Recently, a Turkish research group [1] argues that despite significant progress towards sustainable cosmetics, mass-produced sustainable packaging has proven to be a challenge. The complexity of environmental, economic, social, technological, and policy considerations, along with varying consumer behaviors and corporate goals, makes it difficult to select an optimal strategy across heterogeneous supply-chain components worldwide. Meanwhile, the cost and effort of developing, testing, and validating alternative strategies discourages empirical exploration of potential alternatives. In this article, Pierre Trinh, sustainability researcher at The Skynth, will review those complex challenges and, whenever possible, suggest sustainable initiatives to overcome the market-based problems the world is facing.

What is the problem with cosmetic
packaging?

Since the 1970s, the cosmetics industry [2] has faced concerns in terms of health, environmental impact, and animal testing, including for its packaging sector. Caruana, from the University of Twente, mentioned that popular brands typically do not offer sustainably-packaged color cosmetics, leading to “consumer helplessness in this regard and a belief that changes should be led by cosmetics producers and government regulatory action.” [3]
Therefore, it is important to learn from the variety of reliable literature that has been accumulated in areas of environmental protection strategies and sustainable packaging to identify promising directions as well as potential pitfalls.
First, we need to understand a typical process of conventional cosmetic manufacturing. 

It begins with concept and design around the brands targeted audience and product being produced, while keeping an open communication with manufacturers, so formulation development can meet specific targets while selecting ingredients that are safe for skin application, such as surfactants, preservatives, colorants, and exfoliators. This is followed by ingredient sourcing, batching and mixing to create a base and disperse any pigments, which is regularly supervised by a quality control team to make sure the product will pass the quality testing. Once this is done, packaging and a final quality control take place, and once approved, distribution is processed. 

Although in theory seems safe, almost every step in cosmetic manufacturing impacts sustainability at an environmental, social, and economic level. In tradition, packages are designed based on customers’ specific demands in terms of shape, size, color, etc. Packaging production is typically outsourced, while raw materials flow from suppliers to packaging producers. The product is then filled, distributed, and commonly traded without any consideration of the end-of-use stage. 
Packaging materials play a crucial role and can vary depending on the brand, the product formulation, quality, and availability. Most cosmetic products are still distributed in plastic packaging, considering its flexibility, good strength to protect the cosmetic products, and a cheaper alternative; nevertheless, this is the critical issue sustainability practices are trying to eradicate; although not easily substitutable, these remain the number one threat to biodiversity and pollution. Although several global initiatives have been developed by recognized brands to decrease their usage, in most companies, feedback at any stage is related to quality issues and delivery schedules. Each stage represents a set of activities and potentially global supply chains.
Multiple companies may supply materials and parts to a packaging manufacturer, who may also outsource several production steps. Depending on their business models, many cosmetics companies regularly add new products, while others may not. Although the materials and manufacturing processes are well-understood, attempts to change packaging materials based on customer demand or cost considerations can be problematic.
Therefore, even if the consumers appeal for sustainable options, the manufacturers have no consistent incentive to achieve those, urging the needs of an innovative process.

A circular business model is a commonly employed system by businesses attempting to reduce the environmental impact manufacturing brings, going around the typical linear models based around getting resources → making products → selling them → throwing them away when they are no longer usable, while circular business will go in a full circle, maximizing resources and forcing the manufacturers to make products sustainable enough to maintain it [4]. In order to develop circular business models, processes and products need to be redesigned and harmonized across the supply chain in view of sustainability regulations and frameworks [5].

Meanwhile, novel packages, formulations, and additives are some of the concerns that must be validated for compatibility in terms of functional requirements such as their shelf life, health, and environmental impact, further focusing on the waste-handling infrastructure [6][7].  
A transdisciplinary framework is important for the circular bioeconomy with increasing digitalization and technological convergence. Cross-industry innovation is a significant part of open-source development, including for areas such as cosmetics, personal care, chemicals, and plastics. Still, it is essential to see opportunities and challenges while operating such an innovative process. 

Which factors/elements are related to the sustainability of ingredients used in cosmetics packaging?

Sustainable cosmetics packaging needs to move beyond being a theoretical consideration to have a meaningful environmental impact; policy and corporate decisions regarding the optimal strategy rely on an ability to estimate their outcomes, and empirically validated models based on these theoretical considerations are key towards implementing effective change.

The goal is to develop a package that meets the expectations of both consumers and producers, and so re-engineering the supply chain requires extra input from the areas shown in figure 3. Companies are beginning to get regulatory pressures for greener strategies in packaging, where glass and metal are the main materials considered for waste management, as they are minimalistic or otherwise reusable; however, companies still lack to convince and teach consumers on options to do this, causing a gap in the final goal. When it comes to sustainable production, the use of clean energy and modes of transport to reduce emissions in the packaging and distribution phases are essential elements that must be not only implemented but also reported. Large companies often omit their sustainable production efforts and how they impact their business operations in fear of lack of effort or criticism; nevertheless [8], transparency is crucial. Companies need to communicate their sustainability initiatives clearly to build trust and demonstrate genuine commitment.

Current Potential Areas for Improvement.

Biodegradable plastics have been proposed as a solution to traditional petroleum-based polymers, while their degradation in marine environments has not been studied extensively [21]. The European Commission, in 2001, defined CSR as “a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and their interaction with stakeholders”. While the market approach shifted to encouraging CSR with enthusiastic industry support, at least in part to forestall regulatory and legal interventions, growing realization changes would be needed in existing economic activities [22].

• “Social marketing” to change human behavior;
  “Demarketing” to discourage use of goods such as energy in times of shortage has also arisen;
• “Critical marketing” reflects a criticism of marketing in general, including its existence;
• “Positive marketing” is all actions that create value for firms, customers, and society.

Meanwhile, ISO-16128 has been introduced as a means towards unifying some of the concepts but can create further confusion across jurisdictions, such as due to the inclusion of GMOs in natural products [23]. Furthermore, materials claimed to be 100% biodegradable were found to degrade approximately 8% in the digestive tracts of turtles, while in another study only four of the six materials claimed to be biodegradable actually turned out to be so, indicating misuse of the term.

• Implement energy and water efficiency measures: Optimizing energy and water use in manufacturing processes can significantly reduce operational costs and environmental impact simultaneously; companies can achieve this by installing energy-efficient equipment and systems, utilizing renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power, and implementing water recycling and reuse systems throughout the manufacturing process.

• Engage even more in post-consumer recycling and reuse: Developing systems for recycling and reusing post-consumer packaging is not enough to promote circular economy principles. Companies should set up programs for consumers to return used packaging, to not just recycle materials to produce new packaging, but try and close the social gap and dedicate time to educate their current and future customers and utilize waste materials for energy production that can be perfectly reconditioned to serve a different purpose. This approach can reduce landfill waste, conserve resources, and enhance sustainability efforts.

• Use sustainable sourcing for raw materials: Sourcing raw materials sustainably is crucial for reducing environmental impact, but companies should focus on using renewable and eco-friendly materials while conducting life cycle assessments (LCA) to evaluate the environmental impacts of their products, and especially partnering with suppliers that adhere to sustainable practices. The time spent attempting to select ethically source produce and stricter supervision won’t be useful if suppliers and manufacturing work does not adhere to their specific needs to remain useful and sustainable.