information about Air Pollution (LINK Wiki Air Pollution here) can be found in the respective article. Other emissions generated downstream are through residential energy use, for instance by running household appliances such as washing machines.96 For example, doing one load of laundry emits 0.5 kg of CO2, carbon dioxide.97 Energy as a sector emits the most amount of GHG emissions globally with 73,2%, residential use makes up 10,9% of that share.98 Adding to that are emissions caused by the management of landfills and wastewater plants. Landfills emit CH4, methane, and wastewater plants N2O, nitrogen dioxide, as well as CH4.98

However, most of the GHG emissions are generated upstream of the value chain and are therefore considered scope 3.10 The consumer stables sector, which includes personal and household products, reports one of the highest percentages scope 3 upstream emissions with 59%.100,101 The production of plastic alone accounts for 3.4% of global GHG emissions, which is more than the aviation sector’s footprint.59,98 1 kg of plastic packaging incurs around 3.50 kg CO2.102 One biological resource mentioned is palm oil. As forests are converted for its cultivation, large amounts of emissions are released. In the beginning, CO2 is emitted due to land clearing and draining of peat soils.21 Later when the plantation is in use, N2O is released due to the use of fertilizer.103 It is estimated that per liter palm oil 7.3 kg CO2 eq are caused.104 Its production is also associated with a third GHG, CH4. During production, precisely the extraction of the oil from the fruit, a large amount of organic waste and water is generated. This byproduct is called palm oil mill effluent and if left untreated, the anaerobic organic matter releases CH4.105 Researchers estimate that approximately 32 to 48 kg of methane/ha/year are emitted from this wastewater, equivalent to 0.16 to 0.24 tons CO2 per ton of palm oil.105

2.2 Social impacts

2.2.1 Human and Labor rights

Human rights issues occur upstream of the value chain. Especially mining and agriculture are regarded as high-risk sectors.106 In terms of mining the minerals known under the term mica are an example. Mica can be found in cosmetics, adding a glittering property. The personal care sector is among the biggest purchasers.107 These minerals are mostly mined in India and Madagascar under unsafe working conditions and with the employment of children.107 The states of Jharkand and Biahr in India count as the world’s largest mining area for mica, accounting for roughly 25% of the total production. Many mines are illegal and the number of children working in the mines is estimated to be up to 22.000. Apart from minerals, agricultural products such as palm oil are also in high demand. Agriculture is the sector with the highest share of child labor globally, adding to this are the harsh working conditions.108 Similarly to minerals, agricultural products are also often supplied by countries with lax labor laws. For instance, the palm oil industry comes with various human rights implications. Depending on the country and area land rights of indigenous people and small-scale farmer are threatened, for example in Indonesia and Cambodia. The palm oil production also draws in a lot of migrant workers, which are often subject to violation of workers’ rights.109 However, these activities are also part of a strong economic sector in their country of origin. They create employment opportunities and bring prospects to rural areas, which are economically marginalized.110 This also decreases poverty and adds to food security.111 The palm oil industry in Indonesia alone provides 17 million people with work.112 Firms can gauge this risk through self-assessments such as the Human Rights Compliance Assessment Tool by the Danish Institute for Human Rights. Legally many firms are also required to have a supplier code of conduct and do their due diligence when it comes to supply chain management. More information about the management of supply chains can be found in the respective article.

2.2.2 Personal Hygiene and Public Health

This section will look at the positive impacts the sector has on consumer health. On a social dimension its products play a role in maintaining personal hygiene, allowing for self-expression, reducing the spread of disease and promoting public health. The sector thus contributes to a longer life expectancy and better quality of life. To highlight a few selected products, toothpaste for instance supports oral health, preventing diseases that are often painful and expensive to treat, especially in middle and low-income countries.113 Dental caries can often be prevented by regular toothbrushing and usage of fluoride toothpaste, which has led to a considerable decline of caries over the last decades.114 Another product which has a positive impact is sunscreen. Regular and correct usage of sunscreen can prevent skin aging, skin damage and some types of skin cancer.115,116 Lastly, cleaning products such as detergents can prevent diseases in households, such as campylobacter infection, a diarrheal disease caught from contaminated animal products.117 Using cleaning products to disinfect surfaces in a household or hospital setting can also prevent the transmission of pathogens.118-120

2.2.3 Consumer protection

However, as the products usually come into contact with the human skin or mucous membranes, they also have the potential to negatively impact consumer health. Additionally, through the food web, ingredients can also enter the human body. Regulators have therefore banned ingredients or put maximum concentrations into place.121 For instance, as of April 2024 triclosan is banned in mouthwash and triclocarban can only be used in a concentration of 0.2% in dermally applied cosmetics.121 For this section some specific examples are highlighted.
Endocrine disruptors: Preservatives among other ingredients can work as endocrine disruptors in higher concentrations.122 Preservatives have been detected in higher concentrations in human urine, serum as well as breast tissue.80,123 Similar results have come from studies looking at phthalates.124 Phthalates are used as solvents and stabilizers in personal care products.125
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): The so-called PFAS are used to make products waterproof or grease proof.126,127 With such qualities they are used in dishwasher and laundry detergent, dental floss or shampoos.128 Exposure to PFAS can happen through the usage of products but is not limited to that. The drinking water supply as well as certain foods has been shown to be contaminated with higher levels of the dubbed forever chemicals. Lastly, workers in industries relying on PFAS can also be affected. Studies have shown that exposure to these chemicals for a prolonged period can cause cancer and other health problems such as fatty liver, reduced immune system and diabetes.129-132
Fragrances and volatile compounds: Household and personal care products contain several ingredients which have been shown to cause allergic reactions and respiratory problems.133 Among those are fragrances. Fragrances can not only cause an allergic reaction when coming into contact with the skin, they spread through the air and can cause asthma and headaches.134-136 As volatile organic compounds, they cause indoor air pollution and can affect the outdoor air quality.137-139 Spray formulation for instance in the case of deodorants or cleaners, can lead to inhalation.140,141 Especially pregnant women and children are impacted when it comes to respiratory diseases due to cleaners.142 As addressed in the environmental section, these chemicals end up in the wastewater and can impact humans further down the life cycle. For instance, synthetic musk has been detected in human breast milk, which means that these fragrances can bioaccumulate in the human body.63

2.2.4 Gender, Ethnic and Racial Equality

The issue of social inequalities can be considered from two sides, firstly inside the sectors companies and secondly on the side of the consumer. Both the companies behind the product as well as the products themselves have an impact regarding social sustainability.143
Gender equality: In general women are less likely to work in an industry setting, which includes manufacturing, compared to the other sectors of services and agriculture.144 The World Economic Forum defines women as being underrepresented, if they make up less than the global average score of 41.9% and the median of 42.4% within a sector.145 Here the manufacturing industry only sees 32% female employees with 25% in leadership positions.

In the case of consumer goods important player such as P&G or Henkel show fewer women than men working within the companies and less women than men working in leadership positions. The second issue can however be observed across economic sectors, as women are generally underrepresented in these positions.

Despite this, women have a considerable impact on the consumption of FMCG, especially in the personal care sector, where the use by women is higher for most products.150,151 The aspect gender also comes with associated characteristics about personal hygiene and use for cosmetics, which differ according to gender and leads to women being more exposed to chemicals in their day-to-day life.152 Studies have shown that the social construct also plays a role in the involvement of household chores.153 This also includes the purchasing of household products such as cleaning supplies as part of the unpaid care economy. Other factors relating to the biological sex such as the reproductive status, for instance pregnancy, can also put women at a higher risk for chemical exposure and related health issues.154 While women are often the ones purchasing and using the products, they are also the ones affected by the so-called pink-tax, which furthers the gender disparity through pricing. Products marketed for women frequently come at a price premium than similar products marketed for men. This price difference can be found across consumer product categories but is the highest in personal care with deodorants, body washes and razor blades.153,155-157 Additionally, the firm’s advertisement regarding these products often perpetuates gender stereotypes.158
Ethnic and Racial Equality: How products of the sector are promoted also gives insights into ethnic and racial disparities. Many products and the firms behind them promote harmful and often Eurocentric beauty standards, such as light skin and “good” hair, which is straight.159,160 A whiter skin color is seen as more desirable and fitting in with beauty standards.161 Therefore, there is a wide variety of products, such as lotions, creams and soaps, promising lightning effects on the skin.162 However, not only the skin color follows a white beauty image, but also the hair texture and style, making hair relaxers a popular ethnic hair care product across the globe.163 A study done in the U.S.A has shown that Black women as well as Hispanic women use significantly more hair care products than other ethnicities, leading to inequities in chemical exposure and health.164
Personal care products catering to those societal standards can be harmful for the end-consumer.165 Products such as whitening body lotions as well as hair relaxing products contain harsh chemicals.166 They have been shown to increase the risk of several types of cancer and cause hormone disruption.167,168 Marketing strategies targeted at certain social factors such as race and ethnicity further perpetuate an idealized, mostly white image of beauty, which influence the use of products such as hair relaxer and furthers health disparities, leading to inequality.166,169 Women of color are therefore disproportionately affected by these types of health problems.166 This discourse on disparities created by the sector can also be extended to its services, as women are usually the ones working in related businesses such as hair salons. Women are therefore also more affected by chemicals due to workplace exposure.170-172

3 Sustainability strategies and measure

3.1 Strategies and Concepts

Due to an increase in consumption of household and personal care products, especially in cosmetics, there is a general concern about the environmental impact. Not only the product itself and its ingredients have a considerable impact on the environment, but the packaging is also contributing to this increase. In this chapter different strategies and concepts will be discussed to make the sector more sustainable and environmentally friendly in the future.173

