According to European researchers, reusable design should be prioritized as a sustainable beauty strategy, as its overall positive impact far outweighs efforts to use reduced or recyclable materials.
University of Malta researchers investigate the differences between reusable and recyclable cosmetic packaging – two different approaches to sustainable design

 

Blush Compact Case Study

The team conducted an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment of different cosmetic packaging variants of blush compacts - designed with lids, mirrors, hinge pins, pans containing blush, and base boxes.

They looked at a reusable design where the blush tray can be recharged multiple times based on a fully recyclable single-use design, where the blush fills directly into the plastic base. Several other variants were also compared, including a lightweight variant made with less material and a design with more recycled components.

The overall goal is to identify which features of the packaging are responsible for the environmental impact, thus answering the question: to design an "extremely durable product" that can be reused many times or apply dematerialization but thus create a "less robust product"​, Does this reduce the reusability potential?

Reused Arguments
Findings show that the single-use, lightweight, fully recyclable variant, which does not use an aluminum pan, offers the most environmentally friendly option for cosmetic blush, with a 74% reduction in environmental impact. However, the researchers say this result only occurs when the end user completely recycles all components. If the component is not recycled, or is only partially recycled, this variant is no better than the reusable version.

"This study concludes that reuse should be emphasized in this context, as recycling depends only on the user and existing infrastructure," the researchers wrote.

When considering dematerialization -- using less packaging in the overall design -- the positive impact of reusability outweighed the impact of material reduction -- an environmental improvement of 171 percent, the researchers said. Reducing the weight of the reusable model yields "very little benefit," they said. "...the key takeaway from this comparison is that reuse rather than dematerialization is more environmentally friendly, thereby reducing the ability to reuse."

Overall, the researchers said, the reusable software package was "a good fit" compared to the other versions presented in the case study.

"Packaging reusability should take precedence over dematerialization and recyclability.

…Manufacturers should try to use less hazardous materials and move to reusable products containing recyclable single materials,” they concluded.

However, if reuse is not possible, the researchers say, given the sustainability urgency, it is to apply dematerialization and recycling.

Future research and collaboration
Going forward, the researchers say the industry can pay closer attention to bringing the most environmentally friendly compact designs to market without the need for a blush pan. However, this requires working with a powder filling company as the filling technology is completely different. Extensive research is also required to ensure that the enclosure is strong enough and the product meets quality requirements.