Assessment of Sustainability Indicators for Cosmetic Product Packaging in the DACH Region

Abstract

The rapid expansion of the cosmetic products market, growing consumer eco-consciousness, and stricter packaging regulations, such as the PPWR, present significant challenges for the cosmetic industry. To assess the sustainability of cosmetic packaging, a benchmarking study was conducted across various product categories available in the DACH region (Germany, Austria, and Switzerland) using a set of selected indicators. The findings highlight an urgent need for action to ensure compliance with future PPWR requirements. While glass and aluminum packaging demonstrated high recyclability, plastic tubes often failed to meet the 70% recyclability target due to incompatible material combinations. Key barriers to recyclability included material incompatibility, metallization, and excessive colorization. Additionally, the use of recycled content in plastic and paper-based packaging was generally low, with only a few samples containing secondary materials. Other critical issues included packaging efficiency, the widespread use of secondary packaging, and use of uncertified renewable materials. Addressing these challenges will require industry-wide efforts to enhance material compatibility, increase recycled content, and optimize packaging design for greater sustainability.

1. Introduction

The cosmetic industry has a high economic impact and is forecasted to grow in the upcoming years [1]. The growth of the cosmetic market in recent years is attributed to an increase in innovation and quality at the beginning of the 20th century [2]. Additionally, prosperity and women being more present in the workforce, as well as demographic change and population growth added to market expansion [3]. Currently, the industry for cosmetic, toiletry, perfumery, and detergent products in Germany reports EUR 33.4 billion in sales revenue in 2023, an increase of 8.4% compared to 2022. The increase in hair care sales revenue is up 9.9% while for skin and facial care an increase of 8.6% was registered. An overall market growth for 2024 of 2.5% was expected by the German Cosmetic, Toiletry, Perfumery, and Detergent Association [4]. A growth in cosmetic usage by women can be associated with growing GDP [5].

Within the cosmetic market, different product categories such as skincare, hair care, make-up, perfumes, deodorants, toiletries, and oral cosmetics can be distinguished [6]. The EU Cosmetic Products Regulation No. 1223/2009 defines cosmetic products as chemical elements and their compounds and mixtures created with two or more substances projected to be employed in contact with the epidermis, hair system, lips, nails, external genital organs, teeth, and the oral cavity’s mucous membranes for cleaning, perfuming, changing appearance, correcting odors, protecting, or keeping them in good condition. This includes creams, lotions, gels, emulsions, and oils [7].

Cosmetic brands are under pressure from consumers and regulatory changes to focus on sustainable practices [8,9]. This encompasses the sourcing of raw materials, the manufacturing process, distribution, and disposal [10,11,12]. Apart from those aspects relating to the cosmetic product itself, the same demands need to be met by the complementary packaging.

1.1. Cosmetic Products and Requirements for Cosmetic Packaging

The decision-making process for packaging is inherently complex, as it necessitates input from a multitude of stakeholders and must fulfill a diverse array of functions and requirements [13]. The packaging must serve the primary function of product protection and be compatible with the product it contains, as well as being designed appropriately for the filling process. Nevertheless, the ultimate decision is contingent upon the manufacturer and the desired brand image, with the packaging serving to convey the desired message [14].

The packaging serves as a physical, chemical, and biological barrier to the product, preventing degradation. The product is therefore protected against contamination, moisture, air, and light [15]. In addition to these primary functions, packaging plays a pivotal role in marketing strategies, as the type of container influences the user’s convenience and the accuracy of the delivered dose [16].

The materials most commonly used for cosmetic packaging are plastics, glass, metal, and paper [17,18]. In contrast to plastics, materials such as paper, cardboard, and glass are regarded as sustainable packaging materials by consumers [19].

Primary packaging is the component of the packaging that is in direct contact with the product, and it plays a crucial role in ensuring the safety of the product and maintaining its stability. A variety of packaging types, sizes, shapes, and colors are employed for cosmetic packaging, including jars, tubes, pump dispensers, and sticks [14]. Secondary packaging is defined as the secondary packaging layer that surrounds the primary packaging. The optional secondary packaging provides additional mechanical protection and facilitates handling and logistical purposes during storage and transportation. Furthermore, due to the surface size, it enhances branding appeal. The most commonly used materials for this purpose are cardboard, paperboard, and corrugated board, which are easily printable, durable, and flexible [14].

Glass is a common material used for cosmetic packaging due to its inert properties and lack of migration potential, which ensures the safety of the product. Furthermore, additional factors that contribute to the material’s attractiveness include transparency, color variety, and flexibility regarding design and decoration options [14]. In terms of recyclability, glass has the advantage of being endlessly recyclable without any loss of quality or deterioration in its properties. However, glass is prone to breakage and has a relatively high weight compared to other materials, such as plastics and paper, which results in higher ${\mathrm{CO}}_2$ emissions during transportation [14,20].

In response to the growing consumer demand for environmentally friendly products, cosmetic companies are increasingly turning towards fiber-based alternatives. Paper is often perceived as an environmentally friendly packaging material, even though fiber-based packaging is frequently required to be coated to ensure adequate barrier properties [20]. This additional layer introduces complexity to the recycling process [14]. When utilizing fiber-based materials, companies need to ensure that the materials they are using are sourced from certified suppliers, such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC), to support sustainable practices [21].

Aluminum is a material with a wide range of applications in the packaging of cosmetic products. Approximately 75% of aluminum packaging is utilized for food products, with a further 8% employed for cosmetics [22]. Aluminum offers several advantageous material properties, including protection from air, light, fluctuating temperature, moisture, and contaminants. Furthermore, it is a highly recyclable material. One disadvantage arises from the non-inert properties of aluminum, necessitating the addition of an additional layer to prevent container-content interaction (CCI) [14,23].