3.1.1 Product Strategies

During the 20th century the industry for personal care products experienced an economic boom. The reason being that they had cheaper products with a quality that is considered strongly consistent over the products and time. This was made possible by companies using synthetics in their product formulations. Due to the potential dangers and harmful effects of these synthetics, the ingredients shifted from the traditional ones from the 20th century to more natural ingredients. Natural ingredients are for example aloe vera, almond or different oils such as olive oil or mandarin oil.174
Natural ingredients, derived from animals or plants, are hereby only a classification of raw materials. More raw materials can be classified as organic or the traditional, synthetic materials. There are also nature-identical and naturally derived materials. Organic ingredients are similar to ingredients that are considered to be natural but organic ingredients come from agriculture that do not use non-organic practices such as pesticides. The class nature-identical are mimics natural ingredients, which are made in a laboratory. Finally, the naturally derived materials are still completely natural, which means the use of synthetics is not allowed. However, these are chemically processed. Although these groups aid in classification, some ingredients can be put in more than one group. With that said, it is also important to point out that it is incorrect to assume that every natural ingredient can be considered sustainable and every synthetic ingredient to be considered non-sustainable.175
One strategy for companies is to avoid or substitute certain ingredients for more sustainable alternatives. However, this is not the only aspect of the manufacturing process that can be improved regarding sustainability. During the manufacturing process of a household or personal care product one major issue is the energy consumption of manufacturing and the immense use of water together with waste management. To address these issues, companies are already developing new techniques and technologies to lower their impact on the environment. For energy consumption, companies turn to the use of renewable energy sources, for example solar or wind. Also, companies can switch out their equipment for more energy-efficient machinery and decrease energy loss and temperature during manufacturing processes with better insulation of buildings or cold emulsification. For the topic of water usage there are also different approaches. For example, reusing water that was used in the production process or optimizing the production in general. Furthermore, different sources of water, such as rainwater, are also considered. The general waste problem can be dealt with by treating the contaminated water and reusing it. Here, phytoremediation tanks can be used. Zero-waste policies are also a strategy to fight against increasing waste. The leading company for these strategies is the L’Oreal Group175,176
The whole distribution during the complete life cycle of a product in the household or personal care product industry is also a main driver for affecting the products sustainability. One strategy to lower the environmental impact after the manufacturing process itself is to transport preferably via ships or trains instead of trucks or planes. If trucks are necessary, companies should switch to electric or hybrid trucks to significantly lower their carbon footprint. Even the usage of larger trucks with more payload capacity would be beneficial for the environment due to the fact that it reduces the journeys of these vehicles.175

3.1.2 Sustainable Packaging

Since many brands in the personal-care products industry, especially the cosmetic sector, are switching to more sustainable packaging, the market for sustainable packaging is growing. It is expected that the market will be valued at more than USD 400 billion by 2027. Companies shift from traditional packaging such as plastic towards more sustainable packaging such as paper-based materials. This includes, for example, molded pulp or even cardboard. In addition to switching materials, recycling plays an important role. Companies are developing packaging that is easier to recycle and therefore the market for recyclable packaging is estimated to be worth around USD 260 billion in 2028.177
In the personal care products sector the materials used for packaging are plastic and glass. Paperboards or Paper as packaging would absorb the content of the product. For this reason, a protective layer made of, for example aluminum foil, is required. The right packaging for these products is vital because it protects the products against contamination and even against light. The selection of the packaging should be made carefully. To obtain suitable and sustainable packaging, a new material was developed. This material is biodegradable polymers, which can be degraded under the right conditions and circumstances. It is entirely made of materials that are plant based such as sugarcane. Thus, it can be graded as a sustainable material and is environmentally friendly.174,177,178 Another sustainable packaging material is glass. This material is well-suited for packing products of the sector due to the inert and non-toxic features. It does not need an additional layer of packaging unlike paperboards. Also glass itself is completely recyclable and does not lose any of its quality177
However, there are some initial challenges for companies to implement sustainable packaging, namely higher packaging cost, decreased margins and limiting innovation. Another challenge is that companies do not know what the definition of sustainable packaging is, due to the missing standardized definition and differing regulations made by regulators such as the EU. Benefits for the implementation are the reduced cost for packaging later on. This is because the packaging structure is simpler and has a minimalist design, hence it decreases the consumption of materials, which reduces the packaging cost. Sustainable packaging does not only result in lower costs, but it also increases brand loyalty and the image of the company. This can increase the sales volume and revenue, as customers’ buying behavior shifts to more environmentally conscious choices. It should also be mentioned that companies switching to alternative packaging can have an edge over competitors and be better prepared for changing regulations. The use of plastic might be restricted by regulatory bodies in the future, as the EU has already cracked down on certain types of plastic products in the past, such as straws. Hence the company is also preventing financial problems due to legal issues.177

3.1.3 Consumer Change and DIY

Consumer behavior has changed significantly compared to the last decades. In the last decades there has not been a widespread awareness of what happens to the environment as well as human health due to the products of the sector. This mindset has changed nowadays. Consumers became increasingly aware of harmful substances in the products they use every day. Adding to this is the public outcry against animal testing and its ethics. As already mentioned, there is a trend towards sustainable consumption, however there is still a gap needed to be bridged in developing countries. More needs to be done, to raise awareness and shift consumer behavior. The consumers who are aware of their purchasing behavior already buy sustainable packaging instead of plastic packaging and rather buy products from companies that engage in more bio-efficiency and in a circular approach instead of the linear economy.174,179
The best measure for a consumer who wants to precisely know what is in their product and what happened during the process of making it, is switching to Do-It-Yourself (DIY). These DIY products have many benefits next to the already stated one. Another advantage is the low cost because the resources needed can be gathered from gardens of kitchen pantries. Also, nowadays it is easy to create such products due to the many instructions available online. Popular DIY products in the skincare section include ingredients such as aloe vera, baking soda or lemon juice.180

3.2 Measures and Tools

There is a growing demand for raw materials as well as energy. Simultaneously, emissions such as greenhouse gas and waste also increase. To address this issue experts suggest taking measures and developing tools to protect the environment. In the following chapter selected measures and tools, such as the 3R concept or the Circular Economy, to be defined and applied to the sector.181

3.2.1 Recycling, Reuse and Refill

Companies can take advantage of the already existing recycling, reuse and refill systems. By applying a recycling system to products which are initially single use, the need for energy can be reduced and less landfill waste is incurred. Despite these advantages, companies make too little use of recycling.182 One downside is that recycling itself can be harmful to the environment. Harsh chemicals can be released while recycling packaging material, therefore recycling is not suitable for every material. For example, Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is not optimal for recycling.174 A new measure which is more beneficial for recycling is the use of 3-D printing. This can be used on certain plastics, but for it to be feasible, for companies 3-D printing needs a reduction in price since the printing can be more costly than purchasing regular plastics.174
For reusable packaging there was, in countries without regulations against single-use packaging, a movement against reusable packaging. Companies were using single use instead of reusable or other forms of sustainable packaging. In these countries, for example the Netherlands, the main focus is on recycling and more light-weighting packaging. While this still helps in making products more sustainable, reusable packaging is more efficient than lightweight packaging and recycling. Approximately more than 20% of all packaging that consists of plastic can be changed out for a reusable system. Companies are developing many ways to design packaging which is reusable. For example, some companies want to get rid of the packaging altogether and are researching ways to implement packaging-free shops. Other companies do not want to take such drastic measures, instead they try to decrease the number of materials that are used for reusable packaging. The goal of a well-developed reuseable packaging system is the saving of materials. Some systems, for example, produce returnable or transit packaging. Other alternatives are bulk dispensers or parent packaging which is reusable.183

3.2.2 Circular Economy Technologies

Circular economy is a concept which defines a system where the input of resources is minimized. It minimizes by completely closing the material and energy cycles or at least reducing and slowing it down.184 Such a system is needed nowadays because materials and energy are linear. Therefore, resources in this kind of system are running out. The global ecosystem, from which these resources are gained, is in critical condition. To maintain this ecosystem, the concept of the circular economy comes into play.185
For companies in the personal care product sector biodiversity plays a crucial role. It provides the companies with materials and ingredients, for example. The best practice for ingredients is to switch from synthetic to natural ingredients throughout the whole supply chain. Another practice is to use by-products of food production, which is efficient and produces less waste. Furthermore, the cosmetic industry can reuse waste products by the agro-industries in their own manufacture process, therefore keeping products in the circular system.176

3.2.3 Life Cycle Assessment

Another tool that can be used is the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). This tool is used to research the sustainability of a specific product or system in general. Its most frequent use is the evaluation in terms of the environmental impact of certain raw materials which are used for packaging.173
To give a more detailed and practical example of an LCA in the sector, we can use as the example of three cosmetic packaging types from a large Chinese company. The first packaging is a 0,2 l PET bottle, the second is a 0.12 l glass bottle and the last one is a 0.15 l PET bottle. All of these are on the consumer market in China, which has over 80% plastic packaging and only slightly over 5% use glass as the material for their packaging. With that being said, the goal is now to measure the impact of the three packaging types. While doing the LCA, these products are looked at from the cradle to their grave.173
To begin with the analysis, it is important to have an insight into the raw materials. For all bottles there will be a cap installed which is made of High-density polyethylene (HDPE). For the first bottle the total weight is nearly 100 grams, for the glass bottle the weight is slightly above 200 grams and for the last one the weight is 33 grams. The manufacturing process for the PET and HDPE materials is injection molding. The next step is to look at the transportation aspect. This process starts with the manufacturer, then goes to the retailer and from there it goes to the consumer. The calculated distance is 16,270 km. By calculating this we must keep in mind that the three products are probably not the only products being transported. The largest distance, which is from the manufacturer to the retailer, is done by ship. After transportation follows the use of the product. To measure the use of the product a parameter needs to be defined. This parameter shows how the users consume the product. A “1” would be the default value. The normal range of this value goes from 0.8 to 1.2. The last stage to investigate is the end of life of the products. Nearly a third of plastic waste goes to the landfill. Another 30% goes directly to incineration and 30% will be recycled. All of this will be simulated and will influence the LCA results.173
The results consist of three scores which are added up. The scores are “Human Health”, “Ecosystems” and “Resources”. The higher the number of the score, the greater the impact of the product is in these sections. The total score is the combination of all three, while the highest score has the highest impact on the environment and is considered the worst and the lowest is being considered the environment friendliest. In this example the glass bottle has the highest total rating. Only the first bottle has a higher rating in the section “Resource”. The third bottle has the lowest overall rating and is considered the best.173

