Razors & Grooming

Material Composition Assumptions

The default bill of materials for a representative disposable razor unit (approximately 15 g total weight, single-use twin-blade format) includes:

• Stainless steel blades (~0.8–1.2 g): Martensitic stainless steel (AISI 420 or 410 series), cold-rolled to approximately 0.05–0.10 mm thickness. Twin-blade disposables contain 2 blades; three- and five-blade variants are common in the mid-market and premium tiers respectively. Each blade is hardened, tempered, and edge-ground to a geometry measured in microns
• PTFE blade coating (~0.05–0.10 g): Polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon) applied by vapour deposition at 2–5 micron thickness per blade. PTFE production is fluorochemical-intensive and carries a higher per-kg carbon footprint (~5–8 kgCO2e/kg) than most engineering plastics
• Chromium coating (~trace): Hard chrome or chromium-based PVD (physical vapour deposition) applied to some blade tiers for edge durability. Hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) is progressively being replaced by trivalent alternatives under EU REACH and RoHS pressure
• ABS/PP handle (~8–11 g): Injection-moulded acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) or polypropylene main handle body with thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) overmould grip. Some value-tier handles are single-material PP without TPE
• Lubricating strip (~0.2–0.5 g): Polyethylene oxide (PEO) or polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP) matrix with conditioning agents (aloe vera, vitamin E, mineral oil)
• Packaging (~2–5 g per unit allocated): Disposables are typically sold in multipacks of 5–12 units; packaging per-unit allocation is a polypropylene clamshell blister (2–4 g) or folding paperboard card (1–2 g), plus corrugated outer case (~1 g allocated)

The CCI score of 0.5 kgCO2e per unit reflects a standard twin-blade disposable razor. The per-kg figure of 33 kgCO2e/kg is high for what appears to be a simple plastic product because the stainless steel blade production process (cold-rolling, hardening, precision grinding) is energy-intensive per unit mass, and the PTFE coating carries a fluorochemical manufacturing premium. The 15 g unit is predominantly plastic by volume, but steel and coatings contribute disproportionately to the carbon intensity per gram.

Manufacturing Geography

The default manufacturing region is mixed global, with blade manufacturing concentrated in China (dominant) and Germany (premium cartridge blades), and plastic handle production distributed across China, USA, and Brazil.

• China grid intensity: ~565 gCO2e/kWh. China manufactures the majority of global disposable razor volume, including BIC’s Asian supply chain and Gillette’s contract-manufacturing partners. Blade sharpening and hardening operations are electricity-intensive, amplifying the Scope 2 impact of China’s coal-heavy grid.
• Germany grid intensity: ~400 gCO2e/kWh. German precision blade manufacturing (notably Wilkinson Sword / Edgewell, and Gillette’s Braun-adjacent facilities) operates on a higher-quality, lower-volume basis. Germany’s grid is improving toward 2030 renewable targets.
• USA grid intensity: ~390 gCO2e/kWh. P&G’s Gillette manufacturing campus in South Boston is one of the largest razor factories in North America, producing Venus and Gillette branded cartridge razors for the US market.
• Brazil grid intensity: ~100 gCO2e/kWh. BIC operates significant shaver manufacturing in Brazil (São Paulo state) for Latin American markets, benefiting from Brazil’s predominantly hydroelectric grid.

The default score applies a blended grid intensity of approximately 480 gCO2e/kWh, weighted toward China’s dominant manufacturing share. Scope 1 direct emissions at razor manufacturing facilities are low — primarily natural gas for space heating and minor process heat.

Regional Variation

Region	Grid Intensity	Estimated Score Adjustment
China (dominant)	~565 gCO2e/kWh	Baseline (default — largest manufacturer)
Germany	~400 gCO2e/kWh	-29% on Scope 2 (saves ~0.02 kgCO2e)
USA	~390 gCO2e/kWh	-31% on Scope 2 (saves ~0.02 kgCO2e)
Brazil	~100 gCO2e/kWh	-82% on Scope 2 (saves ~0.07 kgCO2e)
EU (renewable electricity)	~30 gCO2e/kWh	-95% on Scope 2 (saves ~0.08 kgCO2e)

Note: Scope 2 (factory electricity for blade hardening, grinding, coating, injection moulding, assembly) represents approximately 16% of the total footprint. Regional variation modestly affects the total score because Scope 3 upstream material production (stainless steel, ABS, PTFE) dominates at ~80%. The largest lever for score reduction is not manufacturing location but product longevity: a safety razor (double-edge, stainless handle reused for decades) produces only the blade replacement (~0.2 g steel per shave), reducing per-shave footprint by 90–95% relative to a disposable.