In addition to these materials, the most commonly utilized material for packaging is plastic, which is available in either flexible or rigid forms. The positive features associated with plastic for packaging include its low weight, affordability, convenience, transparency, heat sealability, and good strength-to-weight ratio [14]. In the context of packaging, the most commonly utilized petrochemical-based plastics are polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), and polyamide (PA). However, there is a growing interest in alternative materials, including bio-PE and bio-PET, polylactic acid (PLA), and other biodegradable polymers [24,25].

1.2. Holistic Sustainability of Packaging

The literature on sustainable cosmetic packaging is sparse [6,26]. Kaestner et al., 2023, discuss that topics such as the circular economy, sustainable packaging design, and the cosmetic sector have not been addressed in a connected context, but have so far only been addressed separately [27].

The holistic sustainability assessment aims to analyze relevant sustainability aspects of packaging, taking into account country-specific collection and recycling systems. This comprehensive approach is crucial for sustainable packaging development, as it enables the identification and resolution of potentially conflicting objectives. The model is grounded in the three key pillars outlined in the Circular Packaging Design Guideline: product protection, circularity, and environmental impact [28,29]. A first study on dairy product packaging by Klein et al., 2025, applied the methodology to a benchmarking project [30].

The use of circular packaging represents an effective strategy for the recycling of materials, with a focus on the conservation of resources, the durability of products, and the utilization of renewable materials. The assessment of packaging circularity entails the evaluation of several key factors, including recyclability, the recycling rate, the composition of the recyclate, and the utilization of renewable raw materials. It is also imperative to consider the role of reusable solutions and consumer involvement in this context [29].

The Efficient Consumer Response (ECR) recommendation distinguishes between direct and indirect environmental impacts. A life cycle assessment is the optimal methodology for evaluating the direct impacts of packaging production and disposal. Indirect impacts result from product losses, due to premature spoilage or poor emptying because of inadequate packaging design. These are included in the life cycle assessment. Non-quantifiable aspects include the use of certified materials, which has a positive impact on the sustainability assessment, and the “littering potential” (the likelihood for packaging to end up in the environment instead of being disposed of correctly) [29].

The aim of this study is the analyze the sustainability of cosmetic packaging currently on the market in the DACH region (Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (all cantons)), based on selected parameters. Those parameters were carefully selected based on the targets defined in the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) [31]. Concerning regulator changes in the packaging sector, the first conclusions and recommendations can be drawn.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Materials

The assessed packaging was either supplied by project partners (retail, product producers, packaging manufacturers) or was obtained from supermarkets in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Overall, 215 samples were evaluated within the framework of the sustainability assessment.

In the project, seven different cosmetic categories were differentiated. Assessed were packaging for shampoo, hair gel and hair wax, hand cream, body lotion, face cream, eye cream, and serum. Depending on the product category, different packaging systems were assessed (

Table 1. Composition of sampling for the product categories and their respective packaging systems.

Packaging Type	Shampoo	Hair Gel	Hand Cream	Body Lotion	Face Cream	Eye Cream	Serum
PE Tube	12	9	35	11	3	2	1
Aluminum Tubes		2	2		1
PET Bottle	15	1
HDPE Bottle	15		1	10
PP Bottle	1
Glass Bottle with Pump Dispenser			2		1		3
PET Bottle with Pump Dispenser	5	2	5	3
HDPE Bottle with Pump Dispenser	5		2	2
Plastic Pouch/Sachet	6				1
HDPE Canister	1
Plastic Jar		8	2	8	5
Aluminum Jar		1	1
Glass Jar			1		3	1
Airless Pump Dispenser/Airless Jar		1	4	2	5	1	5
Bag-in-Bottle Systems					2
Glass Dropper/Pipette							6

). Thorough market research was conducted beforehand, and the results were published in Klein et al., 2025 [32].

2.2. Methods

The relevant data for the determination of the exact material compositions and measurements were obtained from the packaging specifications of the packaging samples submitted by the project participants. In the absence of such specifications, measurements were conducted in the laboratory using a caliper, a scale, and a Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) spectrometer (Perkin Spektrum UATR L1600300 Spektrum TWO LiTa, Llantrisant, UK).

The choice of relevant parameters for assessing the sustainability of cosmetic product packaging is founded upon the Viennese model for holistic sustainability, which is built on the three pillars of product protection, environmental impact, and circularity. As only product packaging available on the market was selected, it was assumed that sufficient product protection was provided and that no assessment of the indicators shown in Figure 1 was necessary. To assess the environmental impact, the following indicators were selected: direct environmental impact, indirect environmental impact, use of certified materials, and packaging efficiency. The results for the indirect environmental impact have been published by Klein et al. (2025) [32]. To assess the circularity of the packaging, the technical recyclability was calculated, as well as the use of the recyclate and renewable materials. To assess the level of consumer involvement, a qualitative assessment was applied.

2.2.1. Environment: Direct Environmental Impact

A simplified life cycle assessment (LCA) was used to assess the direct environmental impact of the packaging. This evaluation was conducted in accordance with the ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 standards, along with the European Commission’s Product Environmental Footprint guidelines [33,34]. The assessment was conducted using Packaging Cockpit software Version 2.4.0 (https://packaging-cockpit.com/en, accessed on 23 September 2024) and detailed information about the packaging’s material composition and measurements were entered [35]. The analysis addressed the climate change impact category in particular, with the findings presented in units of [kg ${\mathrm{CO}}_2$ eq]. The method has formerly been published by Klein et al., 2025 [30]. Other impact categories are excluded from the assessment.

2.2.2. Environment: Use of Certified Materials

The use of certified materials was evaluated through a qualitative methodology, employing two distinct selection criteria: “yes” and “no”. The “yes” designation was assigned when the packaging incorporated fiber-based materials that had been certified by the Forest Stewardship Council. Conversely, the “no” designation was applied in instances where either no fiber-based materials were used, or the fibers could not be validated as FSC-certified.