3.3 Best Practice Examples

One company that can be looked at for best practice examples is Henkel. The German company uses natural ingredients in different products of their brands. For some products it is their main ingredient, for example in their glue sticks. Other products are entirely made from natural ingredients, such as in their fabric softener Vernel. Since 2023 Vernel consists of 100% natural ingredients and before that they were already nearly completely natural.186 Furthermore, Henkel has developed and uses sustainable packaging. Most of the companies’ packaging can be reused or recycled. However, they aim to design every packaging until 2025 to be reusable or recyclable.186
Henkel is not the only big player in the sector that has already implemented some sustainable measures. Another one is the L’Oreal Group, which has invested a lot in resource-efficient manufacturing in the last years. They reduced their environmental footprint in manufacturing by more than a half from the year 2020 compared to the year 2015. They completed this reduction by cutting down the use of water, reducing waste as well as their CO2 emissions. To reduce CO2 emissions more energy efficient manufacturing machines were used, and processes were optimized. For reducing the amount of water needed during the manufacturing process, water was recycled, and the consumption was optimized. Lastly, waste was cut down by treating the water and reusing it in the manufacturing process.187

4 Drivers and barriers

4.1 Drivers and barriers of sustainability regarding household and care products

To accurately assess the different dimensions of the barriers and drivers of sustainability regarding household and personal care products it is important to shed light on the different perspectives of consumers and the companies themselves. As stated before, there is a growing awareness of environmental issues from the consumers and an increase in regulatory pressure. Thus, companies are compelled to integrate sustainable practices into their product development and their supply chains. The result of this is a competitive market where sustainability is a relevant unique selling point and a possible advantage against competitors while sustainability also satisfies customers and stakeholders.188
Another very important perspective of the drivers and barriers of sustainability is the perspective of the consumer, who plays a crucial role in the implementation of sustainable practices. Through their new purchasing preferences, they put pressure on the companies to act in a sustainable way.189 The only way towards a greener economy is through regulation, investments, technological innovation but also behavioral change at all levels of society, thus the customers perspective is as important as the company’s perspective.190,191 As a result of that, the European Commission’s action plan for a circular economy values consumer behavior and consumption as one of its focus areas.192
Therefore, a comprehensive analysis of the drivers and barriers for sustainable household products from both the corporate and consumer perspectives is essential. Another important aspect is the close connection between many of the drivers and barriers from each perspective. Without an understanding of the drivers and barriers the behaviors of consumers and companies cannot be correctly assessed.

4.2 Drivers and Barriers from a customer perspective

4.2.1 Customer drivers

As already stated in the introduction of this section, the awareness for environmental concerns and environmental consciousness has been rising in the past decades. Adding to the environmental aspects are the concerns about social responsibility regarding the purchase of a product. Many customers are much more conscious about their impact on the world if they buy certain products. The drivers for a more sustainable customer are often the values and beliefs of the customer themselves. We will now go into more detail regarding the different internal drivers of a customer be more sustainable in their consumption.

4.2.1.1 Environmental consciousness and awareness

In today’s world the consumer has much more knowledge about a product and its effects on the environment compared to the past. Environmental consciousness refers to “psychological factors that determine consumer propensity for eco-friendly behavior”.193 It has its origins in the 60s in the west where a group of people refrained from purchasing certain goods because of their environmentally hazardous by-products.194 Environmental consciousness is a significant internal driver for consumers to avoid using plastic-based packaging waste (PPW) products. Many consumers today are increasingly aware of the environmental harm caused by single-use plastics, such as pollution which fuels their commitment to reducing their waste.195 This awareness often results in pro-environmental behaviors, including avoidance regarding PPW products.196 For instance, studies indicate that heightened awareness of plastic pollution and its environmental consequences, like microplastics in oceans and waste in forests drives consumers to opt for alternatives to single-use plastics. This awareness is also reflected in their willingness to participate in sustainable practices, such as using reusable bags and containers, which further decreases reliance on PPW products.197 Moreover, research highlights that such environmental concerns influence consumer behavior globally.198 For example, in China, consumer attitudes and perceived behavioral control over single-use plastic avoidance are significantly influenced by environmental concerns, which in turn shapes their purchasing decisions and promotes sustainability.199

4.2.1.2. Health concerns

Health concerns are a significant internal driver that leads some consumers to avoid using products made from PPW, particularly in healthcare packaging. This avoidance stems from a growing awareness and concern about the potential health risks associated with plastic use. The biggest risk consumers are faced with is chemical leeching. Many customers fear the potential of chemicals such as phthalates, bisphenol A (BPA), and other plasticizers which can migrate into the product formulation from the packaging.200
As mentioned in 2.2.4 research has shown that these chemicals can potentially lead to a wide range of health issues ranging from hormonal imbalances to an increased risk of certain types of cancer.201 This growing awareness drives customers to seek out alternative options that are perceived as safer. Stainless steel, glass and most importantly certain types of biodegradable packaging are often preferred over plastic due to the absence of chemicals such as BPA. This trend towards organic and natural products further fuels the behavioral shift of many customers as customers who prioritize their health are also more likely to avoid PPW packaging.

4.2.1.3 Ethical and Moral Values

For many customers, the avoidance of products that are not sustainable is deeply rooted in their ethical and moral values. A significant ethical driver for many customers is the sense of responsibility toward future generations.202 Consumers that prioritize sustainability often feel a moral obligation to reduce their waste and thus limit their environmental impact. Which in turn will lead to a healthier planet for future generations. This is particularly important in the context of household products, where daily consumption can lead to huge amounts of waste if not carefully and consciously managed. Research indicates that consumers who are motivated by their ethical considerations are more likely to engage in sustainable consumption practices.203 Another ethical aspect is the general waste reduction regarding environmental justice. The rising awareness also sheds light on the difference in impact regarding recycling and waste across the world. Many customers are aware that a huge amount of waste has drastically different impacts on different communities and countries in the world. The negative impacts of waste are stronger in marginalized communities and ecosystems as well as developing countries where the waste management infrastructure is inadequate.204 These social norms have a considerable impact on the behavior of every customer because a customer is more likely to engage in plastic avoidance if they believe this behavior is “normal”.205

4.2.2 Internal Customer Barriers

4.2.2.1 Accessibility, Availability and Opportunity

Many researchers analyzed customer behavior regarding plastic waste incurred from packaging and recycling based on the MOA Framework.206,207 Motivation, opportunity and ability are the three aspects that are analyzed. One of the biggest barriers for a customer is the limited accessibility and availability of non-plastic alternatives and the low accessibility of adequate recycling availabilities. In many countries there is simply not a real alternative to plastic packaging and even if there is an alternative, the recycling infrastructure is lacking. Basic waste separation, for example, is crucial for the recycling process.208,209 The perceived difficulty of recycling is the strongest predicator of willingness to reduce single use plastic according to studies.203 Likewise, the effectiveness of waste sorting system is closely connected to how convenient it is for consumers to use them.

4.2.2.2 Lack of knowledge

As described in the section above, awareness and knowledge about the potential impacts of waste are an important aspect in the consideration of sustainable alternatives for a customer.210 If the customer does not understand the differences in the available packaging materials or how to sort the PPW correctly, they cannot engage in an effective way of reducing their waste.211 Furthermore, customers especially lack knowledge about the different plastic packaging types and their impacts.212 To combat this lack of knowledge, companies and regulatory bodies need to inform the customer base about the different degrees of sustainability of their packaged goods.

4.3 Drivers and Barriers from a company perspective

As stated earlier, there is a close connection between the drivers from the two different perspectives. The behavior of the customers and their purchasing decision are the reason why companies feel the need to adapt to the new wants and needs of their customer base. So, the demand from the customers is one major reason for many external but also internal drivers of a company.

4.3.1 Internal Drivers

4.3.1.1 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Ethical Values

Ethical values are also important from the company’s perspective. Many companies in recent times also focus on their CSR and feel obligated to reduce their waste and strengthen their social equality alongside the whole supply chain.213 An example of a successful company that bases their whole brand around a high CSR and ethical values is Lush. Lush is known for its innovative approach to packaging. Using solid bars of soap instead of liquid products in plastic containers for example. This in turn reduces the amount of waste in the post-consumer stage of the product. When packaging cannot be avoided, Lush uses recycled materials wherever possible while also working to improve the recyclability of their packaging materials. To further increase the recyclability of their products, Lush has implemented a take-back scheme in many of their stores. Customers can return empty containers for reuse or recycling. With this closed-loop system, Lush plans to further reduce waste and encourage customers to participate in sustainable practices.214 It also engages in boarder environmental initiatives such as supporting campaigns for rainforest and ocean conservation and advocating for a reduction in plastic use. There are also other companies that are this active regarding their CSR, Lush is just one practice example. In general, research has shown that a proactive demand of green products, processes and services are leading to the development of environmental practices, especially in small and medium enterprises.215

4.3.1.2 Innovation and Market Differentiation

As already explained in the section on internal customer drivers, many customers of today are aware of the possible implications of their consumption for the environment and social justice. Following this trend there is a potential for new revenue streams. Companies can create unique products that stand out in an oversaturated market. Small and medium enterprises are more flexible than multi-national cooperations and thus more flexible in adjusting to new environmental and social targets.216 The “naked” products of Lush for example, were sold without any packaging, thus appealing to consumers who prioritize sustainability which in turn gives the company a competitive edge.217 This also leads to an external driver for companies to keep an eye on their PPW avoidance. When adopted in an efficient way, structuring the supply chain and the packaging of a good to be more sustainable can create a new market for companies and thus may create new revenue streams and market shares.

