Methods Used to Score Products on Environment

Detailed information about the environmental impacts of specific products is rarely available.  Companies that make a product often make numerous other products, and information about the impacts of a company's manufacturing facilities almost never have product-level resolution.  Toxic chemical releases, for example, are reported at the facility level by US manufacturers, but there is no publicly available information allocating these releases to specific products.  The standard methodologies that are used to assess environmental impacts, like life cycle analysis,  require detailed information about where the product is manufactured, the types of resource use or emissions associated with that specific product, etc.  If such data exist, they are typically known only to the manufacturer and are not generally available to systems like GoodGuide.

To address this information gap, GoodGuide generally relies on company-level environmental ratings to characterize the performance of a product. GoodGuide assumes that company-level performance on attributes like resource management (energy, water and materials use) and waste management (air and water pollution and toxic waste management) are good indicators of product-level impacts in these areas.  

In certain product categories, additional information can be collected to help refine a product's environmental score by evaluating product-level characteristics.  We focus such assessment efforts on categories where the environmental impacts of competing products differ based on attributes like materials choice, packaging, etc.  In these categories, GoodGuide develops specific versions of its general environmental ontology to organize the set of supplemental product-level attributes that will be used for scoring purposes.  We select supplemental product-level attributes by reviewing category life cycle assessments (which are used to identify the hot spots in a product life cycle) and by assessing data availability.  Our first product-level environmental ratings - covering tampons - were published in August 2010.  To rate this category, we evaluate the type of absorbent material in a tampon (rayon vs organic cotton vs conventional cotton) as a product-level indicator of materials management and we evaluate the processing methods used to bleach this material as a product-level indicator of toxic pollution.   

If product-level environmental ratings are available, they are combined with company-level environmental ratings to generate GoodGuide's Environmental score for a product. Depending on the product category, company-level and product-level scores are combined using one of the following weighting rules:

• 100% Company / 0% Product – Product-level environmental data are either unavailable or have not yet been incorporated into GoodGuide. This is the default  weighting used for most product categories covered by GoodGuide.
• 75% Company / 25% Product  – Available product data is an insufficient proxy for the overall life cycle impacts of a product, so more weight is given to the manufacturer's environmental score to ensure full coverage of relevant environmental impacts.  
• 50% Company / 50% Product  – Product- and company-level scores contribute equally to the characterization of the overall life cycle impacts of a product.
• 25% Company / 75% Product  – Product-level scores incorporate the most significant aspects of the overall life cycle impacts of a product, but company-level scores are included to address product-level data gaps.
  

Scoring Tampons

To develop its scoring system for tampons, GoodGuide conducted a comprehensive review of life cycle studies and other scientific literature on this product category. Our scoring methodology was reviewed by representatives of major manufacturers of tampons, including both mainstream and niche brands.  We identified the following set of product attributes that are associated with important environmental impacts linked to the category:

Tampon-Specific Environmental Attributes

Supplemental Materials Management Attributes:

• Absorbent Material – According to life cycle assessment studies, a significant portion of the environmental impact associated with manufacturing tampons is related to the choice of material used to provide absorbency in the product.  Normalized to volume, rayon is more efficient at absorption and results in less impact across most standard environmental indicators, including greenhouse gas and water quality indicators. Cotton is a less preferable choice than rayon because cotton farming requires more water and energy inputs than rayon. Organic cotton is preferred over conventional cotton due to the use of sustainable agricultural practices eliminating most pesticide use.  Note that many tampon packages indicate they are a mix of cotton and rayon and do not specify actual percentage compositions.   In the GoodGuide system, organic cotton is scored higher than these unspecified blends, which could contain a significant amount of conventional cotton.
• Applicator – ‘No applicator’ products are preferred because they do not have the resource consumption or waste management requirements that are associated with applicator product assembly and disposal.  While there is no standard for differentiating between types of applicators, GoodGuide scores ‘flushable’ applicators as better than ‘cardboard’ and/or ‘biodegradable’ applicators because ‘flushable’ usually indicates standardized material testing to prove degradability in normal wastewater treatment operations. Plastic applicators are scored lower than cardboard applicators because they weigh approximately twice as much, and the relative environmental impact of this component scales with weight.
• Packaging – Refers to the recycled content of paper fibers used for the product box. While recycled fiber content can change over time, the package text was used to indicate the minimum percentage of recycled fibers in a product’s packaging. Product packages either stated they were made from 100% recycled fiber or had no information.
• Wrapping – Flushable wrappers are preferred as they will be broken down in wastewater treatment systems and not contribute to solid waste streams. Plastic film wrappers are preferred over paper wrappers as they weigh significantly less, and the relative environmental impact of this component scales with weight.