2.2.3. Environment: Packaging Efficiency

Packaging efficiency was described by the ratio of the weight of the packaging to the weight of the product. This approach, which is referred to as the packaging-to-product ratio, was first introduced by Brouwer and Thoden van Velzen [36] and can be expressed as:

$$\mathrm{Packaging} \mathrm{Efficiency}=(\mathrm{Weight} \mathrm{Packaging}/\mathrm{Weight} \mathrm{Packaging}+\mathrm{Weight} \mathrm{Product}) \times 100$$

2.2.4. Circularity: Technical Recyclability

Packaging must fulfill a set of defined criteria to be classified as technically recyclable.

Primarily, a collection and sorting structure for the material in question must be in place within the relevant country. Secondly, the packaging must be assignable to a defined material stream by the prevailing standards in the respective country.

After the packaging has been sorted, it can be processed through an appropriate recycling method. The resulting recyclate can be reused as a raw material, thereby offering market potential as a substitute for material-identical raw materials [28].

The technical recyclability of the packaging was calculated for the three countries of Germany, Austria, and Switzerland using the Packaging Cockpit Software Version 2.4.0 (https://packaging-cockpit.com/en, accessed on 23 September 2024) [35]. The detailed packaging data were entered into the software in accordance with the packaging specifications. In the absence of specific data, measurements were taken using an FTIR, attenuated total reflection (ATR), a scale (Ohaus Pioneer Precision, Model PX6202, Nanikon, Switzerland), and a ruler, to obtain the necessary data. The data set comprised information about the contained product, including the product category, filling quantity or volume, country of packaging assembly and distribution, packaging dimensions, main packaging body type, and types of packaging aids. For each packaging component, information about the material, manufacturing type, content of the recyclate, color, mass, material density, printing coverage, presence of a near-infrared (NIR) barrier, and dimensions, as well as information on material layers, are required.

The evaluation method for technical recyclability adheres to the most recent Circular Packaging Design Guideline, as issued by the University of Applied Sciences FH Campus Wien [28].

2.2.5. Circularity: Use of Recyclate

In this study, the content of the recyclate is expressed as a percentage by weight, to provide insight into the proportion of secondary material utilized in the production of each packaging item [28]. The incorporation of recycled materials in this context diminishes the reliance on new raw materials, which contributes to an improved life cycle assessment.

2.2.6. Circularity: Use of Renewable Resources

In the context of a circular economy, the utilization of renewable raw materials is of paramount importance, as it serves to reduce reliance on non-renewable resources. The findings indicate the proportion of renewable materials, expressed as a percentage by weight relative to the total weight of the packaging.

2.2.7. Circularity: Consumer Involvement

The criterion of consumer involvement is designed to evaluate the extent to which end consumers are required to actively separate packaging components prior to disposal in order to ensure the effective recycling of high-quality materials. In instances where consumer separation is deemed necessary, this should be explicitly indicated on the packaging. Furthermore, the processes of mechanical separation and proper disposal should be facilitated, for instance, through the incorporation of perforations. It is to be noted that the German minimum standard permits the separate evaluation of packaging components only when such separation is essential for the product’s intended use and consumption [37].

They are categorized as follows:

• Separation by consumers is required before disposal of the packaging; this is inadequately labeled;
• Separation action is required from consumers before disposal of the packaging, this is adequately labeled;
• No separation performance by consumers is required before disposal of the packaging;

X

No separation performance is required as the design of the packaging prevents high-quality recycling.

3. Results

3.1. Technical Recyclability

The assessment of the technical recyclability and direct environmental impact were conducted separately for Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (Figure 2). For all the samples, the recyclability of the samples varied from country to country due to differences in recycling infrastructure and standards. The bar indicates the range of recyclability measured in the respective product group.

3.1.1. Shampoo

The overall average recyclability of shampoo packaging (n = 60) was 36.04%, with a considerable range of values observed between 0% and 99.43% in Germany. The mean value for PET bottles in Germany was 7.75%, while in Austria and Switzerland it was 12.53%. This is mainly due to the following reason: PET bottles are largely covered by labels made of PP, which is not a compatible material combination for waste sorting, as the bottle gets sorted into the PP waste stream. Therefore, only the closure of the packaging is recyclable. HDPE bottles demonstrated higher values, with an average of 57.82% in Germany, 64.26% in Austria, and 63.05% in Switzerland. The recyclability of tubes in Germany and Austria was 56.91% on average, whereas in Switzerland, all the samples exhibited a 0% recyclability due to the absence of waste streams. The HDPE canister was not identified as a recyclable packaging option in any of the three countries, as for this sample too, a label made of PP covered large surfaces of the packaging. The recyclability values for pouches were dependent on the material composition. Three pouches, consisting of HDPE and LDPE and equipped with a screw cap manufactured from either HDPE or PP, exhibited a recycling value exceeding 90% in both Germany and Austria. In contrast, another pouch, composed of PET, was found to be non-recyclable in all three countries. Pump dispensers exhibited average recyclability values of approximately 20% in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Only two HDPE pump dispensers demonstrated sufficient results regarding recyclability, with 76.38% and 83.48% in all three countries. The recycling process is significantly hindered by the presence of metal components in the pump mechanism and the use of large sleeves made of incompatible materials, which impede the recycling process. For the assessment, no NIR-detection tests were conducted. A packaging is deemed not recyclable if more than 50% of the surface of the main body is covered in a sleeve or label of another material.