4.3.2 External Drivers

4.3.2.1 Consumer Demand and Market Trends

As the social and environmental consciousness of the population is steadily rising, companies have to adapt to new trends on the market.213 Besides the potential financial benefits from going a more sustainable route, there are also potential reputational and brand image advantages for early adopting companies. Being seen as environmentally responsible can enhance brand loyalty, attract positive media attention and help mitigate the risk of negative publicity connected to environmental harm. Many big cooperations are trying to enhance the public perception of their company with sustainable practices. An example from practice is Unilever. Unilever has its own Sustainable Living Plan (USLP) which showed an increase in growth against the other competitors through trust and brand loyalty, which was fueled by their sustainability credentials.218

4.3.2.2 Regulatory Pressures

As many countries pledged to reduce their environmental footprint over the next years, a lot of countries passed new regulations with a focus on reducing plastic waste and enhancing working conditions and pay for workers alongside the supply chains of companies.219 An example of such a new regulation is the European Union’s single-use plastics directive, which aims to reduce the environmental impact of plastic products, forced many companies to rethink their approach to packaging strategies.220 Another example is the European Sustainability Reporting Standards, which requires companies to disclose extensive information about their environmental impacts, including biodiversity and human rights. In the United States, there are also new rules and guidelines provided by regulatory bodies. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), for example, just updated their reporting requirements for companies in March of 2024. Companies are now forced to disclose more about their environmental impact than before.221

4.3.3 Internal Barriers

4.3.3.1 Cost constraints and acceptance on the market

Changing the entire philosophy and behavior of the company involves an enormous initial investment. Changes such as switching the packaging to a more environmentally friendly option require research and development. Such initial investments can be an obstacle for companies to justify these expenditures. This effect is even stronger because there are no initial financial benefits from the change. Furthermore, it is not guaranteed that a sustainable alternative is more desirable from a customer’s point of view. Many customers value the sustainability of a product not as highly as their main qualities. For example: A customer that wants a laundry detergent, values the cleaning quality of the product higher than its sustainability.222 Thus, changing certain aspects of a product to make it more sustainable, which squeezes the margins of the company, must be evaluated beforehand in order to avoid losses in market share and revenue.

4.3.3.2 Supply Chain Limitations

Many companies that want to integrate sustainable practices in their supply chain are not always able to trace where their raw materials come from. This problem is even more prominent with small and medium-sized companies, which do not own every part of their supply chain or have generally lesser influence over it.223 It is challenging to find a supplier that is willing to be transparent about their practices and their environmental as well as social sustainability. So, there is always a risk of becoming a victim to “green washing” in their supply chain.224

4.3.4 External Barriers

4.3.4.1 Market Readiness and Consumer Behavior

Although many customers grow increasingly aware of the different aspects of sustainability in combination with their behavior, it is important to highlight that many customers value the basic product attributes higher than the sustainable ones.222 Therefore, it is important for companies to also highlight the quality of their more sustainable products if they want to sell them and gain market share. Unfortunately, today, there is a misalignment between the want of the consumers and the offer of the companies.222 Another aspect to be aware of as a company is the shift in the consumption profile of customers. Where a customer might act in a sustainable way in their purchasing decision regarding energy, they may not act in the same way if they want to purchase clothes or another product.222 Consequently, companies must structure their marketing campaign in a certain way to show their customers what benefits come with the new products or why the price premium is worth it from their perspective.222

4.3.4.2 Marketing Strategies and competitive pressure

The pressure to maintain competitive pricing and thus maintain the market share can discourage companies from adopting more sustainable but also more costly practices. If a competitor does not invest in sustainable products and is therefore cheaper, there could be a competitive advantage for the competitor because the consumers value price over sustainability. Clorox Green Works, for example, was a product that captured 40% of the natural cleaning products market share within a year but then suddenly plateaued.225 The reason was the usage of insider language and higher prices in comparison to their competitors which turned off the mass-market customers. The usage of words such as “eco” can give the perception of a product that is not as good as the conventional version,222 which in turn discourages mass customers. So, the implementation of sustainable products on the market is not as easy as it may sound.

