Shampoo (250ml plastic 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 | 2.4 | 5% | |
| Scope 2 | 3.8 | 8% | |
| Scope 3 | 41.8 | 87% | |
| Total | 48 | 100% |
Emission Hotspots
| Emission Hotspot | Scope | Est. % of Total |
|---|---|---|
| consumer use (hot water heating) | S3 | 88% |
| plastic packaging production and transport | S1 | 5% |
| raw material production (petrochemical surfactants) | S1 | 4% |
| distribution and logistics | S1 | 2% |
| end-of-life disposal | S3 | 1% |
Manufacturing Geography
- Region
- China
- Grid Intensity
- 555 gCO2/kWh (IEA 2023)
Material Composition Assumptions
The 250ml shampoo bottle comprises multiple components with distinct environmental footprints. The HDPE plastic bottle body represents approximately 25 grams of the total product weight, constituting roughly 8% of the complete package. The PP pump mechanism adds another 5 grams, contributing about 2% to overall mass. The liquid formulation makes up the majority at 250 grams, representing 83% of total weight. Within this formulation, water comprises the largest share at approximately 200 grams. Petrochemical-derived surfactants including sodium laureth sulfate and cocamidopropyl betaine account for roughly 25 grams of the liquid content. Preservatives and synthetic additives make up the remaining 25 grams of formulation weight. The complete packaged product totals approximately 300 grams.
Manufacturing Geography
Primary manufacturing occurs in China, where the majority of global personal care products are produced due to established supply chains and lower production costs. The Chinese electricity grid operates at 555 gCO2/kWh intensity according to International Energy Agency data, reflecting the country’s coal-heavy energy mix. This carbon-intensive grid significantly impacts the manufacturing phase emissions for both the plastic packaging and chemical formulation processes. Many multinational brands utilize Chinese contract manufacturers for cost efficiency, though some premium products may be manufactured in regions with cleaner energy profiles such as Europe or North America.
Regional Variation
| Manufacturing Region | Grid Intensity | Estimated CCI Score | Adjustment vs Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| China | 555 gCO2/kWh | 48 | Baseline |
| India | 708 gCO2/kWh | 52 | +8% higher |
| Germany | 348 gCO2/kWh | 44 | -8% lower |
| France | 57 gCO2/kWh | 38 | -21% lower |
| United States | 386 gCO2/kWh | 45 | -6% lower |
Provenance Override Guidance
- Manufacturing facility electricity consumption data with renewable energy procurement documentation to replace grid intensity assumptions
- Detailed bill of materials with supplier-specific environmental product declarations for plastic resin and chemical surfactants
- Transportation records showing actual shipping distances and modal splits from manufacturing to distribution centers
- Packaging specifications including exact plastic weights, recycled content percentages, and barrier material requirements
- Formulation details with biodegradability data and renewable versus petrochemical ingredient ratios
Methodology Notes
- The CCI score represents cradle-to-grave emissions including consumer use phase with hot water heating assumptions
- Scope 1 emissions reflect direct manufacturing processes and raw material production under operational control
- Scope 2 captures electricity consumption during manufacturing and chemical processing operations
- Scope 3 dominates due to consumer use phase hot water heating representing typical washing behavior patterns
- Functional unit assumes single 250ml bottle lasting average household 4-6 weeks with daily washing frequency
- Score excludes retailer refrigeration, consumer transportation to point of purchase, and post-consumer recycling infrastructure
- Data gaps exist around ingredient sourcing geography and manufacturing facility efficiency variations across suppliers
Related Concepts
Sources
- CarbonBright 2024 Life Cycle Assessment Study — Comprehensive analysis showing use phase emissions dominate personal care product carbon footprints
- Okada et al. 2021 Cleaner Production — Research demonstrating significant packaging optimization potential for liquid cosmetic products
- Golsteijn et al. 2018 IEAM — Study quantifying environmental impacts across beauty and personal care product lifecycles
- Vasquez 2023 Packaging Technology & Science — Analysis of flexible versus rigid packaging alternatives for liquid personal care formulations
- Carbon Trust 2023 Beauty & Personal Care Report — Industry assessment highlighting refillable packaging models as emission reduction strategy