3.1.2. Hair Gel and Wax

The recyclability of packaging for hair gel and wax (n = 24) exhibited considerable variation, with a range of 0% to 99.66% and an average value of 37.34%. The highest rates of recyclability were observed for jars with screw caps that were manufactured from PP. Jars made from Styrene-acrylonitrile (SAN) copolymers were demonstrated to be non-recyclable due to the absence of suitable waste streams. Furthermore, jars manufactured from PET were identified as non-recyclable in three instances, with one case exhibiting a recycling rate of only 28.15% in Germany and Austria. Here again, labels made of LDPE, as well as dark and opaque coloration, impacted the recyclability.

Three tubes were found to be non-recyclable due to their dark and non-NIR-conforming coloration, while other tubes demonstrated a range of recyclability between 56.39% and 66.96%. The recyclability of the product was reduced as a result of the combination of LDPE/HDPE tubes with closures that were made of PP. A single squeeze bottle composed of PET was evaluated, yielding a recyclability rate of 30.29% across all three countries. Two pump dispensers were assessed, with the results indicating a recyclability of 2.78% and 2.99% in all three countries. The recycling process was hindered by the dark coloration of the PET material, extensive surface coverage due to an LDPE label, and the presence of metal in the pump. One PP airless pump dispenser was not recyclable.

3.1.3. Hand Cream

The majority of hand cream packaging samples (n = 55) were tubes. Of the 37 tubes examined, seven were identified as non-recyclable due to a combination of factors, including dark coloration, metallization, small size, and, in a few cases, the weight of the PP closure exceeding 30% of the total packaging weight. This latter factor influenced the recyclability of the LDPE/HDPE in the PE waste stream. Two tubes packed in extensive secondary packaging achieved the highest recyclability rates, at 87.18% and 89.26%, respectively. Two tubes comprising HDPE/LDPE and a PP closure yielded the optimal result, with 95.92% recyclability in Germany and Austria. However, in Switzerland, the material was classified as non-recyclable due to the absence of designated waste and recycling streams. Two pump dispensers manufactured from glass demonstrated favorable recyclability rates of 96.24% across all three countries, whereas the samples crafted from HDPE or PET exhibited comparatively low recyclability values, ranging from 0.00% to 3.21%. An assessment was conducted on a squeeze bottle comprising HDPE and a PP closure, which demonstrated a recyclability rate of 69.07%. This is due to the PP closure entering the PE waste stream, which renders the PP non-recyclable. Additionally, four airless pump dispensers manufactured from PP were sampled, exhibiting recyclability values of 0.00%, 0.00%, 11.80%, and 89.24% in Germany. One of these non-recyclable samples exhibits a recyclability rate of 92.13% in Austria and Switzerland. In this case, the entire packaging is regarded as entering the rigid PP stream, where components made of cardboard and kraft paper have the effect of contaminating the stream to a degree that leads to the packaging being considered non-recyclable. In Austria and Switzerland, it was assumed that paper components entered the paper waste stream as well as the main body, while a closure made of PP entered the PP waste stream. This resulted in an overall good recyclability, with only minor deductions due to the LDPE components and printing inks. The recyclability range of jars made of aluminum, PP, and glass ranged from 80.74% to 98.37%.

3.1.4. Body Lotion

The overall assessed recyclability of body lotion packaging (n = 36) in Austria was slightly higher than in Germany (40.44%) and Switzerland (24.13%), with a percentage of 46.22%. The results for tubes made of HDPE/LDPE with PP closures, as observed in other product categories, were found to vary considerably due to differences in print coverage or decoration materials. The highest recorded value was 78.84% in Germany and Austria. It was found that none of the tubes was recyclable in Switzerland, as they all received a rating of 0%. A single tube comprising PE with a PE closure was assessed, resulting in a recyclability rating of 99.62% in Germany and Austria. Ten squeeze bottles were assessed, with results ranging from 68.19% to 87.97% in Austria and Switzerland, with one exception. One bottle was deemed unfit for recycling due to the black coloration applied to it. Pump dispensers composed of HDPE and PET exhibited a markedly low degree of recyclability, with recorded values ranging between 0.00% and 2.69%. Two airless pump dispensers manufactured from polypropylene exhibited 0% and 66.90% recyclability, respectively. The highest level of recyclability was observed for a PP jar with a PP closure, with a rate of 98.87% in Germany, 99.59% in Austria, and 0% in Switzerland. In comparison, other samples demonstrated a significantly reduced level of recyclability, with average rates of 14.45%, 21.44%, and 14.27%.

3.1.5. Face Cream

The assessment of the recyclability of face cream packaging (n = 21) revealed significant discrepancies. The average recyclability in Germany was 42.46%, in Switzerland was 48.59%, and in Austria was 61.62%. Two glass jars demonstrated a high degree of recyclability, exceeding 80%. Conversely, one glass sample was not recyclable due to the presence of coloring agents. The recyclability values for tubes ranged from 0.00% to 29.73% in Germany, 50.00% to 85.82% in Austria, and 43.64% to 85.82% in Switzerland. A glass pump dispenser in cardboard secondary packaging was highly recyclable in Austria and Switzerland, with a recycling rate of 90.68%. This is due to the assumption that the glass and cardboard are separately disposed of in both countries, with both materials entering the designated recycling stream. In Germany, the recyclability value was 79.60%, as no separate disposal is assumed and therefore the cardboard material is incorrectly sorted into the glass recycling stream, where it is subsequently rejected and sent for incineration. A monolayer sachet manufactured from PP was evaluated and was found to have a recyclability rating of 96.97%, as it is sorted into the flexible polyolefin (PO) composite stream. The recyclability of the packaging was diminished by the use of dark printing ink on the exterior. In the absence of a recycling stream for flexible PO packaging in Switzerland, the recyclability value was deemed to be 0%. Two samples of the bag-in-bottle packaging system were submitted for assessment in the face cream category. The packaging comprises a glass bottle, a pump mechanism with a bag made of PP, and smaller components made of LDPE, steel, metallic printing ink, and other unidentified materials, as well as printing ink and a cardboard box. The two samples exhibited recyclability values of 63.97% and 71.18% in Germany and 84.25% and 82.95% in both Austria and Switzerland.