References

1 Nitsch, C., Heitland, H. J., Marsen, H. & Schlüssler, H. J. in Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry (Wiley, 2003).
2 A.I.S.E. Product categories from the A.I.S.E. portfolio, https://www.aise.eu/documents/document/20131014165516-product_categories_2013.pdf (2013).
3 Khalid, M. & Abdollahi, M. Environmental Distribution of Personal Care Products and Their Effects on Human Health. Iran J Pharm Res 20, 216–253 (2021). https://doi.org:10.22037/ijpr.2021.114891.15088.
4 Lang, C. et al. Personal Care Product Use in Pregnancy and the Postpartum Period: Implications for Exposure Assessment. Int J Environ Res Public Health 13 (2016). https://doi.org:10.3390/ijerph13010105.
5 Garcia-Hidalgo, E., Goetz, N. v., Siegrist, M. & Hungerbühler, K. Use-patterns of personal care and household cleaning products in Switzerland. Food Chem Toxicol 99, 24–39 (2017). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.fct.2016.10.030.
6 van der Laan, A. & Aurisicchio, M. Archetypical consumer roles in closing the loops of resource flows for Fast-Moving Consumer Goods. J. Clean. Prod. 236, 117475 (2019). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.306.
7 Draelos, Z. D. Cosmetics and skin care products. A historical perspective. Dermatol. Clin. 18, 557–559 (2000). https://doi.org:10.1016/s0733-8635(05)70206-0.
8 Konkol, K. L. & Rasmussen, S. C. in Chemical Technology in Antiquity Vol. 1211 ACS Symposium Series (ed Seth C. Rasmussen) 245–266 (American Chemical Society, 2015).
9 Greene, V. W. Personal hygiene and life expectancy improvements since 1850: historic and epidemiologic associations. Am. J. Infect. Control 29, 203–206 (2001). https://doi.org:10.1067/mic.2001.115686.
10 World Economic Forum. Nature Positive: The Role of the Household and Personal Care Sector in the Circular Bioeconomy. (2023).
11 European Environment Agency. Managing the systemic use of chemicals in Europe, https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/managing-the-systemic-use-of (accessed 08.03.2023).
12 ChemicalSafetyFacts.org. Chemistry of Cosmetics: 20 Chemicals in Personal Care Products, https://www.chemicalsafetyfacts.org/health-and-safety/chemistry-of-cosmetics-20-chemicals-that-make-up-personal-care-products/ (2023).
13 Cosmetics Europe. Cosmetics and personal care industry overview, https://cosmeticseurope.eu/cosmetics-industry/ (2022).
14 Bennett, D. H. et al. Passive sampling methods to determine household and personal care product use. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 22, 148–160 (2012). https://doi.org:10.1038/jes.2011.40.
15 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Expenditures 2022: Economic News Release, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cesan.nr0.htm (2023).
16 Feber, D., Granskog, A., Lingqvist, O. & Nordigården, D. Sustainability in packaging: Inside the minds of US consumers, https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/packaging-and-paper/our-insights/sustainability-in-packaging-inside-the-minds-of-us-consumers (2020).
17 A.I.S.E. A.I.S.E. Charter for Sustainable Cleaning, https://www.aise.eu/our-activities/sustainable-cleaning-78/charter-for-sustainable-cleaning-2874.aspx (2020).
18 Ritchie, H. & Roser, M. Palm Oil, https://ourworldindata.org/palm-oil (2021).
19 Nuryawan, A., Sutiawan, J., Rahmawaty, Masruchin, N. & Bekhta, P. Panel Products Made of Oil Palm Trunk: A Review of Potency, Environmental Aspect, and Comparison with Wood-Based Composites. Polymers 14 (2022). https://doi.org:10.3390/polym14091758.
20 Shigetomi, Y., Ishimura, Y. & Yamamoto, Y. Trends in global dependency on the Indonesian palm oil and resultant environmental impacts. Sci. rep. 10, 20624 (2020). https://doi.org:10.1038/s41598-020-77458-4.
21 Meijaard, E. et al. Oil palm and biodiversity: a situation analysis by the IUCN Oil Palm Task Force. (IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2018).
22 Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Certified sustainable palm oil in Germany – Forum for Sustainable Palm Oil, https://www.bmel.de/EN/topics/food-and-nutrition/sustainable-consumption/sustainable-palm-oil-fonap.html (2023).
23 Austin, K. G., Schwantes, A., Gu, Y. & Kasibhatla, P. S. What causes deforestation in Indonesia? Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 024007 (2019). https://doi.org:10.1088/1748-9326/aaf6db.
24 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The State of the World´s Forests 2020, https://www.fao.org/state-of-forests/en/ (2020).
25 Vijay, V., Pimm, S. L., Jenkins, C. N. & Smith, S. J. The Impacts of Oil Palm on Recent Deforestation and Biodiversity Loss. PloS one 11, e0159668 (2016). https://doi.org:10.1371/journal.pone.0159668.
26 Procter & Gamble. Environmental – Palm, https://www.pginvestor.com/esg/environmental/forestry/palm-overview/default.aspx (accessed 03.08.2024).
27 Caioni, G., Benedetti, E., Perugini, M., Amorena, M. & Merola, C. Personal Care Products as a Contributing Factor to Antimicrobial Resistance: Current State and Novel Approach to Investigation. Antibiotics 12 (2023). https://doi.org:10.3390/antibiotics12040724.
28 Yueh, M.-F. & Tukey, R. H. Triclosan: A Widespread Environmental Toxicant with Many Biological Effects. Annu. Rev. Pharmacool. Toxicol. 56, 251–272 (2016). https://doi.org:10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010715-103417.
29 Klamerus-Iwan, A., Błońska, E., Lasota, J., Kalandyk, A. & Waligórski, P. Influence of Oil Contamination on Physical and Biological Properties of Forest Soil After Chainsaw Use. Water Air Soil Pollut 226, 389 (2015). https://doi.org:10.1007/s11270-015-2649-2.
30 Eom, I. C., Rast, C., Veber, A. M. & Vasseur, P. Ecotoxicity of a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)-contaminated soil. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 67, 190–205 (2007). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2006.12.020.
31 Safe Cosmetics. Synthetic Musks, https://www.safecosmetics.org/chemicals/synthetic-musks/ (2022).
32 Popek, E. in Sampling and analysis of environmental chemical pollutants (ed E. P. Popek) 13–69 (Elsevier, 2017).
33 Chalew, T. E. & Halden, R. U. Environmental Exposure of Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota to Triclosan and Triclocarban. J Am Water Works Assoc. 45, 4–13 (2009). https://doi.org:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2008.00284.x.
34 Wu, C., Spongberg, A. L., Witter, J. D., Fang, M. & Czajkowski, K. P. Uptake of pharmaceutical and personal care products by soybean plants from soils applied with biosolids and irrigated with contaminated water. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 6157–6161 (2010). https://doi.org:10.1021/es1011115.
35 Karnjanapiboonwong, A. et al. Uptake of 17α-ethynylestradiol and triclosan in pinto bean, Phaseolus vulgaris. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 74, 1336–1342 (2011). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2011.03.013.
36 Nowak-Lange, M., Niedziałkowska, K. & Lisowska, K. Cosmetic Preservatives: Hazardous Micropollutants in Need of Greater Attention? Int. J. Mol. Sci. 23 (2022). https://doi.org:10.3390/ijms232214495.
37 European Environment Agency. Contamination from local sources, https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/soil/soil-threats/soil-contamination-from-local-sources (2020).
38 Contreras-Ramos, S. M., Alvarez-Bernal, D. & Dendooven, L. Eisenia fetida increased removal of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from soil. Environ Pollut. 141, 396-401 (2006). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.envpol.2005.08.057.
39 Carter, O. W. L., Xu, Y. & Sadler, P. J. Minerals in biology and medicine. RSC Adv. 11, 1939–1951 (2021). https://doi.org:10.1039/d0ra09992a.
40 Butt, N. et al. Biodiversity Risks from Fossil Fuel Extraction. Science 342, 425–426 (2013). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1237261.
41 Harfoot, M. B. J. et al. Present and future biodiversity risks from fossil fuel exploitation. Conserv. Lett. 11 (2018). https://doi.org:10.1111/conl.12448.
42 Christian, M. S., Parker, R. M., Hoberman, A. M., Diener, R. M. & Api, A. M. Developmental toxicity studies of four fragrances in rats. Toxicol. Lett. 111, 169–174 (1999). https://doi.org:10.1016/s0378-4274(99)00178-2.
43 Carlsson, G., Orn, S., Andersson, P. L., Söderström, H. & Norrgren, L. The impact of musk ketone on reproduction in zebrafish (Danio rerio). Mar. Environ. Res. 50, 237–241 (2000). https://doi.org:10.1016/s0141-1136(00)00075-1.
44 European Comission. Ban on animal testing, https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/cosmetics/ban-animal-testing_en (accessed 06.08.2024).
45 Boxall, A. B. A. et al. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment: what are the big questions? Environ. Health Perspect. 120, 1221–1229 (2012). https://doi.org:10.1289/ehp.1104477.
46 Pearson, R. M. In-vitro techniques: can they replace animal testing? Hum Reprod 1, 559–560 (1986). https://doi.org:10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a136473.
47 EU Science Hub. Alternatives for animal testing – Frequently Asked Questions, https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/reference-measurement/european-union-reference-laboratories/eu-reference-laboratory-alternatives-animal-testing-eurl-ecvam/eurl-ecvam-faqs/frequently-asked-questions-general_en (accessed 07.08.2024).
48 Cristiano, L. & Guagni, M. Zooceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients Derived from Animals. Cosmetics 9, 13 (2022). https://doi.org:10.3390/cosmetics9010013.
49 Latheef, F. & Wilkinson, M. in Contact Dermatitis (eds Jeanne Duus Johansen, Vera Mahler, Jean-Pierre Lepoittevin, & Peter J. Frosch) 1–21 (Springer International Publishing Springer, 2019).
50 Aguiar, J. B., Martins, A. M., Almeida, C., Ribeiro, H. M. & Marto, J. Water sustainability: A waterless life cycle for cosmetic products. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 32, 35–51 (2022). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.spc.2022.04.008.
51 Cosmetic Business. Blue gold: Water in cosmetics, https://www.cosmeticsbusiness.com/news/article_page/Blue_gold_Water_in_cosmetics/156328 (2019).
52 Carbon Disclosure Project. What CDP does, https://www.cdp.net/en/info/about-us/what-we-do (accessed 07.08.2024).
53 Carbon Disclosure Project. Water Watch – CDP Water Impact Index, https://www.cdp.net/en/investor/water-watch-cdp-water-impact-index (accessed 07.08.2024).
54 Hoekstra, A. Y. & Mekonnen, M. M. The water footprint of humanity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109, 3232–3237 (2012). https://doi.org:10.1073/pnas.1109936109.
55 Water Footprint Network. What can companies do?, https://www.waterfootprint.org/time-for-action/what-can-companies-do/ (2024).
56 McCance, W. et al. Contaminants of Emerging Concern as novel groundwater tracers for delineating wastewater impacts in urban and peri-urban areas. Water Res. 146, 118–133 (2018). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.watres.2018.09.013.
57 Brausch, J. M. & Rand, G. M. A review of personal care products in the aquatic environment: environmental concentrations and toxicity. Chemosphere 82, 1518–1532 (2011). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.11.018.
58 European Comission. Dangerous products notified in Safety Gate in 2023, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_1402 (2014).
59 OECD. Plastic pollution is growing relentlessly as waste management and recycling fall short, says OECD, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/news/press-releases/2022/02/plastic-pollution-is-growing-relentlessly-as-waste-management-and-recycling-fall-short.html (2022).
