Report on Comparative Study of theEnvironmental Impact and PositiveEffect of Hand Wash

June 2019
Shiseido Company, Limited

Internal

Internal

2.3
Comparative Evaluation of the Environmental Impact and Positive Effect of Hand Soap

1General

1.1 Assessment implementors
Affiliated institution:
Name: Kenji Ohashi
Contact: kenji.ohashi@shiseido.com

1.2 Report creation date
May 09, 20192

Goal of the study

2.1 Reasons for carrying out the study
To conduct a quantitative assessment and comparison of the environmental impact ofadoption of handwashing using hand wash in developing nations versus the environmental
benefits of the effects of preventing diarrhea achieved by handwashing.

2.2 Intended applications
To develop a methods of positive effect assessment of cosmetics and to conduct scenario
analysis regarding the environmental impact level by country of sale in order to provide
information towards improving future life cycle assessments.

3

Scope of the study

3.1 Study subjects and specifications
Luquid hand wash produced in Japan (volume content: 250mL)

3.2 Functions and functional units
Handwashing 500 times (volume used per handwashing: 0.5mL) via a single hand washproduct for lathering, cleaning, and rinsing dirt from hands.

3.3 Scenarios
In this assessment, of the raw materials comprising hand wash, we assumed fatty acidmaterials are produced in Malaysia and other raw materials are manufactured in Japan. We also
assumed manufacturing was conducted at a Japanese factory with the product used and disposedof in Japan set as Scenario 1 and with the product shipped to, used, and disposed of in adeveloping country (Indonesia) set as Scenario 2. For both scenarios, we compared theInternal

2.3
Comparative Evaluation of the Environmental Impact and Positive Effect of Hand Soap

environmental impact and positive effect (prevention of diarrhea via handwashing).

3.4 System boundaries
The calculation was conducted targeting stages from raw material procurement tomanufacturing, distribution, use (handwashing), and disposal.
Furthermore, Scenario 2, which is based on sales, use, and disposal in a developing nation,
assumes that water used during handwashing will not be treated and will be discharged into ariver, and that waste treatment following product use will be incineration followed by landfillingfor all volume without recycling.

Fig. 3.4-1 Hand wash product systems and system boundaries
3.5 Special notes (excluded processes, matters, etc.)
The waste (container) from product sold, used, and disposed of in Japan is partially recycled
but the recycling processes were excluded from the scope of this assessment. Furthermore,water facilities required for handwashing are not included in the assessment.

4Inventory analysis

4.1 Primary data
We used internal data for data such as the composition of hand wash contents and containers
as well as energy consumption which are related to processes during each manufacturing stage.

4.2 Secondary data
We used IDEA ver.21) developed by National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science andTechnology (AIST). For each waste disposal phase for products sold in Japan, we used thescenario indicated in Carbon Footprint Communication Program Plastic Container Packaging

Internal

2.3
Comparative Evaluation of the Environmental Impact and Positive Effect of Hand Soap

PCR (PA-BC-02)2).

4.3 Items in the inventory analysis and the results
The results of inventory analysis for Scenario 1 and 2 are indicated in appended materials assupporting information.

5Impact assessment

6Assessment steps and impact categories
For the impact assessment, we used the Japanese version of the LIME3, Life-cycle Impact
Assessment (LCIA) Method based on Endpoint modeling to conduct a damage assessment andweighting. Impact categories for assessment in each step are shown in Table 5.1-1.
Table 5.1-1. Environmental impact categories for assessment
Impact categories

Damage assessment

Climate change〇

Air pollution〇

Photochemical oxidants〇

Water resource consumption〇

Land use〇

Resource consumption (fossil fuels, mineral resources)〇

Forest resource consumption〇

Waste products〇

6.1 Impact assessment results
The damage assessment results in Scenario 1 and 2 for each protection area. Fig. 5.2-1 to
5.2-4 indicate the five items with the largest impact in each scenario for each protection area.
The biggest difference between Scenario 1 and 2 was the impact on human health, with adifference nearly 9 times greater. The human health impact in Scenario 1 was large because thesize of the damage evaluation coefficient for water consumption during handwashing differedsignificantly with each country.