3.1.6. Eye Cream

In the product category for eye cream, four different packaging types were evaluated. One is a glass jar with a screw cap made of PE and PP, which was 81.85% recyclable in all three countries. Another sample was an airless pump dispenser made of PP, reaching the same values as the glass jar sample. The other two samples were tubes, whereby one contained an aluminum ball at the closure for cream application. This sample was 48.18% recyclable in Germany, but non-recyclable in Austria and Switzerland. The other tube was made of LDPE with aluminum and a PP cap and was non-recyclable in Germany, but 38.95% recyclable in Austria and Switzerland.

3.1.7. Serum

The samples evaluated for the product category serum (n = 15) demonstrated a considerable diversity in packaging types and the extent of decoration. In all three countries, both a metalized glass bottle and a colorized bottle with a pipette for product dispensing were found to be non-recyclable. The recyclability of glass pump dispensers was found to exceed 70% in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Conversely, a sample comprising SAN was identified as non-recyclable in Germany and demonstrated a recycling rate below 20% in the other countries, due to the absence of relevant waste streams. In such instances, the sole recyclable component was the secondary packaging, which was composed of cardboard or paper. Additionally, an airless pump dispenser manufactured from acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) was identified as non-recyclable due to the absence of compatible waste streams in the respective countries. Four distinct airless pump dispensers, primarily composed of PP, were evaluated. These dispensers exhibited reduced recyclability, ranging from 0% to 64.34%, due to the utilization of multiple packaging components comprising diverse and incompatible materials, including glass, metal, stainless steel, and PE.

3.2. Direct Environmental Impact

The direct environmental impact was determined through a streamlined LCA by the Packaging Cockpit Software for the impact category climate change and was calculated as kg CO₂ eq. Differences within the product categories were high, due to the assessment of different packaging types and materials (Figure 3). In the category of eye cream, the four assessed samples were close, due to the similar material composition and similar filling volume and size of the samples of 10 and 15 mL.

3.3. Packaging Efficiency

The lowest and therefore optimal values for shampoos were achieved by refill pouches without secondary packaging, with a value between 2.22% and 2.73% (n = 4). In the case of the refill pouch with a spout and a cardboard box and a filling volume of 1500 mL, a value of 7.64% was recorded. A pouch lacking closure and safeguarded by a cardboard box exhibited a packaging efficiency of 12.32%. The canister containing 2000 mL of shampoo demonstrated a value of 6.24%. The highest value, 29.61%, was observed for a foaming shampoo in an HDPE pump dispenser.

In terms of packaging efficiency for hair gels and waxes, the tubes (n = 11) demonstrate the highest values, with a range of 9.00 to 14.85%. The efficiency of packaging for jars manufactured from PET, PP, aluminum, or SAN copolymer varied between 11.16% and 43.21%. One potential explanation for these significant discrepancies between packaging types is the difference in the filling quantity. While tubes typically contain a filling quantity of 100–150 mL, jars made of PP and PET have a filling quantity of 50 or 75 mL. The highest value was observed for a squeeze bottle, with a packaging efficiency of 88.30%.

The highest values for packaging efficiency for hand cream packaging were achieved by jars and pump dispensers (60.23% and 57.08% for a 50 mL product) made of glass. In contrast, the lowest value was achieved by a pump dispenser made of PET, with a filling quantity of 500 mL (8.91%). Conversely, a glass pump dispenser with an identical filling quantity of 500 mL demonstrated a packaging efficiency of 56.46%. The value for tubes without secondary packaging ranged between 8.49% and 24.24%. The utilization of a cardboard box as secondary packaging for a PE composite tube with a filling quantity of 75 mL has the potential to increase the result by approximately 7%. The airless pump dispenser exhibited a value of 33.47%, 39.58%, 39.06%, and 46.23% in instances where the packaging included a cardboard box and an extensive leaflet providing information on the brand, usage, and ingredients.

The mean packaging efficiency value for body lotions was 13.32%. The highest value was 35.05%, which was observed for an airless pump dispenser manufactured from PP. This product had a below-average filling quantity of 150 mL and was packaged in cardboard secondary packaging, which harmed the packaging efficiency. Bottles exhibited efficiency values of 6.97 to 14.19%, with an outlier of 21.52%. This was due to the influence of secondary packaging. The values for jars ranged between 11.33% and 20.41%, while those for pump dispensers ranged from 9.98% to 14.93%. Tubes with a filling volume of 30 mL, 50 mL, and 88 mL exhibited values of 16.11%, 18.57%, and 15.63%, respectively. In contrast, tubes with filling volumes of 150 mL to 250 mL demonstrated superior packaging efficiency, with values ranging from 7.49 to 12.08%.

In comparison to other product categories, the packaging efficiency of face creams was notably high. The mean proportion of packaging weight to total product weight was 52.34%. These elevated values are predominantly attributable to the utilization of glass as the primary packaging material and the secondary packaging. In contrast, a refill sachet displayed a markedly lower value, with a value of 5.14%. Two bag-in-bottle systems were selected for analysis within this product category. The efficiency values of 78.92% and 82.97% were observed in products containing glass bottles and extensive secondary packaging. A slightly superior value of 62.40% was demonstrated by an airless jar, while the airless pump dispenser exhibited a range of lower values between 44.31 and 52.21%.