60 Liu, J.-L. & Wong, M.-H. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs): a review on environmental contamination in China. Environ. Int. 59, 208–224 (2013). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.envint.2013.06.012.
61 Chen, D. et al. The concentrations and distribution of polycyclic musks in a typical cosmetic plant. Chemosphere 66, 252–258 (2007). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.05.024.
62 Gomez, E. et al. Estrogenic activity of cosmetic components in reporter cell lines: parabens, UV screens, and musks. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Sci. A 68, 239–251 (2005). https://doi.org:10.1080/15287390590895054.
63 Taylor, K. M., Weisskopf, M. & Shine, J. Human exposure to nitro musks and the evaluation of their potential toxicity: an overview. Environ health. 13, 14 (2014). https://doi.org:10.1186/1476-069x-13-14.
64 Wong, F. et al. Urban sources of synthetic musk compounds to the environment. Environ. Sci.: Processes Impacts 21, 74–88 (2019). https://doi.org:10.1039/c8em00341f.
65 Peck, A. M., Linebaugh, E. K. & Hornbuckle, K. C. Synthetic musk fragrances in Lake Erie and Lake Ontario sediment cores. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 5629–5635 (2006). https://doi.org:10.1021/es060134y.
66 Wan, Y. et al. Levels, tissue distribution, and age-related accumulation of synthetic musk fragrances in Chinese sturgeon (Acipenser sinensis): comparison to organochlorines. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 424–430 (2007). https://doi.org:10.1021/es061771r.
67 Hu, Z., Shi, Y. & Cai, Y. Concentrations, distribution, and bioaccumulation of synthetic musks in the Haihe River of China. Chemosphere 84, 1630–1635 (2011). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.05.013.
68 Nakata, H. Occurrence of synthetic musk fragrances in marine mammals and sharks from Japanese coastal waters. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39, 3430–3434 (2005). https://doi.org:10.1021/es050199l.
69 Duedahl-Olesen, L., Cederberg, T., Pedersen, K. H. & Højgård, A. Synthetic musk fragrances in trout from Danish fish farms and human milk. Chemosphere 61, 422–431 (2005). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.02.004.
70 Li, Z.-H. et al. Hepatic antioxidant status and hematological parameters in rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, after chronic exposure to carbamazepine. Chem Biol Interact 183, 98–104 (2010). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.cbi.2009.09.009.
71 Chen, F., Gao, J. & Zhou, Q. Toxicity assessment of simulated urban runoff containing polycyclic musks and cadmium in Carassius auratus using oxidative stress biomarkers. Environ. Pollut. 162, 91–97 (2012). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.envpol.2011.10.016.
72 Salim, S. Oxidative Stress and the Central Nervous System. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 360, 201–205 (2017). https://doi.org:10.1124/jpet.116.237503.
73 Ojemaye, C. Y. & Petrik, L. Occurrences, levels and risk assessment studies of emerging pollutants (pharmaceuticals, perfluoroalkyl and endocrine disrupting compounds) in fish samples from Kalk Bay harbour, South Africa. Environ. Pollut. 252, 562–572 (2019). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.envpol.2019.05.091.
74 Tanoue, R. et al. Uptake and Tissue Distribution of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in Wild Fish from Treated-Wastewater-Impacted Streams. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 11649–11658 (2015). https://doi.org:10.1021/acs.est.5b02478.
75 Yang, L.-H. et al. Growth-inhibiting effects of 12 antibacterial agents and their mixtures on the freshwater microalga Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata. Environ Toxicol Chem 27, 1201–1208 (2008). https://doi.org:10.1897/07-471.1.
76 Tatarazako, N., Ishibashi, H., Teshima, K., Kishi, K. & Arizono, K. Effects of triclosan on various aquatic organisms. Environ. Sci. 11, 133–140 (2004).
77 Foran, C. M., Bennett, E. R. & Benson, W. H. Developmental evaluation of a potential non-steroidal estrogen: triclosan. Mar. Environ. Res. 50, 153–156 (2000). https://doi.org:10.1016/s0141-1136(00)00080-5.
78 Caliman, F. A. & Gavrilescu, M. Pharmaceuticals, Personal Care Products and Endocrine Disrupting Agents in the Environment – A Review. Clean 37, 277–303 (2009). https://doi.org:10.1002/clen.200900038.
79 Aiello, A. E. & Larson, E. Antibacterial cleaning and hygiene products as an emerging risk factor for antibiotic resistance in the community. Lancet Infect Dis. 3, 501–506 (2003). https://doi.org:10.1016/s1473-3099(03)00723-0.
80 Błędzka, D., Gromadzińska, J. & Wąsowicz, W. Parabens. From environmental studies to human health. Environ. Int. 67, 27–42 (2014). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.envint.2014.02.007.
81 Pereira, A. R., Simões, M. & Gomes, I. B. Parabens as environmental contaminants of aquatic systems affecting water quality and microbial dynamics. Sci. Total Environ. 905, 167332 (2023). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167332.
82 Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety. Clarification on Opinion SCCS/1348/10, https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_069.pdf (2011).
83 Sharifan, H. Alarming the impacts of the organic and inorganic UV blockers on endangered coral’s species in the Persian Gulf: A scientific concern for coral protection. Sustain Futures 2, 100017 (2020). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.sftr.2020.100017.
84 Miller, I. B. et al. Toxic effects of UV filters from sunscreens on coral reefs revisited: regulatory aspects for “reef safe” products. Environ. Sci. Eur. 33 (2021). https://doi.org:10.1186/s12302-021-00515-w.
85 Krause, M. et al. Sunscreens: are they beneficial for health? An overview of endocrine disrupting properties of UV-filters. Int. J. Androl. 35, 424–436 (2012). https://doi.org:10.1111/j.1365-2605.2012.01280.x.
86 OECD. Global Plastics Outlook. (OECD, 2022).
87 Ritchie, H., Samborska, V. & Roser, M. Plastic Pollution, https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution (2023).
88 Praveena, S. M., Shaifuddin, S. N. M. & Akizuki, S. Exploration of microplastics from personal care and cosmetic products and its estimated emissions to marine environment: An evidence from Malaysia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 136, 135–140 (2018). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.09.012.
89 Murphy, F., Ewins, C., Carbonnier, F. & Quinn, B. Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) as a Source of Microplastics in the Aquatic Environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 5800–5808 (2016). https://doi.org:10.1021/acs.est.5b05416.
90 Steer, M., Cole, M., Thompson, R. C. & Lindeque, P. K. Microplastic ingestion in fish larvae in the western English Channel. Environ. Pollut. 226, 250–259 (2017). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.envpol.2017.03.062.
91 Karami, A., Romano, N., Galloway, T. & Hamzah, H. Virgin microplastics cause toxicity and modulate the impacts of phenanthrene on biomarker responses in African catfish (Clarias gariepinus). Environ. Res. 151, 58–70 (2016). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.envres.2016.07.024.
92 Carlos de Sá, L., Luís, L. G. & Guilhermino, L. Effects of microplastics on juveniles of the common goby (Pomatoschistus microps): confusion with prey, reduction of the predatory performance and efficiency, and possible influence of developmental conditions. Environ. Pollut. 196, 359–362 (2015). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.envpol.2014.10.026.
93 Mazurais, D. et al. Evaluation of the impact of polyethylene microbeads ingestion in European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) larvae. Mar. Environ. Res. 112, 78–85 (2015). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.marenvres.2015.09.009.
94 A.I.S.E. Product environmental footprint, https://aise.eu/priorities/sustainability/empowering-consumers/product-environmental-footprint/ (accessed 09.08.2024).
95 Arata, C. et al. Volatile organic compound emissions during HOMEChem. Indoor air 31, 2099–2117 (2021). https://doi.org:10.1111/ina.12906.
96 Wiedenhofer, D., Smetschka, B., Akenji, L., Jalas, M. & Haberl, H. Household time use, carbon footprints, and urban form: a review of the potential contributions of everyday living to the 1.5 °C climate target. Curr Opin Env Sust. 30, 7–17 (2018). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.cosust.2018.02.007.
97 Shahmohammadi, S. et al. Quantifying drivers of variability in life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of consumer products—a case study on laundry washing in Europe. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23, 1940–1949 (2018). https://doi.org:10.1007/s11367-017-1426-4.
98 Ritchie, H. Sector by sector: where do global greenhouse gas emissions come from?, https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector (2020).
99 Druckman, A., Buck, I., Hayward, B. & Jackson, T. Time, gender and carbon: A study of the carbon implications of British adults’ use of time. Ecol. Econ. 84, 153-163 (2012). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.09.008.
100 World Resources Institute. Scope3 Calculation Guidance. (2013).
101 Furdak, R. E., Nilsen-Ames, T. & Wang, F. What Investors Need to Know About Scope 1, 2 and 3 Emissions, https://www.man.com/maninstitute/what-investors-know-about-scope-emissions (2022).
102 Brogaard, L. K., Damgaard, A., Jensen, M. B., Barlaz, M. & Christensen, T. H. Evaluation of life cycle inventory data for recycling systems. Resour Conserv Recy 87, 30–45 (2014). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.03.011.
103 Skiba, U., Hergoualc’h, K., Drewer, J., Meijide, A. & Knohl, A. Oil palm plantations are large sources of nitrous oxide, but where are the data to quantify the impact on global warming? Curr Opin Env Sust. 47, 81–88 (2020). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.cosust.2020.08.019.
104 Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987–992 (2018). https://doi.org:10.1126/science.aaq0216.
105 Reijnders, L. & Huijbregts, M. A. J. Palm oil and the emission of carbon-based greenhouse gases. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 477–482 (2008). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.07.054.
106 International Labour Organization. Child Labour: Global estimates 2020, trends and the road forward, https://www.ilo.org/publications/major-publications/child-labour-global-estimates-2020-trends-and-road-forward (2021).
107 Schipper, I. & Cowan, R. Global mica mining and the impact on children’s rights, https://www.somo.nl/global-mica-mining/ (2018).
108 International Labour Organization. Child labour in agriculture, https://www.ilo.org/international-programme-elimination-child-labour-ipec/sectors-and-topics/child-labour-agriculture (2024).
109 Colchester, M. & Chao, S. Oil palm expansion in South East Asia: Trends and implications for local communities and indigenous peoples. First edition edn, (Perkumpulan Sawit Watch, 2011).
110 Dharmawan, A. H. et al. Dynamics of Rural Economy: A Socio-Economic Understanding of Oil Palm Expansion and Landscape Changes in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Land 9, 213 (2020). https://doi.org:10.3390/land9070213.
111 Dauvergne, P. The Global Politics of the Business of “Sustainable” Palm Oil. Global Environ Polit. 18, 34–52 (2018). https://doi.org:10.1162/glep_a_00455.
