Fast read:
- The EcoBeautyScore gives cosmetic products a rating from A to E based on their total environmental impact.
- The calculation covers the full lifecycle: from raw materials and production to packaging, transport and waste.
- The score does not assess individual ingredients; it evaluates the product’s total footprint.
- Plastic is included via the impact of material use and packaging production.
- Participation is voluntary and requires extensive data; large companies can often adopt it faster than smaller brands.
- With this system, the industry is anticipating stricter European regulations on sustainability claims.
From the organic trend to holistic sustainable production
The world is changing. We consume more consciously. We waste less. We look differently at what we use. It’s better for the planet. In the beauty industry, awareness is growing as well: from sourcing to processing to packaging, everything needs to become more sustainable. Certifications like B Corp are gaining traction. Companies want to demonstrate responsibility. At the same time, legislation is increasing pressure to report emissions and resource use. This too is pushing the industry toward more sustainable practices.
EcoBeautyScore: major players are already involved
New is the EcoBeautyScore, an initiative now joined by around seventy, mainly large, beauty manufacturers. Think of Beiersdorf, Coty, Henkel, Noots, Kneipp, L’Oréal, as well as Chanel, Nuxe and Walgreens. Using letters from A to E, displayed in brand webshops, companies aim to show the environmental impact of their products. The German company Beiersdorf, known for brands like Nivea and Eucerin, recently told me more about it.
It’s a complex calculation
It sounds simple — a letter on a product box — but behind it lies a complex story. The EcoBeautyScore reveals everything that happens before a product ends up in a jar or tube. From raw material extraction to processing and packaging. From transport to what happens when the packaging is discarded. The lower the letter score — an A — the more sustainably the product has been made.
Making environmental impact visible
Scientists call this a lifecycle analysis. It’s a way of looking not at one component, but at the whole system. The EcoBeautyScore uses a method based on the European Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) framework, a standard specifically developed to make environmental impact measurable.
Some brands are already there
As mentioned, more than seventy companies are now working with this system, and it is expected to grow into a serious standard. Beiersdorf told me that 99% of their NIVEA facial products and 100% of their Eucerin facial products now achieve an A or B score. This means they rank among the products with relatively low environmental impact within their category.
It’s not about the ingredients themselves
It’s important to understand that the system does not assess individual ingredients — the actual content of your cream, the active substances. Personally, I think it would be valuable if substances like PFAS were also included. These so-called “forever chemicals” are currently under scrutiny because of their potential harm to both human health and the environment. In France, legislation has already been passed to restrict PFAS use in cosmetics, effective from 2026. That shows how seriously the issue is being taken.
Plastic is included, microplastics are not
The EcoBeautyScore measures environmental impact, not ingredient lists — PFAS are not included. Plastic, however, is taken into account. Not microplastics, but packaging plastics. The reason is that their production is linked to fossil resource use and energy consumption. Large-scale plastic use has a significant impact, whereas PFAS, if present at all, typically make up only a small fraction of formulations — that is the explanation I received.
How it is verified
What makes the EcoBeautyScore particularly interesting is that it is not a government initiative, but one developed by the industry itself. Companies are building it together. The methodology has been externally reviewed by E&H, part of the Ecocert Group, to ensure it meets European and international standards, including ISO guidelines. In addition, scores are verified through independent audits. Ecocert is likely familiar to you from organic skincare certification — it’s a well-established and influential player.
The industry is ahead of regulation
At the same time, the European Union is working on stricter rules for sustainability claims, based on the same scientific PEF method that underpins the EcoBeautyScore.
In other words: the industry is moving ahead of regulation — and that is strategic. It helps companies avoid being caught off guard by new rules. But it also means the industry is actively shaping how “sustainability” will be defined and measured. Whoever builds the model ultimately decides what becomes visible — and what does not. Sustainability is no longer just an ethical issue; it is about standardization and influence over that standard. That’s how it works when agreements are made on complex, far-reaching topics.
Participation is voluntary, but data-heavy
Participation in the system is voluntary, but it requires significant investment in data and analysis. Companies need detailed insights into their production processes and supply chains. Large companies often already have this data. Smaller brands, which frequently rely on external manufacturers, may find it more challenging to gather all the required information. Companies are also required to assess at least 75% of products within a category — not just showcase their best performers.
Don’t confuse it with ingredient apps
Do not confuse the EcoBeautyScore with the information provided by ingredient apps that assess the safety or function of individual substances. Those focus on formulation details. This score looks at the environmental safety of the entire production and supply chain, from a planetary perspective.
I understand it — but I’m not there yet
I find it an impressive initiative, but I suspect it will take time for this way of thinking to fully land — not for me as a journalist, but as a consumer. As a journalist, I see how the industry is evolving, how systems are being built to make impact visible.
But my instinct as a consumer still lies elsewhere. When I pick up a new product, I first look at the formula. What does it do for my skin? Which active ingredients does it contain? How does it support my skin barrier? How will sensitive skin respond?
When does sustainability become instinctive?
That is where my attention naturally goes. Not to a letter that reflects the world beyond my skin. When I see a B Corp logo, I think rationally: good, admirable. But emotionally, it still doesn’t guide my choices. That is my honest observation at this moment.
Because if even my attention — after more than thirty years in this industry — has not fully shifted, it shows how new this way of thinking still is. It needs time to become instinctive, to truly influence the choices we make.
PS: Beauty today asks for vision, not just product knowledge. With 30+ years of experience and BeautyJournaal, I help teams interpret trends, ingredients, regulation and consumer behaviour strategically. Tailored training via info@beautyjournaal.nl