The packaging efficiency of the eye cream was at a high level, which was partly due to the small filling quantities of 10 mL and 15 mL. The glass jar also came in secondary packaging and therefore achieved a value of 82.46%. For the airless pump dispenser, it was 42.08%. The tube without secondary packaging and with a roll-on applicator achieved a value of 38.65%, and the tube with a screw cap achieved 36.02%.

The packaging efficiency of serums was in the high range, with an average of 61.79%. The highest value of 80.60% was achieved by a glass bottle with a pipette dispenser in a cardboard secondary packaging. In general, the values are caused by small filling quantities, glass inserts, secondary packaging, and material-rich closures and applicators. The lowest value was achieved by a tube with secondary packaging, at 38.24%.

3.4. Use of Renewable Resources and Certification

In the context of shampoo products, it is evident that renewable resources are rarely employed in the packaging materials. The analysis revealed the presence of fiber-based materials in six samples. The products with the highest proportion of renewable resources were refill pouches sold in cardboard secondary packaging, with values of 87.00% and 69.00%. The sample exhibiting 87.00% was also the only shampoo sample containing renewable resources from certified sources. Two other samples with 26.00% and 36.00% of renewables were identified as containing secondary packaging made of fibers. One additional bottle was sampled, comprising 57.00% renewable materials. The sixth sample was a bottle with an additional cardboard sleeve, representing 4.00% of renewable resources.

No products in the hair gel/wax category were identified that were packaged with fiber content.

A total of five samples of hand cream packaging were identified as containing renewable raw materials. Four of the samples were secondary packaging, with two cases of secondary packaging containing aluminum tubes (50% and 54%). One airless pump dispenser was discovered to be encased within secondary packaging, accompanied by an additional comprehensive instruction leaflet (30%). In one sample, the renewable resources used were indicated to be the lid (30%), which was predominantly composed of wood. A single product was identified as bearing the FSC seal.

Of the total number of body lotion samples (n = 36), three were found to contain renewable resources. The highest values were observed in samples packaged in cardboard secondary packaging (24% and 35%), while the samples packaged in a jar with a cardboard box exhibited 23% renewable material content. One sample displayed a renewable resources content of 10%, attributable to the inclusion of bio-PE in the closure. Of the three samples of body lotion that exhibited renewable material content, only one was found to have an FSC seal.

The utilization of renewable resources was demonstrably more prevalent and frequent in the context of face creams than in other product categories, due to the common use of cardboard boxes as secondary packaging. Of the 21 samples subjected to analysis, 17 were found to contain renewable resources, with a maximum concentration of 56%. The product was presented in a 30 mL aluminum tube, enclosed in a protective cardboard box. Of the 17 products with secondary packaging, only 4 were found to have FSC certification.

The renewable resource content of two eye cream samples was 10% and 69%, due to the secondary packaging, with neither sample being FSC certified.

A total of 12 out of the 15 samples in the serum category demonstrated the utilization of renewable resources due to the incorporation of secondary packaging. The mean value across all the samples was 16%, with a peak value of 37%. This value was observed in a single tube in secondary packaging, while the remaining samples were predominantly in glass packaging. Given the high weight of glass, the secondary packaging is of lesser significance than in the case of the comparatively light tube. In 12 out of the 15 samples, secondary packaging and thus renewables were used, half of which were FSC-certified.

3.5. Recyclate Content

The utilization of recyclate in the shampoo packaging category was observed to exhibit considerable variability. Of the 60 samples analyzed, all of them were primarily made of plastic and 31 were found to contain recycled materials, representing a range of 8% to 87% by weight. Of the 31 samples, 19 were bottles made from PET or HDPE, with a recyclate content ranging from 66% to 87%. One pouch manufactured from PET was found to contain 76% recyclate, as well as four tubes, with a range between 8% and 41%. Furthermore, seven pump dispensers were identified as containing recycled materials, with a range of 61% to 71% and an outlier of 36%.

It was determined that no recycled materials were utilized in the packaging of hair wax for 13 out of the 24 sampled products. All the assessed samples were primarily made of plastic. The highest proportion of recycled content was observed in a jar manufactured from rPET, at 67%. Furthermore, two PET pump dispensers demonstrated elevated values of 33% and 42%. The sampled squeeze bottle contains 17% recyclate, while six tubes exhibited recyclate contents of 17.53% to 36.30%.

The presence of recycled materials was identified in 17 of the 55 hand cream packaging samples. Only six samples were made primarily out of aluminum and glass, while the rest were composed of plastic. The highest proportion of recyclate was observed in rPET pump dispensers (62% and 64%) and one HDPE pump dispenser (63%). Of the 37 sampled tubes, 11 samples exhibited an average recyclate content of 35.24%, with a range between 18 and 52%.

Regarding the samples of body lotion that were analyzed, it was found that the majority of them, specifically 28 out of the total of 36, contained no recyclates. Only one sample was made of aluminum; all the others were made of plastic. The highest proportion of recycled material was observed in HDPE bottles, with 82%, 72%, and 45% recycled content. The findings revealed that a jar and a pump dispenser composed of rPET demonstrated values of 60% and 61%, respectively. The remaining values were derived from tubes composed of PE composites.

In the sampling of packaging for face cream products, four out of the fourteen samples made of plastic were found to contain recycled materials. The highest value was observed in an aluminum tube with a PE cap, which exhibited a recycling content of 56%. A PE tube with a PP cap exhibited a recycling content of 47%. Concerning the four eye creams analyzed, of which two were made of plastics, one tube was found to contain a recyclate content of 55%. No recyclates were used in the other plastic packaging samples. One-third of the serum samples contained recycled materials. The highest proportion of recycled content, at 37%, was observed in a PE tube.