112 International Labour Organization. Bipartite dialogues improve productivity of the palm oil industry and make business more resilient, https://www.ilo.org/resource/news/bipartite-dialogues-improve-productivity-palm-oil-industry-and-make (2023).
113 World Health Organization. Oral health, https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/oral-health (2023).
114 Bratthall, D., Hänsel-Petersson, G. & Sundberg, H. Reasons for the caries decline: what do the experts believe? Eur. J. Oral Sci. 104, 416-422; discussion 423-415, 430-412 (1996). https://doi.org:10.1111/j.1600-0722.1996.tb00104.x.
115 van der Pols, J. C., Williams, G. M., Pandeya, N., Logan, V. & Green, A. C. Prolonged prevention of squamous cell carcinoma of the skin by regular sunscreen use. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15, 2546–2548 (2006). https://doi.org:10.1158/1055-9965.Epi-06-0352.
116 Sander, M., Sander, M., Burbidge, T. & Beecker, J. The efficacy and safety of sunscreen use for the prevention of skin cancer. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 192, E1802-E1808 (2020). https://doi.org:10.1503/cmaj.201085.
117 Cogan, T. A., Slader, J., Bloomfield, S. F. & Humphrey, T. J. Achieving hygiene in the domestic kitchen: the effectiveness of commonly used cleaning procedures. J. Appl. Microbiol. 92, 885–892 (2002). https://doi.org:10.1046/j.1365-2672.2002.01598.x.
118 Exner, M., Vacata, V., Hornei, B., Dietlein, E. & Gebel, J. Household cleaning and surface disinfection: new insights and strategies. J Hosp Infect 56 Suppl 2, S70-75 (2004). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.jhin.2003.12.037.
119 Cozad, A. & Jones, R. D. Disinfection and the prevention of infectious disease. Am. J. Infect. Control 31, 243–254 (2003). https://doi.org:10.1067/mic.2003.49.
120 Greatorex, J. S. et al. Effectiveness of common household cleaning agents in reducing the viability of human influenza A/H1N1. PloS one 5, e8987 (2010). https://doi.org:10.1371/journal.pone.0008987.
121 European Comission. Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/996, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/996/oj (2024).
122 Blair, R. M. et al. The estrogen receptor relative binding affinities of 188 natural and xenochemicals: structural diversity of ligands. Toxicol Sci. 54, 138–153 (2000). https://doi.org:10.1093/toxsci/54.1.138.
123 Barr, L., Metaxas, G., Harbach, C. A. J., Savoy, L. A. & Darbre, P. D. Measurement of paraben concentrations in human breast tissue at serial locations across the breast from axilla to sternum. J. Appl. Toxicol. 32, 219–232 (2012). https://doi.org:10.1002/jat.1786.
124 Wang, Y. & Qian, H. Phthalates and Their Impacts on Human Health. Healthcare 9 (2021). https://doi.org:10.3390/healthcare9050603.
125 Koniecki, D., Wang, R., Moody, R. P. & Zhu, J. Phthalates in cosmetic and personal care products: concentrations and possible dermal exposure. Environ. Res. 111, 329–336 (2011). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.envres.2011.01.013.
126 US EPA. Biden-Harris Administration Finalizes First-Ever National Drinking Water Standard to Protect 100M People from PFAS Pollution, https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration-finalizes-first-ever-national-drinking-water-standard (2024).
127 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/pfc (2024).
128 Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry. PFAS chemical exposure, https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/exposure.html (accessed 07.08.2024).
129 Fenton, S. E. et al. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance Toxicity and Human Health Review: Current State of Knowledge and Strategies for Informing Future Research. Environ Toxicol Chem 40, 606–630 (2021). https://doi.org:10.1002/etc.4890.
130 Kielsen, K. et al. Antibody response to booster vaccination with tetanus and diphtheria in adults exposed to perfluorinated alkylates. J Immunotoxicol. 13, 270–273 (2016). https://doi.org:10.3109/1547691x.2015.1067259.
131 Costello, E. et al. Exposure to per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Markers of Liver Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environ Health Perspect. 130, 46001 (2022). https://doi.org:10.1289/ehp10092.
132 Sun, Q. et al. Plasma Concentrations of Perfluoroalkyl Substances and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes: A Prospective Investigation among U.S. Women. Environ Health Perspect. 126, 037001 (2018). https://doi.org:10.1289/ehp2619.
133 Dodson, R. E. et al. Endocrine disruptors and asthma-associated chemicals in consumer products. Environ Health Perspect. 120, 935–943 (2012). https://doi.org:10.1289/ehp.1104052.
134 Heydorn, S. et al. Fragrance allergy in patients with hand eczema – a clinical study. Contact dermatitis 48, 317–323 (2003). https://doi.org:10.1034/j.1600-0536.2003.00133.x.
135 Kumar, P. et al. Inhalation challenge effects of perfume scent strips in patients with asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 75, 429–433 (1995).
136 Steinemann, A. C. Fragranced consumer products and undisclosed ingredients. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 29, 32–38 (2009). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.eiar.2008.05.002.
137 Steinemann, A. C., Gallagher, L. G., Davis, A. L. & MacGregor, I. C. Chemical emissions from residential dryer vents during use of fragranced laundry products. Air Qual Atmos Health 6, 151–156 (2013). https://doi.org:10.1007/s11869-011-0156-1.
138 Chen, J. & Luo, D. Ozone formation potentials of organic compounds from different emission sources in the South Coast Air Basin of California. Atmos. Environ. 55, 448–455 (2012). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.02.082.
139 Cao, J. in Handbook of Indoor Air Quality (eds Yinping Zhang, Philip K. Hopke, & Corinne Mandin) 1–29 (Springer Nature Singapore, 2021).
140 Clausen, P. A. et al. Chemicals inhaled from spray cleaning and disinfection products and their respiratory effects. A comprehensive review. J. Hyg. Environ. 229, 113592 (2020). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.ijheh.2020.113592.
141 Nazaroff, W. W. & Weschler, C. J. Cleaning products and air fresheners: exposure to primary and secondary air pollutants. Atmos. Environ. 38, 2841–2865 (2004). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.02.040.
142 Casas, L. et al. The use of household cleaning products during pregnancy and lower respiratory tract infections and wheezing during early life. Int. J. Public Health 58, 757–764 (2013). https://doi.org:10.1007/s00038-012-0417-2.
143 Openchowski, E. Beauty products for women of color and femme-identifying people of color perpetuate U.S. health and other socioeconomic inequalities, https://equitablegrowth.org/beauty-products-for-women-of-color-and-femme-identifying-people-of-color-perpetuate-u-s-health-and-other-socioeconomic-inequalities/ (2023).
144 Ortiz-Ospina, E., Tzvetkova, S. & Roser, M. Women’s Employment. Our World in Data (2024).
145 World Economic Forum. Global Gender Gap Report 2023, https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-gender-gap-report-2023/in-full/gender-gaps-in-the-workforce/ (2023).
146 Henkel. Diversity & Inclusion, https://www.henkel.com/company/diversity-equity-inclusion (accessed 07.08.2024).
147 Procter & Gamble. Our Unique & United Workforce, https://us.pg.com/our-workforce/ (accessed 13.11.2023).
148 Reckitt. Sustainability report 2023, https://reckitt.com/media/da4hdggo/reckitt_sustainability-report_2023.pdf (accessed 08.08.2024).
149 Unilever. Gender equality and women’s empowerment, https://www.unilever.com/sustainability/equity-diversity-and-inclusion/gender-equality-and-womens-empowerment/ (2021).
150 Biesterbos, J. W. H. et al. Usage patterns of personal care products: important factors for exposure assessment. Food Chem Toxicol. 55, 8–17 (2013). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.fct.2012.11.014.
151 Kim, S., Min, H. S., Lee, W. J. & Choe, S.-A. Occupational differences in personal care product use and urinary concentration of endocrine disrupting chemicals by gender. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 33, 312–318 (2023). https://doi.org:10.1038/s41370-022-00436-7.
152 Arbuckle, T. E. Are there sex and gender differences in acute exposure to chemicals in the same setting? Environ. Res. 101, 195–204 (2006). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.envres.2005.08.015.
153 Cerrato, J. & Cifre, E. Gender Inequality in Household Chores and Work-Family Conflict. Front. Psychol. 9, 1330 (2018). https://doi.org:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01330.
154 ENDP Environment Energy Group. Chemicals and Gender. (2011).
155 Joint Economic Committee. The Pink Tax, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/8a42df04-8b6d-4949-b20b-6f40a326db9e/the-pink-tax—how-gender-based-pricing-hurts-women-s-buying-power.pdf (2016).
156 Duesterhaus, M., Grauerholz, L., Weichsel, R. & Guittar, N. A. The Cost of Doing Femininity: Gendered Disparities in Pricing of Personal Care Products and Services. Gend. Issues 28, 175–191 (2011). https://doi.org:10.1007/s12147-011-9106-3.
157 Moshary, S., Tuchman, A. & Vajravelu, N. Gender-Based Pricing in Consumer Packaged Goods: A Pink Tax? Mark. Sci. (2023). https://doi.org:10.1287/mksc.2023.1452.
158 Matthes, J., Prieler, M. & Adam, K. Gender-Role Portrayals in Television Advertising Across the Globe. Sex Roles 75, 314–327 (2016). https://doi.org:10.1007/s11199-016-0617-y.
159 Parameswaran, R. & Cardoza, K. Melanin on the Margins: Advertising and the Cultural Politics of Fair/Light/White Beauty in India. Journal. Commun. Monogr. 11, 213–274 (2009). https://doi.org:10.1177/152263790901100302.
160 Bristor, J. M., Lee, R. G. & Hunt, M. R. Race and Ideology: African-American Images in Television Advertising. J. Public Policy Mark. 14, 48–59 (1995). https://doi.org:10.1177/074391569501400105.
161 Dixon, A. R. & Telles, E. E. Skin Color and Colorism: Global Research, Concepts, and Measurement. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 43, 405–424 (2017). https://doi.org:10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053315.
162 Hunter, M. L. Buying Racial Capital: Skin-Bleaching and Cosmetic Surgery in a Globalized World. J. Afr. Stud. 4, 142–164 (2011).
163 Robinson, C. L. Hair as Race: Why “Good Hair” May Be Bad for Black Females. Howard J Commun. 22, 358–376 (2011). https://doi.org:10.1080/10646175.2011.617212.
164 Dodson, R. E. et al. Personal care product use among diverse women in California: Taking Stock Study. J Expo Sci Environ Epdemiol. 31, 487–502 (2021). https://doi.org:10.1038/s41370-021-00327-3.
165 Helm, J. S., Nishioka, M., Brody, J. G., Rudel, R. A. & Dodson, R. E. Measurement of endocrine disrupting and asthma-associated chemicals in hair products used by Black women. Environ. Res. 165, 448–458 (2018). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.envres.2018.03.030.
166 Zota, A. R. & Shamasunder, B. The environmental injustice of beauty: framing chemical exposures from beauty products as a health disparities concern. Obstet Gynecol 217, 418.e411–418.e416 (2017). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.ajog.2017.07.020.
167 Wise, L. A., Palmer, J. R., Reich, D., Cozier, Y. C. & Rosenberg, L. Hair relaxer use and risk of uterine leiomyomata in African-American women. Am. J. Epidemiol. 175, 432–440 (2012). https://doi.org:10.1093/aje/kwr351.
168 Donovan, M. et al. Personal care products that contain estrogens or xenoestrogens may increase breast cancer risk. Med. Hypotheses 68, 756–766 (2007). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.mehy.2006.09.039.
