Foundation (30ml glass bottle)
Personal CareCarbon Cost Index Score
Per kg
Methodology v1.0 · Last reviewed 2026-04-08
Scope Breakdown
| Scope | kgCO₂e | % of Total | Distribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope 1 | 7.8 | 15% | |
| Scope 2 | 13 | 25% | |
| Scope 3 | 31.2 | 60% | |
| Total | 52 | 100% |
Emission Hotspots
| Emission Hotspot | Scope | Est. % of Total |
|---|---|---|
| raw material extraction and glass melting | S1 | 35% |
| transportation and distribution (high weight) | S3 | 28% |
| packaging material production | S1 | 22% |
| end-of-life treatment (recycling/landfill) | S3 | 15% |
Manufacturing Geography
- Region
- China
- Grid Intensity
- 555 gCO2/kWh (IEA 2023)
Material Composition Assumptions
The foundation bottle consists primarily of soda-lime silicate glass forming the main container structure, representing approximately 55 grams or 85% of total product weight. Mineral-based colorants may be incorporated during the melting process to achieve desired aesthetic properties, typically accounting for less than 1% by weight. The closure system utilizes either aluminum or plastic cap hardware weighing roughly 3 grams or 5% of the assembly. Secondary packaging includes a paperboard box weighing approximately 7 grams, representing the remaining 10% of total material content for protective and marketing purposes.
Manufacturing Geography
Glass bottle production concentrates heavily in China due to abundant silica sand resources, established manufacturing infrastructure, and proximity to major cosmetic brand supply chains. The region’s coal-dependent electricity grid operates at 555 gCO2/kWh, contributing substantially to the carbon intensity of energy-intensive glass melting operations. Chinese facilities benefit from economies of scale and integrated supply chains spanning raw material extraction through finished packaging assembly. Transportation distances to global cosmetic manufacturing hubs remain relatively short, partially offsetting the high grid intensity through reduced logistics emissions.
Regional Variation
| Manufacturing Region | Grid Intensity | Estimated CCI Score | Adjustment vs Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| China | 555 gCO2/kWh | 52 | Baseline |
| Germany | 366 gCO2/kWh | 47 | -10% |
| United States | 386 gCO2/kWh | 48 | -8% |
| India | 708 gCO2/kWh | 58 | +12% |
| France | 57 gCO2/kWh | 38 | -27% |
Provenance Override Guidance
- Furnace energy consumption data with specific fuel mix breakdown and thermal efficiency measurements for the glass melting facility
- Cullet content percentage documentation showing recycled glass input ratios and source material verification
- Transportation manifests detailing shipping distances, vehicle types, and fuel consumption from manufacturing to distribution centers
- End-of-life infrastructure documentation for target markets including recycling rates and collection system efficiency
- Raw material extraction data covering silica sand mining location, processing energy, and transportation to manufacturing facility
Methodology Notes
- The CCI score represents cradle-to-grave carbon emissions for a single 30ml glass foundation bottle including secondary packaging and average end-of-life treatment
- Scope 1 emissions primarily capture glass furnace combustion and raw material processing, while Scope 2 reflects electricity consumption during manufacturing operations
- Scope 3 dominates the footprint due to heavy transportation requirements and varied end-of-life infrastructure across global markets
- The functional unit assumes single-use application without container reuse or refilling scenarios
- Consumer use phase emissions are excluded as foundation application does not require energy inputs
- Recycling credit calculations assume regional average collection and processing rates rather than optimal infrastructure scenarios
- Data gaps exist around colorant production impacts and closure hardware manufacturing processes
Related Concepts
Sources
- Boutros et al. 2021 Comparative Packaging Assessment — Demonstrated that glass containers require significantly higher energy inputs during production compared to plastic alternatives.
- Simon et al. 2016 Journal of Environmental Management — Quantified the transportation impact penalty associated with glass packaging's superior weight characteristics.
- Ivanov & Hartmann 2016 South African Journal of Industrial Engineering — Analyzed the energy reduction benefits achievable through increased cullet content in glass manufacturing furnaces.
- Grisales et al. 2021 Life Cycle Assessment Study — Established reuse thresholds necessary for glass containers to achieve environmental parity with single-use plastic packaging.
- Tonini et al. 2021 Carbon Footprint Assessment — Evaluated the infinite recyclability potential of glass materials and associated energy savings versus virgin production.
- Meshalkin et al. 2022 Glass and Ceramics — Investigated manufacturing process optimization opportunities in high-temperature glass production systems.
- Uslu et al. 2019 Cosmetic Packaging LCA — Compared environmental performance across packaging material alternatives for cosmetic product applications.