Growing global environmental awareness has fueled a “green” market, but also a confusing array of information, raising risks of misinformation. In response, sustainability certifications and instruments have become crucial tools in the cosmetics industry. However, the rapid spread of these ecolabels has created new problems, including market fragmentation, consumer confusion, and heightened concerns about greenwashing. This study conducts a systematic comparative analysis of 24 prominent sustainability schemes within the cosmetics sector. We developed an analytical framework to assess each instrument across three dimensions: (i) value chain coverage (from sourcing to end-of-life), (ii) corporate sustainability scope (environmental, social, governance), and (iii) verification and transparency mechanisms. The results reveal a fragmented landscape with significant scope imbalances. Most instruments robustly cover upstream impacts (e.g., ingredient sourcing), but downstream phases—including consumer use, packaging, and circularity—are markedly under-addressed. At the corporate level, environmental criteria dominate, with social and governance dimensions inconsistently integrated. Verification rigor and transparency vary widely, with many relying on confidential audits or self-declaration. In conclusion, while valuable as market instruments, prevailing certifications are insufficient as standalone assurance tools. The findings highlight a misalignment with emerging regulations, underscoring the need for greater lifecycle integration, enhanced transparency, and alignment with comprehensive corporate sustainability frameworks.
Costa et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: