Carbon and Water Footprint Analysis of a Soap Bar Produced in Brazil by Natura Cosmetics
Open accessAbstract
Water shortage represents one of the main threats to life on our planet. Indeed, over the last five years, society and corporate businesses alike have expressed increasing concern about the long-term sustainability of water resources while climate change and freshwater scarcity became important issues for building a consistent sustainability strategy. Here we investigated the relationships between the carbon and water footprints (CF and WF, respectively) of one product from Natura Cosméticos, a leading cosmetic company in Latin America. Our main goal was to determine how to deal synergistically with these environmental pressure indicators in order to help building future strategies that are more sustainable. Our analysis reveals that the total for the CF of the Macadamia soap bar (450 g) was 741 g CO2e, while the WF was 1.581 l, 1.587 l, and 3.672 l for the green, blue, and gray components, respectively. We found that at the formulation step, the soap has accumulated 84% of the total CF and 99% of the green component of WF while it accumulated only 6% of total blue WF component and 10% of the gray WF component. Our results reveal that the major volumes accounting for blue and gray occur in the use and disposal phase of the product, when the soap is no longer under Natura's outreach. The use and disposal of this product represent 70% of the total WF and only 16% of the CF. WE also found that carbon and water footprints were significantly high in the farming stage, mainly because of the use of fertilizers for palm cultivation. This study reveals some relevant aspects of the carbon and water footprints and represents an important step for the integration of different environmental pressure indicators for developing novel sustainability strategies that can also be used to increase consumer perception of all environmental aspects of the company operations.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Francke and Castro [12] found that from a life cycle perspective, the product use phase has the most significant environmental impacts of soap bars.
“they found that from a life cycle perspective, the product use phase has the most significant environmental impacts of soap bars”
From The Environmental Impacts of Bar Soap Production: Uncovering Sustainability Risks with LCA Analysis (2023) · cites this paper as Francke and Castro [12]
The Results and discussion section reports that use and disposal account for 70% of the soap’s water footprint, supporting their importance for that measure. But they account for only 16% of its carbon footprint, and the paper treats these footprints as environmental pressure indicators rather than impact indicators. It therefore does not establish that the use phase alone has the greatest environmental impacts overall. (LLM, conf=0.89)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredFrancke and Castro [12] found that impacts are variable due to consumer habits.
“and impacts are also variable due to consumer habits.”
From The Environmental Impacts of Bar Soap Production: Uncovering Sustainability Risks with LCA Analysis (2023) · cites this paper as Francke and Castro [12]
The Results and discussion section reports that carbon and water footprints vary across regional use and disposal scenarios. The Product use and disposal section includes consumers’ bathing and hand washing, but our copy attributes the reported variation to regional water supply and sanitation conditions, not differences in consumer habits. Page numbers were not available. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredA soap bar produced in Brazil by Natura Cosmetics had a carbon footprint of 741 g CO2e and a water footprint of 1.581 L green, 1.587 L blue, and 3.672 L gray.
“total for the soap bar was 741 g CO2e, while the WFwas 1.581 l, 1.587 l, and 3.672 l for the green, blue, and gray components, respectively.”
From The Environmental Impacts of Bar Soap Production: Uncovering Sustainability Risks with LCA Analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [12]
Francke and Castro [12] found a similar global warming potential result to this study.
“A similar result on GWP was obtained by Francke and Castro [12]”
From The Environmental Impacts of Bar Soap Production: Uncovering Sustainability Risks with LCA Analysis (2023) · cites this paper as Francke and Castro [12]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Change, I. P. O. C. (2007) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511546013 · Cited by 7,742 · see citing works
The Water Footprint Assessment Manual. Setting the Global Standard
Egan, M. (2011) · Social and Environmental Accountability Journal · doi:10.1080/0969160x.2011.593864 · Cited by 1,771 · see citing works
Resolution Adopted By The General Assembly
(1984) · International Legal Materials · doi:10.1017/s002078290003076x · Cited by 1,150 · see citing works
Chapagain, A. K., Hoekstra, A. Y., Savenije, H. H. G., & Gautam, R. (2006) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.11.027 · Cited by 840 · see citing works
The blue water footprint of electricity from hydropower
Mekonnen, M. M., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2012) · Hydrology and earth system sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-16-179-2012 · Cited by 266 · see citing works
Introdução à qualidade das águas e ao tratamento de esgotos
Cabral, A. (1995) · Cited by 183 · see citing works
Water Footprint of Bio-energy and other primary energy carriers
Gerbens-Leenes, P. W., Hoekstra, A. Y., & van der Meer, T. (2008) · University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Carbon and water footprints : Concepts, methodologies and policy responses
Ercin, E., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2012) · University of Twente Research Information · Cited by 73 · see citing works
VARGAS, A. (1982) · Natural Resources Forum · doi:10.1111/j.1477-8947.1982.tb01017.x · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- G.P. Zhang, A.Y. Hoekstra, D. Tickner (Eds.), UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the Netherlands, 2012. Plant under Pressure Conference, London, 26 March 2012.
- J. Rotmans, H.J.M. De Vries (Eds.), Perspectives on Global Change: The TARGETS Approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1997.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fortunati, S., Martiniello, L., & Morea, D. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12125120 · Cited by 134 · see citing works
Sustainability paradigm in the cosmetics industry: State of the art
Rocca, R., Acerbi, F., Fumagalli, L., & Taisch, M. (2022) · Cleaner Waste Systems · doi:10.1016/j.clwas.2022.100057 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
Kolling, C., Ribeiro, J. L. D., & de Medeiros, J. F. (2022) · Sustainable Production and Consumption · doi:10.1016/j.spc.2021.12.002 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
The Environmental Impacts of Bar Soap Production: Uncovering Sustainability Risks with LCA Analysis
Gaurav, G., Dangayach, G. S., Meena, M. L., Chaudhary, V., Gupta, S., & Jagtap, S. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su15129287 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
“Francke, I.C.M.; Castro, J.F.W. Carbon and Water Footprint Analysis of a Soap Bar Produced in Brazil by Natura Cosmetics.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluential
- Authors
- Francke, I. C. M., & Castro, J. F. W.
- Affiliations
- Natura (Brazil) (BR)
- Corresponding author
- Francke, I.C.M.
- Venue
- Water Resources and Industry
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-03
- Volume
- 1-2
- Pages
- 37-48
- ISSN
- 2212-3717 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2170534691
- Cited by
- 64
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 5.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Water Resources and Industry (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Environmental Sustainability in Business
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Sustainability and Ecological Systems Analysis
- Keywords
- carbon footprint, water footprint, Natura Cosméticos, oil palm cultivation, product life cycle, water scarcity, sustainability strategy, environmental impact of cosmetics, fertilizer use
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