169 Chan, M., Mita, C., Bellavia, A., Parker, M. & James-Todd, T. Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Pregnancy and Prenatal Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals Commonly Used in Personal Care Products. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 8, 98–112 (2021). https://doi.org:10.1007/s40572-021-00317-5.
170 Quach, T. et al. Characterizing workplace exposures in Vietnamese women working in California nail salons. Am J Public Health 101 Suppl 1, S271-276 (2011). https://doi.org:10.2105/ajph.2010.300099.
171 Adewumi-Gunn, T. A., Ponce, E., Flint, N. & Robbins, W. A Preliminary Community-Based Occupational Health Survey of Black Hair Salon Workers in South Los Angeles. J Immigrant Minority Health 20, 164–170 (2018). https://doi.org:10.1007/s10903-016-0521-0.
172 Quach, T. et al. Identifying and understanding the role of key stakeholders in promoting worker health and safety in nail salons. J Health Care Poor Underserved 26, 104–115 (2015). https://doi.org:10.1353/hpu.2015.0060.
173 Ren, Z., Zhang, D. & Gao, Z. Sustainable Design Strategy of Cosmetic Packaging in China Based on Life Cycle Assessment. Sustainability 14, 8155 (2022). https://doi.org:10.3390/su14138155.
174 Dube, M. & Dube, S. Towards Sustainable Color Cosmetics Packaging. Cosmetics 10 (2023). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.3390/cosmetics10050139.
175 Martins, A. M. & Marto, J. M. A sustainable life cycle for cosmetics: From design and development to post-use phase. Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy 35, 101178 (2023). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.scp.2023.101178.
176 Rocca, R., Acerbi, F., Fumagalli, L. & Taisch, M. Sustainability paradigm in the cosmetics industry: State of the art. Cleaner Waste Systems 3, 100057 (2022). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.clwas.2022.100057.
177 Vrabič‐Brodnjak, U. & Jestratijević, I. The future of baby cosmetics packaging and sustainable development: A look at sustainable materials and packaging innovations – A systematic review. Sustain. Dev. 32, 2208–2222 (2024). https://doi.org:10.1002/sd.2775.
178 Ibrahim, I. D. et al. Need for Sustainable Packaging: An Overview. Polymers 14 (2022). https://doi.org:10.3390/polym14204430.
179 Amberg, N. & Fogarassy, C. Green Consumer Behavior in the Cosmetics Market. Resources 8 (2019). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8030137.
180 Lalchand, T. C. & Joseph, J. “Beakers versus botanicals” – Analyzing the efficacy of homemade skincare in comparison to manufactured skincare products. CosmoDerma 3, 164 (2023). https://doi.org:10.25259/csdm_202_2023.
181 Koprivec, L. & Zbasnik-Senegacnik, M. Benefits of (re)using wood in the concept of circular construction. (2023).
182 Kaestner, L., Scope, C., Neumann, N., & Woelfel, C. Sustainable Circular Packaging Design: A Systematic Literature Review on Strategies and Applications in the Cosmetics Industry. Proceedings of the Design Society 3 (2023). https://doi.org:10.1017/pds.2023.327.
183 Coelho, P. M., Corona, B., ten Klooster, R., & Worrell, E. Sustainability of reusable packaging- Current situation and trends. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.: X 6 (2020). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcrx.2020.100037.
184 Cavalcante da Silva, A., Guarnieri, P., de O. Vieira, B., & Castelo-Branco, T. Analysis of Brazilian consumers’ perceptions of cosmetics packaging from a circular economy perspective. Environ. Qual. Manag. (2023). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.22120.
185 Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., & Seppälä, J. Circular Economy: The Concept and its Limitations. Ecol. Econ. 143, 37–46 (2017). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.041.
186 Henkel AG & Co. KGaA. Henkel Nachhaltigkeitsbericht 2023, https://www.henkel.de/presse-und-medien/presseinformationen-und-pressemappen/2024-03-04-geschaeftsbericht-und-nachhaltigkeitsbericht-2023-1933244 (2024).
187 Withisuphakorn, P., Batra, I., Parameswar, N., & Dhir, S. Sustainable Development in Practice: Case Study of L’Oreal. JBRMR 13, 35–47 (2019).
188 Peloza, J., Loock, M., Cerruti, J. & Muyot, M. Sustainability: How Stakeholder Perceptions Differ from Corporate Reality. Calif. Manag. Rev. 55, 74-97 (2012). https://doi.org:10.1525/cmr.2012.55.1.74.
189 P&G. 2019 Citizenship Report. (2019).
190 Hazen, B. T., Mollenkopf, D. A. & Wang, Y. Remanufacturing for the Circular Economy: An Examination of Consumer Switching Behavior. Bus Strat Env 26, 451–464 (2017). https://doi.org:10.1002/bse.1929.
191 UNIDO. Annual Report 2020, https://www.unido.org/annualreport2020 (2020).
192 European Comission. Den Kreislauf schließen – Ein Aktionsplan der EU für die Kreislaufwirtschaft, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52015DC0614 (2015).
193 Mishal, A., Dubey, R., Gupta, O. K. & Luo, Z. Dynamics of environmental consciousness and green purchase behaviour: an empirical study. Int. J. Environ. Clim. 9, 682–706 (2017). https://doi.org:10.1108/ijccsm-11-2016-0168.
194 Grunert, S. C. & Juhl, H. J. Values, environmental attitudes, and buying of organic foods. J. Econ. Psychol. 16, 39–62 (1995). https://doi.org:10.1016/0167-4870(94)00034-8.
195 Carbon Trust. Consumer demand for lower-carbon lifestyles is putting pressure on business, https://www.carbontrust.com/news-and-insights/insights/consumer-demand-for-lower-carbon-lifestyles-is-putting-pressure-on-business (2011).
196 Latinopoulos, D., Mentis, C. & Bithas, K. The impact of a public information campaign on preferences for marine environmental protection. The case of plastic waste. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 131, 151–162 (2018). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.04.002.
197 Herbes, C., Beuthner, C. & Ramme, I. Consumer attitudes towards biobased packaging – A cross-cultural comparative study. J. Clean. Prod. 194, 203–218 (2018). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.106.
198 Antonetti, P. & Maklan, S. Feelings that Make a Difference: How Guilt and Pride Convince Consumers of the Effectiveness of Sustainable Consumption Choices. J Bus Ethics 124, 117–134 (2014). https://doi.org:10.1007/s10551-013-1841-9.
199 Wang, B., Yang, R., Bai, P., Fang, Q. & Jiang, X. The Plastic-Reduction Behavior of Chinese Residents: Survey, Model, and Impact Factors. Sustainability 16, 6093 (2024). https://doi.org:10.3390/su16146093.
200 European Environment Agency. Human exposure to Bisphenol A in Europe, https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/peoples-exposure-to-bisphenol-a (accessed.
201 Konieczna, A., Rutkowska, A. & Rachoń, D. Health risk of exposure to Bisphenol A (BPA). Roczniki Państwowego Zakładu Higieny 66, 5–11 (2015).
202 Buerke, A., Straatmann, T., Lin-Hi, N. & Müller, K. Consumer awareness and sustainability-focused value orientation as motivating factors of responsible consumer behavior. Rev Manag Sci 11, 959–991 (2017). https://doi.org:10.1007/s11846-016-0211-2.
203 Heidbreder, L. M., Bablok, I., Drews, S. & Menzel, C. Tackling the plastic problem: A review on perceptions, behaviors, and interventions. Sci. Total Environ. 668, 1077–1093 (2019). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437.
204 UN Environment Programme. Global Waste Management Outlook 2024, https://www.unep.org/resources/global-waste-management-outlook-2024 (2024).
205 Borg, K., Curtis, J. & Lindsay, J. Social norms and plastic avoidance: Testing the theory of normative social behaviour on an environmental behaviour. J of Consumer Behaviour 19, 594–607 (2020). https://doi.org:10.1002/cb.1842.
206 Koning, J. I. J. C. d., Crul, M. R. M., Wever, R. & Brezet, J. C. Sustainable consumption in Vietnam: an explorative study among the urban middle class. Int J Consumer Studies 39, 608–618 (2015). https://doi.org:10.1111/ijcs.12235.
207 Soma, T., Li, B. & Maclaren, V. An evaluation of a consumer food waste awareness campaign using the motivation opportunity ability framework. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 168, 105313 (2021). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105313.
208 Nainggolan, D. et al. Consumers in a Circular Economy: Economic Analysis of Household Waste Sorting Behaviour. Ecol. Econ. 166, 106402 (2019). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106402.
209 Stoeva, K. & Alriksson, S. Influence of recycling programmes on waste separation behaviour. Waste manage. 68, 732–741 (2017). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.wasman.2017.06.005.
210 Fogt Jacobsen, L., Pedersen, S. & Thøgersen, J. Drivers of and barriers to consumers’ plastic packaging waste avoidance and recycling – A systematic literature review. Waste manage. 141, 63–78 (2022). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.wasman.2022.01.021.
211 Lazzarini, G. A., Visschers, V. H. M. & Siegrist, M. How to improve consumers’ environmental sustainability judgements of foods. J. Clean. Prod. 198, 564–574 (2018). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.033.
212 Boesen, S., Bey, N. & Niero, M. Environmental sustainability of liquid food packaging: Is there a gap between Danish consumers’ perception and learnings from life cycle assessment? J. Clean. Prod. 210, 1193–1206 (2019). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.055.
213 Martinez-Conesa, I., Soto-Acosta, P. & Palacios-Manzano, M. Corporate social responsibility and its effect on innovation and firm performance: An empirical research in SMEs. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 2374–2383 (2017). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.038.
214 Lush. Our environmental policy, https://www.lush.com/de/de/a/our-environmental-policy (accessed 26.08.2024).
215 Battisti, M. & Perry, M. Walking the talk? Environmental responsibility from the perspective of small‐business owners. Corp Soc Responsibility Env 18, 172–185 (2011). https://doi.org:10.1002/csr.266.
216 Yadav, N., Gupta, K., Rani, L. & Rawat, D. Drivers of Sustainability Practices and SMEs: A Systematic Literature Review. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 7 (2018). https://doi.org:10.14207/ejsd.2018.v7n4p531.
217 Lush. Naked – We are Lush, https://weare.lush.com/lush-life/our-values/naked/ (accessed 27.11.2023).
218 Arya, M. Case Study: Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan, https://medium.com/@thisismayank/case-study-unilevers-sustainable-living-plan-2226b2e5d5f5 (2024).
219 KPMG. Climate and Sustainability: 2023 Regulatory Challenges, https://kpmg.com/us/en/articles/2022/ten-key-regulatory-challenges-2023-climate-sustainability.html (accessed 26.08.2024).
220 European Environment Agency. Single-use plastics, https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/plastics/single-use-plastics_en (accessed 26.08.2024).
221 U.S. Securities Exchange Comission. SEC Adopts Rules to Enhance and Standardize Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors, https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-31 (2024).
222 Harvard Business Review. How to Market Sustainable Products, https://hbr.org/2024/03/how-to-market-sustainable-products (2024).
223 Burdon, E. What Are The Challenges Of Sustainability In Business?, https://www.knowesg.com/featured-article/what-are-the-challenges-of-sustainability-in-business (2023).
224 KnowESG. What Are The Main Greenwashing Tactics Companies Use?, https://www.knowesg.com/featured-article/what-are-the-main-greenwashing-tactics-companies-use (accessed 26.08.2024).
225 ERMA Pte Ltd. The Failure of Green Product Brands, https://www.erm-academy.org/publication/risk-management-article/failure-green-product-brands/ (2018).