Reformulation vs. Recycled Packaging: How to Make Maximum Impact?

Product Type

Mass-market hand & body lotion (32 oz / ~0.95 kg)
High-volume consumer product sold at multi-million-unit scale

The Question Brands Are Asking

When brands commit to reducing product carbon footprints, the first question is often:

“Should we focus on reformulating the product — or switch to recycled packaging?”

This case study compares the carbon reduction potential of both strategies, using a representative personal care product as an example.

Scope & Methodology

This was a screening-level carbon footprint analysis, intended to support early decision-making rather than regulatory reporting.

Included

• Ingredient production

• Primary packaging

• Upstream transportation of raw materials

• Manufacturing energy (estimated)

Excluded

• Consumer use

• End-of-life

• Corporate overhead

Functional Unit

• One 32 oz bottle of lotion

All figures are approximate and based on publicly available emission factors and representative formulation assumptions.

Baseline Carbon Footprint

Per Bottle Emissions (screening)

Contributor ~kg CO₂e

Ingredient production ~0.95

Packaging (virgin plastic) ~0.35

Raw material transport ~0.05

Manufacturing energy ~0.05

Total ~1.35 kg CO₂e

Key Insight

Ingredient production accounts for over 60% of total product emissions, with packaging as the second-largest contributor.

Transportation plays a relatively minor role.

Strategy A: Ingredient Reformulation

What was Changed

A representative reformulation was modeled with no change to product performance, claims, or positioning:

• ~10% reduction in total oil phase

• Partial substitution of the highest-impact bulk oil

• ~15% reduction in fatty alcohol / emulsifier loading

• No changes to botanicals, fragrance, or actives

This approach focused on formulation efficiency, not premium substitutions.

Carbon impact: Reformulation

Baseline ingredients ~0.95 kg CO₂e

Optimized ingredients ~0.81 kg CO₂e

Reduction ~0.14 kg CO₂e per bottle

Result:

• ~15% reduction in ingredient-related emissions

• ~10–11% reduction at total product level

Strategy B: Recycled-Content Packaging

What was Changed

• Replacement of virgin plastic bottle with high PCR (50–100%) HDPE or PET

• No change to bottle weight or format

Packaging Emission Factors (typical)

• Virgin plastic: ~2.5 kg CO₂e/kg

• PCR plastic: ~1.2–1.6 kg CO₂e/kg

Carbon Impact: PCR Packaging

Baseline packaging ~0.35 kg CO₂e

PCR packaging ~0.20–0.25 kg CO₂e

Reduction ~0.10–0.15 kg CO₂e per bottle

Result:

• ~7–11% reduction at total product level

Side-by-Side Comparison

Per Bottle Reductions

Strategy kg CO₂e reduced % of total

Ingredient reformulation ~0.14 ~10–11%

Recycled packaging ~0.10–0.15 ~7–11%

Both combined ~0.25–0.30 ~18–22%

What This Means for Brands

Key Takeaway

Reformulation and recycled packaging offer comparable carbon reductions — but through different levers.

• Reformulation targets embedded emissions

• PCR packaging reduces material carbon intensity

• Together, they compound into meaningful reductions

Cost & Implementation Considerations

Factor Reformulation PCR Packaging

Consumer price impact Neutral Neutral to slight increase

Time to implement Medium Short

Brand risk Low Very low

Consumer-visible No Yes

Long-term reduction potential High Moderate

Impact at Scale

For a product sold at scale:

Annual volume CO₂e avoided (combined)

1 million bottles ~250–300 metric tons

5 million bottles ~1,250–1,500 metric tons

10 million bottles ~2,500–3,000 metric tons

Small per-unit decisions become material climate outcomes.

Why This Case Study Matters

This comparison demonstrates how lifecycle analysis helps brands:

• Avoid over-focusing on single “silver bullet” solutions

• Prioritize actions by impact, cost, and feasibility

• Identify no-regret strategies early in product design

• Communicate credible, data-backed sustainability progress

Our Approach

Each product is unique and requires its own analysis. We use screening LCAs like this to help brands:

• Identify carbon hotspots quickly

• Compare alternative strategies side by side

• Focus resources where they deliver the greatest return

Whether the goal is reformulation, packaging optimization, or portfolio-level planning, the same principles apply.