MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407420287 · doi:10.1017/sus.2025.5

Beyond green chemistry: a comprehensive review of how sustainability has been integrated into cosmetic research

2025· review· en· W4407420287 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Sustainability · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicChemistry and Chemical Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityGreen chemistryChemistryBiochemical engineeringNanotechnologyEngineering ethicsEngineeringOrganic chemistryMaterials scienceBiologyEcologySupramolecular chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Non-technical summary Cosmetics, including makeup, perfumes, and facial care products, have a significant impact on the environment and society, particularly as they are used by many consumers daily. The industry's continued growth further contributes to this impact. This paper reviews 365 articles on existing research on sustainable cosmetics. Findings of this review showed that Italy, Brazil, and Spain are the countries with the highest number of research articles. It was also noted that many studies were from chemical and pharmaceutical disciplines, whereas there is minimal research through a social science lens. These insights provide avenues for future sustainability research in the cosmetics industry. Technical summary Cosmetics have become an essential part of daily life, but their impact on the environment and society cannot be ignored. With the cosmetics industry experiencing almost continuous growth, it is imperative to ensure its sustainability. While several studies have examined various aspects of cosmetics and sustainability, there is no comprehensive overview of the literature in this field. To address this gap, this review aims to categorize the extant literature thematically and identify areas that require further research. A systematic review of 365 selected journal articles published from 1992 to 2022 revealed several insights. Firstly, the number of publications in this area has increased significantly over the years. Secondly, Italy has the highest number of publications, and Sustainability is the most popular publication outlet. Thirdly, research output from chemistry, chemical engineering, and pharmacy disciplines is abundant, while social science disciplines have comparatively few studies. Fourthly, experimental procedures are the most commonly used research methods. Finally, ‘process and technology’ is the most studied area, while ‘stakeholder behavior’ is the least studied area. These findings highlight research gaps and suggest future research directions to promote sustainability in the cosmetics industry. Social media summary This review looks at 30 years of research on sustainable cosmetics and identifies areas that need to be explored.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it