Internal

2.3
Comparative Evaluation of the Environmental Impact and Positive Effect of Hand Soap

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

00.00002

0.00004

0.00006

0.00008

0.0001(years)0.00012Water consumption, surface water (Use stage, Japan)
Water consumption, ground water (Use stage, Japan)
CO2 emissions (Use stage, Japan)
CO2 emissions (Procurement stage, Japan)
Water consumption, surface water (Procurement stage, Japan)
Water consumption, surface water (Procurement stage, Indonesia)
Water consumption, ground water (Use stage, Indonesia)
CO2 emissions (Use stage, Indonesia)
その他

Fig. 5.2-1 Impact on human health

Scenario 1

Scenario 200.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

Nickel (Procurement stage, Japan)
Crude oil (Procurement stage, Japan)
Crude oil (Use stage, Japan)
Aluminum (Use stage, Japan)
Crude oil (Procurement stage, Malaysia)
Crude oil (Use stage, Indonesia)
Hard coal (Use stage, Indonesia)
Crude oil (Distribution stage, Indonesia)
The others

Fig. 5.2-2 Impact on social assets

Internal

0.06

0.07

2.3
Comparative Evaluation of the Environmental Impact and Positive Effect of Hand Soap

Scenario 1

Scenario 2(t)

00.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Field, land use, land occupation (Procurement stage, Malaysia)
Building site, land use, land occupation (Use stage, Japan)
Forest to field, land use, land transformation (Procurement stage, Malaysia)
Field, land use, land occupation (Procurement stage, Japan)
Forest to building site, land use, land transformation (Use stage, Japan)
Building site, land use, land occupation (Use stage, Indonesia)
Transport artery, land use, land occupation (Distribution stage, Indonesia)
The others

Fig. 5.2-3 Impact on primary production

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

01E-12

2E-123E-124E-125E-126E-12 (spc/10^-6 year/spc)

Forest to field, land use, land transformation (Procurement stage, Malaysia)
Forest to building site, land use, land transformation (Use stage, Japan)
Forest to field, land use, land transformation (Procurement stage, Japan)

Forest to building site, land use, land transformation (Procurement stage, Malaysia)
Forest to forest, land use, land transformation (Procurement stage, Malaysia)
Forest to building site, land use, land transformation (Use stage, Indonesia)
Forest to transport artery, land use, land transformation (Distribution stage, Indonesia)The others

Fig. 5.2-4 Impact on biodiversity

Internal

2.3
Comparative Evaluation of the Environmental Impact and Positive Effect of Hand Soap

6.1.1

Weighting
Weighting results by protection area, by life cycle stage, and by country based on theeconomic value index based on G20 population weighted average are shown in Fig. 5.2.5-1
to Fig. 5.2.5-3. weighting results showed that Scenario 1, which assumes use in Japan, werelarger. This was due to tap water use (surface water and ground water) for rinsing during theproduct use stage.

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

00.5

Human Health1
Social Asset

1.522.5

Primary Production($)

3

Biodiversity

Fig. 5.2.5-1 Weighting results by protection area

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

00.5

Procurement

1

Manufacturing

1.5
Distribution

22.5
Use

End of life

Fig. 5.2.5-2 Weighting results by life cycle stage

Internal($)

32.3Comparative Evaluation of the Environmental Impact and Positive Effect of Hand Soap

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

00.5

1Japan

1.5
Malaysia22.5($)

3Indonesia

Fig. 5.2.5-3 Weighting results by country7Positive effect assessment

7.1 Assessment method
The WHO reports that the adoption of handwashing before meals can reduce the incidence ofdiarrhea by approximately 1/3 among middle- and low-income groups in developing countries3).
As such, in Scenario 2, which assumes use of hand wash in developing nations, we set theassumption of being able to reduce DALY due to diarrhea by 33%. Conversely, for Scenario 1,
which assumes use in Japan, we adjusted for the fact that a hygienic living environment has
already been established by setting the effect to 1/10 that of middle- and low-income groups indeveloping countries. For DALY due to diarrhea, we used the figures indicated in the WHO
report4). This report did not include data for Japan so for the Japanese scenario we apply theestimated DALY for EU affluent groups, which have a nearly equivalent hygiene environment.
Handwashing frequency was set to 5 times per day and the volume of hand wash used was set to0.5mL, then calculated the DALY reduction effect during the period of use of a single productunit (=100 days) as the per-product positive effect.