3.6. Consumer Involvement

It could be observed that three-quarters of the shampoo packaging samples did not necessitate separation performance to achieve increased recyclability. Two samples displayed appropriate material separation information for the consumer on the label, while three samples indicated that the separation of individual components would not be sufficient for recycling. Nevertheless, ten samples could have been more effectively recycled by separating them, although this was not adequately indicated on the labels.

In 19 out of the 24 hair gel samples, no separation performance was required to achieve increased recyclability. Nevertheless, in the case of one sample, the separation of individual components would not have facilitated sufficient recycling. Conversely, four samples could have been more effectively recycled by separating them, although this was not sufficiently indicated for the consumer.

Of the 55 hand cream samples, 44 did not need to undergo separation to achieve increased recyclability. One sample necessitated a separation procedure, which was indicated on the label. In the case of three samples, the separation of the individual components would not have facilitated sufficient recycling. Conversely, seven samples could have been recycled with greater efficacy through the separation of the individual components. However, this was not adequately indicated on the labels.

A review of the processed body lotion samples revealed that twenty-seven of the thirty-six samples did not necessitate a separation performance to achieve enhanced recyclability. Two samples required separation performance and were duly labeled accordingly. Seven samples could have been rendered more recyclable by separating the individual components, yet this was not adequately indicated.

It was determined that twelve of the packaging materials utilized for face creams did not necessitate separation to achieve enhanced recyclability. Conversely, eight samples would not have been sufficiently recyclable even if the individual components were separated. One sample, however, could have been recycled more effectively by separating it, although this was not indicated on the label.

Two of the eye cream packaging samples did not necessitate separation in order to achieve increased recyclability. For the remaining two samples, separation would not have resulted in an increase in recyclability.

The majority of the packaging would not have been sufficiently recyclable if individual components had been separated. Three of the samples did not require separation to achieve increased recyclability. Conversely, two samples could have been better recycled by separating them, yet this was not sufficiently labeled.

4. Discussion

The objective of the study was to examine the sustainability of existing cosmetic packaging in the DACH region. The assessment method employed was based on the selection of specific parameters from a holistic sustainability assessment method. The findings indicate that the sustainability of packaging varies depending on the product category.

The product category of shampoo exhibited the greatest number of products in the benchmarking process, with a total of 60 samples. The most notable differences in recyclability were observed, both when comparing the samples and when examining country-specific variations in waste management practices. It is uncommon to find renewable materials in shampoo packaging, yet the use of recycled materials is more prevalent than in other product categories. The efficiency of the packaging is relatively low, at 10.28%, which is favored by the absence of secondary packaging and comparatively large filling quantities, as well as the more frequent use of refill packaging.

A total of 24 samples were available for analysis, representing 22% of the total number of samples identified in the market. This allowed for a comprehensive representation of the hair gel/wax product category. It is notable that the products lacked secondary packaging and were not made from renewable materials, with minimal use of recycled materials. It was observed that packaging efficiency was consistently high across all the products and that differences in the packaging systems used could be discerned in terms of residual emptying, with the best values being found for jars and airless pump dispensers.

Subsequent to the analysis of shampoo, hand cream constituted an expansive product category within the scope of this research project, with a total of 55 samples evaluated. Significant country-specific differences in recyclability were observed due to the combination of LDPE/HDPE and PP closures for tubes, which accounted for over 60% of this product category. In general, the packaging was highly efficient, with only a minimal amount of secondary and glass packaging being used.

The analysis of the body lotion product category was constrained by the vast number of products available on the market, which made it possible to map only a limited number of items. Nevertheless, the 36 samples analyzed represented the corresponding packaging systems. The average packaging efficiency was low, which is attributable to the high filling quantities and the absence of glass packaging and secondary packaging. It is uncommon for recyclate and renewable materials to be utilized in this product category.

In contrast to the other product categories, secondary packaging is frequently used for face creams, which results in a comparatively high percentage of renewables. Nevertheless, the utilization of certified raw materials remains relatively low and could be enhanced. The use of recycled materials in the packaging is infrequent, and the packaging efficiency is high, at 52.34%, due to the small filling quantities, heavy packaging materials, and secondary packaging.

A total of four samples were identified within the eye cream product category, which were represented in different packaging systems. The packaging efficiencies were similarly high for both 10 mL and 15 mL filling quantities, in a manner comparable to that observed in the face cream category. Additionally, the low utilization of renewable resources and recyclate and the absence of certified materials are noteworthy.

The serum product category shows elevated values for packaging efficiency. Glass is frequently employed as a packaging material, and a considerable number of products are also packaged in secondary packaging. Pipette and pump dispensers are also characterized by a high degree of material intensity. In contrast to face creams, certified materials are utilized for renewable resources in 50% of cases.

Civancik-Uslu et al., 2019, applied a similar approach to assess the sustainability of cosmetic packaging by evaluating LCA results in conjunction with eco-design to enhance the environmental impact [38]. Although a direct comparison with the published data is not possible, the same principles were employed and similar conclusions were drawn from the results. In this instance, factors such as packaging efficiency and the utilization of recyclate and renewable materials were taken into consideration. In their conclusions, Civancik-Uslu et al., 2019, also recommend an increased use of recycled content and renewable materials, as well as a reduction in the amount of packaging material used [38]. While the authors do not assess the recyclability of the packaging, they encourage the use of design principles that facilitate recycling at the production stage, to ensure effective processing in existing recycling systems.

All data are available in the Excel file “Supporting Data”.

4.1. Comparison of Recyclability and Carbon Footprint

In this section, a comparison between recyclability and carbon emissions for selected product categories is drawn.