Provenance Override Guidance

A supplier or manufacturer may override the default CCI score by submitting:

1. Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) per ISO 14067 covering the specific razor format (disposable, cartridge, blade refill), SKU, and primary manufacturing site. BIC’s partnership with Quantis provides a credible framework for this.
2. Steel procurement documentation including mill certificate specifying scrap input ratio. Recycled-content EAF (electric arc furnace) stainless steel carries approximately 40–60% lower upstream footprint than primary BF/BOF stainless steel.
3. Plastics composition data including exact weight and grade of each polymer (ABS, PP, TPE, lubricating strip matrix), and verified recycled content or bio-based content percentages.
4. Coating process disclosure — PTFE vs. PVD chromium vs. diamond-like carbon (DLC) coatings have meaningfully different upstream footprints; a coating-specific emission factor from the coating supplier (or Ecoinvent) can replace the default estimate.
5. Packaging format documentation — cardboard card packaging vs. plastic clamshell blister has a ~50–70% lower carbon footprint per unit; the packaging format should be specified with exact weights.

P&G’s Gillette Scope 3 disclosure and BIC’s ESG reporting provide the most useful brand-level benchmarks for override calibration.

Methodology Notes

• CCI score of 0.5 kgCO2e per unit represents a standard twin-blade disposable razor (~15 g total). Per-unit estimates across formats: single-blade disposable ~0.3 kgCO2e; twin-blade disposable ~0.5 kgCO2e; five-blade cartridge system (handle + cartridge) ~1.2–2.0 kgCO2e; safety razor handle alone ~15–30 kgCO2e (but reused indefinitely). Published LCA data for finished razors is sparse; the estimate is constructed from component-level data (World Steel Association, Plastics Europe, Ecoinvent).
• Scope breakdown: Scope 3 dominates at 80% (0.40 kgCO2e per unit), driven by stainless steel blade production, ABS/PP handle moulding, and PTFE coating upstream. Scope 2 (factory electricity for precision grinding, heat treatment, coating deposition, injection moulding, assembly) contributes 16% (0.08 kgCO2e). Scope 1 (direct combustion) is 4% (0.02 kgCO2e).
• Functional unit: One disposable twin-blade razor of approximately 15 g total weight including packaging allocation, cradle-to-gate. The score does not account for per-shave functional efficiency (durability of the blade edge, number of shaves per unit).
• Cartridge vs. disposable vs. safety razor: The functional unit comparison matters enormously for this category. A five-blade cartridge razor may produce 20–30 shaves per cartridge at ~1.5 kgCO2e per cartridge (=~0.06 kgCO2e per shave). A disposable razor produces 3–7 shaves at ~0.5 kgCO2e (=~0.08–0.17 kgCO2e per shave). A double-edge safety razor blade (~0.2 g steel, ~0.004 kgCO2e) produces 5–15 shaves (=~0.0003–0.001 kgCO2e per shave). These per-shave figures are not reflected in the per-unit CCI score but are critical for consumer-level decision-making.
• PTFE and fluorochemical concern: PTFE is a perfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) and is subject to increasing regulatory scrutiny in the EU (PFAS restriction under REACH) and globally. The carbon footprint of PTFE production is moderate, but the persistence and toxicity concerns may be captured in future versions of the CCI methodology under expanded impact categories.
• Confidence is medium because no major razor manufacturer publishes SKU-level LCA data. BIC’s ESG reporting and P&G’s Scope 3 disclosures provide category-level benchmarks, but the component-level construction used here introduces uncertainty, particularly around blade coating processes and precision steel manufacturing energy consumption.