LCA Isn't the Whole Story: Rethinking Sustainability in Beauty With Evan Peters
From "low-impact formulas" to "carbon-neutral packaging," beauty brands love a sustainability claim—but what are those claims really based on?
In this episode of Demystifying Cosmetics, we sit down with Evan Peters, founder of Fairglo, to unpack the promise and pitfalls of Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) in the cosmetics industry. We go beyond the buzzwords to explore how system boundaries, data gaps, and marketing spin can shape—and sometimes distort—what LCAs actually reveal about a product's environmental footprint.
Evan shares his insights on cradle-to-gate vs. cradle-to-grave approaches, why end-of-life impacts are often left out, and how LCAs can be used to legitimize greenwashing when taken out of context. We also zoom out to consider what LCAs miss entirely—like biodiversity loss, microplastic pollution, and social equity—and why a more holistic toolkit is needed to evaluate sustainability in beauty and personal care.
Takeaways:
LCAs Are Only as Good as Their Boundaries: Deciding how far back (and forward) to track product impact is crucial—and highly variable.
Cradle-to-Gate vs. Cradle-to-Grave: Many brands stop tracking environmental impact once the product leaves the factory, missing key downstream data.
Fairglow’s Value Proposition: The platform democratizes LCAs by reducing cost, increasing transparency, and enabling quick scenario testing.
Green Claims Need Rigor: Publishing LCA data should include third-party verification, especially for comparative or marketing claims.
What LCAs Miss: Emerging sustainability issues—like biodiversity, microplastics, and forced labor—are often outside LCA scope.
Natural ≠ Sustainable: Synthetic ingredients can often have lower carbon footprints than “natural” ones like rose oil.
Data Is Power—If Organized: Brands must digitize operations to track formulations, packaging, and logistics to get an accurate environmental picture.
If you work in product development, sustainability, or just want to understand what’s behind the claims, this 30-minute episode will give you the clarity (and caution) you need to read between the carbon lines.