In the case of hair gels and hair waxes, the jars (green) show groupings in different areas (Figure 4). Jars made of PP performed well in terms of recyclability, as did PET jars with little labeling. These are also the only products that, according to the current discussions about the new PPWR, reach the required target of 70% recyclability and would therefore continue to be marketable. The remaining PET and SAN jars exhibited significantly lower recyclability, with values below 40%. Additionally, they exhibited the highest carbon footprints. Two pump dispensers (yellow) and one bottle (turquoise) were similarly rated poorly for recyclability and carbon footprint. An airless pump dispenser (red) achieved the lowest rating in this category, with 0% recyclability and 0.184 kg CO₂-eq in the life cycle assessment. The tubes (blue) are situated within the lower range for CO₂ emissions, with values between 51% and 67% in the context of recyclability. Four tubes were considered non-recyclable.

In the hand cream product category, the high number of tubes (blue) resulted in a grouping of 50–70% recyclability (Figure 5). In this product category, tubes also achieved the lowest carbon footprint values. The turquoise-colored bottles also exhibited a similar range of results. In the case of pump dispensers (yellow), two glass containers achieved recyclability values of over 90%. The remaining dispensers, which were made of HDPE or PET, except one, were not recyclable and had on average the worst life cycle assessment results. Airless pump dispensers (red) also performed comparatively poorly in both assessment categories. Only two samples in this packaging system could achieve a recyclability score that would allow the product in question to continue to be sold in its current form under the new PPWR. Jars (green) proved to be the most sustainable packaging option concerning the assessment categories considered here. The higher carbon footprint values were attributable to jars made of glass and aluminum, while the lower values were attributable to jars made of PP.

The optimal packaging option in the face cream category was a sachet (black) made of PP (Figure 6). All the airless pump dispensers (red) were manufactured from PP and exhibited differences in labeling and secondary packaging. The highest score was achieved by an airless pump dispenser with minimal labeling and no secondary packaging, and a sachet (black) shows a high recyclability and low carbon footprint. Jars (green) performed highly differently in terms of carbon footprints and recyclability, which implies room for improvement with regard to the new PPWR. A pump dispenser (yellow) achieved good values with 90.68% recyclability and a low environmental impact. Jars made of ABS and PET showed high values in the life cycle assessment and under 20% recyclability. Two additional packaging systems were submitted for consideration: a bag-in-bottle (violet) and airless jar (white). The former exhibited similar low LCA and recyclability values to airless pump dispensers and PP jars. The latter, however, demonstrated the highest CO₂ values and lowest recyclability.

4.2. Implications for Future Legislation

Following an in-depth analysis of the material composition of more than 200 cosmetic packaging samples, it has been determined that there is a clear need for improvement to meet future targets regarding sustainable material use and the reduction in overpackaging. While product categories such as face cream and serum exhibit a high rate of use of renewable resources, this is only carried out on rare occasions to substitute fossil-based materials. The utilization of fiber-based materials is frequently employed for secondary packaging, although in the majority of instances, such as those involving PET or PE bottles or tubes, the necessity for secondary packaging is not evident from a mechanical protection standpoint. This is in contrast to aluminum tubes, which are susceptible to puncture damage. Consequently, the utilization of secondary packaging merely results in augmented material utilization, overpackaging, and a decline in the efficiency of the packaging. This was particularly highlighted in the case of hand creams, where the use of secondary packaging can increase the efficiency value by 7%. Another area for improvement is the scarcity of the certified materials being used. Concerning the use of recycled materials, the percentage of samples containing recyclate, as well as the percentage within each packaging, could be enhanced. It should be noted that cosmetic packaging is not subject to the Regulation for Food Contact Materials, and therefore other recycled polymers besides PET can be used in such cases, even though institutions such as the Personal Care Association recommend following the regulation [39,40].

5. Conclusions

This study offers significant insights into the sustainability of cosmetic packaging in the DACH region, highlighting substantial variations in recyclability, material utilization, and packaging efficiency across diverse product categories. While certain categories demonstrate advancements in the application of recycled materials and packaging efficiency, others continue to encounter difficulties in adhering to future PPWR regulations. To enhance sustainability, the industry must prioritize the following recommendations:

• Increase the use of recycled materials: Packaging should comprise a greater proportion of recycled content, especially in plastic-based and paper packaging;
• Minimize the use of secondary packaging: Reducing the reliance on secondary packaging and unnecessary materials can improve packaging efficiency and reduce environmental impact;
• Focus on material compatibility: Packaging designs should avoid incompatible material combinations that hinder recyclability, such as metallization and colorants;
• Prioritization of renewable materials: These should be used primarily as substitutes, not additional packaging layers, to reduce resource consumption;
• Enhance packaging efficiency: The aim should be to improve the efficiency of packaging by considering filling quantities, reducing excess packaging, and promoting refillable or reusable systems;
• Use of alternative materials: The use of biodegradable polymers must align with sustainability criteria, particularly those related to recyclability and resource efficiency. While these materials offer alternatives to conventional plastics, their integration into existing recycling systems remains complex. To avoid the contamination of recyclable waste streams and ensure effective decomposition, further research is required on material properties, waste sorting, and industrial composting infrastructure;
• Adopt a multi-dimensional sustainability approach: Sustainability should not be limited to recyclability but also include factors such as energy use, waste reduction, and sourcing of certified raw materials.

In the context of the ongoing tightening of EU regulations, such as the PPWR, manufacturers are facing mounting pressure to adapt their packaging solutions in order to comply with legal requirements and align with the evolving expectations of consumers. The increasing demand for sustainable products, coupled with the imposition of more stringent environmental regulations, necessitates a shift in brand priorities, away from mere compliance and towards a genuine commitment to sustainability in their packaging designs. By proactively investing in eco-friendly packaging innovations, manufacturers can ensure the future viability of their products by not only meeting regulatory demands, but also by positioning themselves as leaders in the sustainable packaging movement. The adoption of environmentally responsible practices will not only enhance market competitiveness but also foster stronger consumer loyalty and ensure long-term business success in a rapidly changing market.