Supplemental Toxic Waste Attributes:

• Material Processing – The absorbent material in tampons typically undergoes some form of bleaching process, similar to many paper products.  Historically, bleaching done using elemental chlorine produced and released large amounts of chlorinated organic compounds (including dioxins) into the environment.  This method is no longer in use in the US.  Totally Chlorine Free (TCF) processing is the preferred processing option for bleaching the absorbent material because it uses a non-halogenated bleaching process, typically with hydrogen peroxide or another oxygen based process. Elemental Chlorine Free (ECF) processing is currently the industry standard practice and is given preference over ‘No information’ to provide manufacturers with an incentive to disclose their bleaching process.

Product vs. Company Weighting

The summary Environmental score for tampons consists of 25% Product E score and 75% Company E score.  Available supplemental information is almost solely focused on the types of materials used in the product assembly and does not cover all impacts of the product over its life cycle.  Environmental attributes that are relevant to tampons that are only addressed via a company’s Environment score include production waste, energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, and biodiversity and ecosystem impacts.

Availability of Health Scores

Health scores are not assigned to tampons, because this product category does not result in significant human exposure to potentially harmful ingredients.  Assertions that tampons represent a source of exposure to hazardous chemicals like asbestos or dioxin, or that rayon is a cause of toxic shock syndrome have been rejected by authoritative agencies charged with regulating the safety of tampons. The Food and Drug Administration regulates tampons as a medical device and has focused most of its attention on defining allowable absorbency levels (and associated product labeling), because usage of super absorbent tampons can cause toxic shock syndrome.

Scoring Diapers

To develop its scoring system for diapers, GoodGuide conducted a comprehensive review of life cycle studies and other scientific literature on this product category, including a series of recent peer reviewed studies from the UK Environment Agency, a 1992 study from Franklin and Associates as well as several other studies. After assessing the availability of consistent and reliable data for products in this category, we selected four product attributes to calculate the environmental impact of diapers:

Diaper-Specific Environmental Attributes

Supplemental Materials Management Attributes:

• Diaper Type – Reusable diapers are given preference over disposable diapers. Although the overall impact of a reusable or disposable diaper are not significantly different according to published life cycle assessment studies, consumers have the ability to significantly decrease the impact of reusable diapers by using low impact laundering methods. In addition, reusables have the benefit of requiring less packaging than disposables. Among disposable diapers, flushable diaper components are given preference over types that must be discarded as trash because municipal treatment systems are a more environmentally friendly disposal option than solid waste management systems.
• Certifications – Four textile/fabric certifications are applied to the diaper products we rate: Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS), Organic cotton, Oeko-Tex materials, and Cradle to Cradle (C2C). Of these four, C2C is favored because it applies to the whole product, and can be independently verified. The other claimed certifications are specific to one ingredient or apply to only one component of the diaper assembly.
• Packaging – ‘No packaging’ is given the highest score with reusable, durable bags as a second choice. For the vast majority of products with ‘traditional’ packaging, there is variability in packaging both materials and designs. Due to this variability and the absence of a comprehensive and robust method for comparison, preference was given to packages with recycled content.
• Note regarding diaper ingredients – Due to data gaps, it is currently not possible to incorporate detailed ingredient-level evaluations into diaper scores. In the absence of regulatory product labeling requirements, diaper manufacturers exhibit a significant amount of variability and lack of specificity when disclosing ingredient information. Disposable diapers may only disclose one ingredient specific to a single component of the diaper assembly. Reusable diapers may disclose cotton, polyester, rayon or nylon as one of several blended ingredients. Reviewing information from diaper packaging and website descriptions, it is not currently possible to construct a consistent ingredient profile. In addition, the absence of life cycle assessments on some common diaper ingredients hinders any relative environmental evaluation of different diaper compositions.

Supplemental Toxic Waste Attributes:

• Material Processing – Diaper components are typically subjected to a bleaching process. Historically, bleaching was done using elemental chlorine produced and released large amounts of chlorinated organic compounds (including dioxins) into the environment. This method is generally no longer used in the US. Totally Chlorine Free (TCF) processing is the preferred processing option for bleaching diaper components because it uses a non-halogenated bleaching process, typically with hydrogen peroxide or another oxygen-based process. Elemental Chlorine Free (ECF) processing is currently the most prevalent bleaching method.

Product vs. Company Weighting

The summary Environmental score for diapers consists of 25% Product Environment score and 75% Company Environment score. The available information and literature in this category either only applies to a single part of the life cycle (e.g. processing), or does not provide a definitive environmental preference (e.g. diaper type, packaging). The company environmental performance is weighted significantly to capture additional criteria that are not reflected in product-level data.

Availability of Health Scores

Health scores are not assigned to diapers, because this product category does not typically result in significant human exposure to potentially harmful ingredients. We note that some consumers have reported concerns that a new diaper material (Dry Max in Pampers Swaddler and Cruiser diapers) is causing skin problems and we will revisit assignment of health scores if the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s investigation of these complaints concludes that some diaper ingredients may have adverse health effects.