7.2 Assessment results
The positive effect due to daily use of product in Japan was a DALY reduction effect of
1.50E-06 years. For Indonesia, this was 1.10E-03 years. (Table 6.2-1) This difference isbelieved largely since advanced nations have established hygienic living environments andhandwashing is already customary, so the baseline for DALY due to diarrhea is extremely low.

Internal

2.3
Comparative Evaluation of the Environmental Impact and Positive Effect of Hand Soap

Table 6.2-1 Years of life lost due to diarrhea and reduction effect of product
ItemRegion

EffectYears of life lost due

Global average

9.97E-03

year/year/person

to diarrhea

Southeast Asia
1.20E-02

year/year/person

1.64E-04

year/year/person

3.32E-03

year/year/person

4.01E-03

year/year/person

5.46E-06

year/year/person

9.10E-04

year/product1.10E-03

year/product1.50E-06

year/product(middle- to low-income groups)
Advanced nations(EU affluent groups)

Reduction via

Global averagehandwashing

Southeast Asia
(middle- to low-income groups)
Advanced nations(EU affluent groups)

Per-product effectGlobal averageSoutheast Asia
(middle- to low-income groups)
Advanced nations(EU affluent groups)

7.3 Comparative Evaluation of the Environmental Impact and Positive Effect
The results of Comparative Evaluation between Environmental impact weighting results forhand wash gained through LIME 3 and DALY reduction effect due to handwashing habits
indicated in 6.2 are shown in Fig. 6.3-1. We saw significant improvements in Indonesia andother developing nations where handwashing is not sufficiently customary. It was indicated that
hand wash potentially has significant positive effect far exceeding environmental impact
through the product life cycle.
On the other hand, in developed nations that already have sufficient hygienic environments,
the environmental load is shown to be larger than additional benefits of hand wash. This isbelieved to be attributable to the fact that WHO health damage estimates are calculated based on
current onset rates and do not assess health damage for scenarios where current measures(handwashing) are not conducted. As such, the current assessment baseline in developed
countries comprises a larger ratio of hand wash use compared to developing countries and does
not look at health damage being avoided because of those customs.

Internal2.3
Comparative Evaluation of the Environmental Impact and Positive Effect of Hand Soap

Scenario 1

Scenario 2-505

10Environmental impact (LIME 3)

Fig. 6.3-1

815

2025($)
30

Positive effectComparative Evaluation of the Environmental Impact and Positive EffectConclusion
It became clear by using the LIME 3 analysis that, due to the difference between countriesand regions, the same product could produce varying environmental impact developing on eachphase of the product life cycle including raw material procurement, production, distribution, use,and disposal. With Scenario 1, which assumes use in Japan, the size of the impact of water use
during handwashing was significantly larger than other factors. Compared to Scenario 2, whichassumes use in developing countries, the weighting result was four-fold. It is believed necessary
to reassess the appropriateness of the volume of water use in developed nations based on theresults of future assessment case study reports once a sufficient number of reports have beenestablished.
The results of the comparison between environmental impact and positive effects indicate thatthe positive effect of the habit of handwashing using hand wash in developing countries
significantly exceeds the environmental load. One of the superior points of LIME is the ability
to monetize various environmental impacts, including human health, social assets, primaryproduction, biodiversity, etc., to establish a single benchmark. However, with products that canimprove human health and QOL like hand wash, the LIME methods can be used to assess thepositive aspects of products. In addition to examining the negative impact of a product onenvironment, comparing it with the positive effect on the environment and society on the sameaxis based on scientific and social science perspectives can enable the provision of new
information that can be applied to decision-making for economic activities. We expect the use of
LIME 3 will enable us to transcend conventional life cycle assessments and make contributions
towards a sustainable society.

Internal

2.3
Comparative Evaluation of the Environmental Impact and Positive Effect of Hand Soap

Reference literature
1) IDEA ver.2
2) Carbon Footprint Communication Program Plastic Container Packaging PCR (PA-BC-02)<Source: https://www.cfp-japan.jp/common/pdf_authorize/000058/PA-BC-02.pdf>
3) WHO, Hand washing promotion for preventing diarrhea<Source: https://www.who.int/elena/titles/review_summaries/handwashing/en/>4) WHO, Burden of disease (in DALYs) attributable to water, sanitation and hygiene ('000), bydisease and region, 2004
<Source: https://www.who.int/gho/phe/water_sanitation/burden_text/en/>

Internal