The beauty industry produces enormous amounts of waste and uses a significant share of the world’s plastic production. But within any individual’s skincare routine, some choices matter much more than others. Knowing which factors actually drive environmental impact helps you make decisions that go beyond surface-level greenwashing.
The carbon footprint of skincare involves packaging, ingredient production, manufacturing, transport, and how products get disposed of. Most brands talk about one or two of these. Very few address all of them.
Packaging is the most visible problem, but not always the biggest one
Single-use plastic in cosmetics is a genuine environmental issue. The beauty industry generates approximately 120 billion units of packaging globally each year, the vast majority of which ends up in landfill or incineration. Plastic pumps, laminates on tubes, and mixed-material packaging are notoriously difficult to recycle.
Glass is often seen as the “natural” alternative, but the picture is more complicated. Glass is heavier than plastic, which increases the carbon emissions from transport. It’s also energy-intensive to produce. Recycled glass is better than new glass, and glass is infinitely recyclable in theory, but collection and recycling infrastructure varies enormously by location.
Aluminium is one of the better packaging options from a lifecycle perspective. It’s lightweight, infinitely recyclable, and the recycling process uses significantly less energy than producing new aluminium. Refillable aluminium packaging reduces impact further.
The most impactful packaging choice is usually to buy larger sizes rather than small ones. A 200ml bottle requires less packaging per millilitre of product than a 30ml bottle. Concentrates, solid formats (bars, sticks), and refills all reduce packaging weight relative to product volume.
Ingredient sourcing and production emissions
The carbon cost of ingredients is underappreciated in discussions about sustainable beauty. Palm oil and its derivatives are the most prominent example. Palm is the world’s most efficient oil crop per unit area, which is an argument in its favour, but the conversion of rainforest to palm plantations in Indonesia and Malaysia is a significant source of carbon emissions and biodiversity loss.
Many cosmetic ingredients are derived from palm oil, including surfactants, emulsifiers, and some fatty alcohols. They’re often listed under ingredient names that don’t make the origin obvious (sodium lauryl sulfate, cetearyl alcohol, glycerin can all be palm-derived). Brands that source only certified sustainable palm (RSPO certification) reduce the problem but don’t eliminate it entirely.
Petroleum-derived ingredients (mineral oil, petrolatum, synthetic polymers) are low-cost and stable but raise concerns about fossil carbon in cosmetics. Their production contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and they don’t biodegrade.
Plant-based alternatives to petroleum ingredients are generally better on a lifecycle basis, provided they don’t drive land use change or significant resource competition. Locally sourced plant ingredients, particularly those grown in ways that support biodiversity, are typically the best option.
Transport is a significant factor people underestimate
Where your skincare is made matters. A product formulated in South Korea, with ingredients from Brazil and Japan, packaged in China, and shipped to Europe has accumulated significant transport emissions before it reaches you.
Buying from brands that manufacture close to where you live reduces transport-related carbon. For people in Estonia and the Baltic region, this is one genuine advantage of supporting local cosmetic producers. A cream made in Kuressaare and shipped a few hundred kilometres within Europe has a fraction of the transport footprint of an equivalent product shipped from another continent.
Consolidated shipping (buying more at once, fewer separate deliveries) also reduces per-product transport impact. Free next-day delivery with tiny orders is a carbon-intensive habit that the convenience economy has normalised.
Water use in cosmetics
Water is the first ingredient in most creams, lotions, and serums. It takes up the most volume but is often the least valuable component. Many brands are now exploring waterless or water-reduced formulations, partly for environmental reasons and partly because removing water also removes the need for preservatives and extends shelf life.
Waterless cosmetics (balms, oils, solid products) have a lower water footprint both in the product itself and in manufacturing. They also tend to be more concentrated, so a smaller amount per use is needed.
Anhydrous products that you can add your own water to at home represent an interesting frontier, though they’re not yet mainstream. The environmental logic is sound: shipping water is inefficient when water is available at the point of use.
What actually makes the biggest difference
The most effective way to reduce the carbon footprint of your skincare routine is also the most straightforward: buy fewer products. A three-product routine has lower impact than a ten-product routine, regardless of how sustainable each individual product is.
After that, buying from brands that manufacture locally, use recyclable or minimal packaging, and source ingredients responsibly makes the next biggest difference. Look for brands that actually publish their supply chain practices rather than using vague language about being “green” or “eco-friendly.”
Finishing products completely before replacing them, choosing refills where available, recycling packaging properly, and not falling for seasonal launches and limited editions all reduce impact in practical ways.
The idea that you can shop your way to sustainability is worth questioning. Sustainable consumption is still consumption. Using less, choosing well, and making it last are the principles that actually move the needle.