The carbon footprint and energy costs of shampoo and haircare routines
Introduction
Sustainable development is defined as development that “meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’’ (United Nations, 1987).
According to Rockström et al. (2009), Earth has already crossed a threshold of unacceptable climate
change, with atmospheric CO2 concentration at approximately 387ppm (the acceptable threshold
being 350ppm), and change in radiative forcing at 1.5wm-2 (the acceptable threshold being 1.0wm-2 see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Graph demonstrating positive radiative forcing of greenhouse gases between 1750 and 2005 (Wright et al., 2011)
It is essential to take action that will limit CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, and to ensure that
other thresholds of environmental change are not reached and development is managed
sustainably. Hair washing consumes freshwater, energy, and when this energy is derived from fossil
fuels, it results in the emission of CO2. It is therefore useful to investigate the environmental impact
of shampoo and hair-care routines.
“Footprints” are used to measure anthropogenic impacts on the environment (Williams et al., 2012).
Ecological footprints compare human demand with the biosphere’s ability to regenerate resources,
e.g. food, housing, carbon. The most common type of footprint is the "Carbon Footprint" - a
"measure of the total amount of CO2 and CH4 emissions of a defined population, system or activity,
considering all relevant sources, sinks and storage within the spatial and temporal boundary of the
population, system or activity of interest. Calculated as CO2 equivalent using the relevant 100-year
global warming potential" (Wright et al., 2011). Water footprints are a measure of the total amount
1
of water consumed by a person, household, organisation, country or region. They take into account
both directly consumed water and embedded water. Consumption of shampoo and the process of
hair washing will contribute to both carbon and water footprints.
It is important to measure carbon footprints as increasing concentrations of CO2 and other
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are resulting in climate change, and research has proved that
the Earth’s surface temperature is increasing as a result of increased man-made greenhouse gas
emissions (IPCC, 2013). It is also important to measure water footprints, as freshwater stores are
limited, and slowly declining (WWF, 2015). Only 2.5% of water on Earth is freshwater, and only 1% is
easily accessible. (National Geographic, 2015). Freshwater is essential to humans for life, needed for
drinking water, growing crops, sanitation and industry.
Every individual requires at least 20-50 litres of clean freshwater per day (WWF, 2015). In the UK,
the average person uses approximately 150 litres of water every day (Environment Agency).
Freshwater demand is also increasing as the world’s population grows. Around one fifth of the
Earth’s population currently live in areas of physical water scarcity (United Nations, 2014). By 2025,
this is expected to increase to an estimated 1.8 billion (United Nations, 2014). More than 840,000
people die each year from water, sanitation and hygiene related causes (Prüss-Ustün et al., 2014). It
is therefore essential to conserve water across the globe, and ensure resources are accessible to
everyone.
Existing studies on the carbon footprint of shampoo: Boots, and Henkel AG & CO. KGAA
Life cycle assessment is the holistic estimation of the environmental consequences associated with
the life of a process or a product, from the initial concept of said process or product, through its
development, usage or incorporation, and disposal (Owens, 1997). The life cycle carbon footprint
analysis of shampoo and other hair products must therefore include carbon emissions created at the
raw material, manufacturing, distribution, use, and disposal stages.
Such a study was undertaken by Boots UK Ltd. in association with the Carbon Trust in 2008. The
study found that there was a total of 2.62kg of CO2 in a 23.5g of bottle of shampoo (Carbon Trust,
2009). It also found that 93% of the footprint was based on the use stage, with CO2 emissions being
released as fossil fuels are used to heat water for showers and baths, in which the products are used
(see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Results from the Boots study on the carbon footprint of shampoo (Jenkins, 2004)
2
Figure 3: Results from Boots study on the carbon footprint of shampoo, (Carbon Trust, 2009)
Figure 3 demonstrates that the large majority of energy consumed in the shampoo lifecycle is again,
during the “Use” phase, with a total energy consumption of 13.8 kWh per 23.5g bottle of shampoo.
Figure 3 also demonstrates how the study was conducted on both the Boots “Colour Enhancing” and
the “Moisturising Shampoo”, but both types yielded almost identical same results (Carbon Trust,
2009).
Assuming the use of 7g of shampoo per wash as assumed in Henkel AG & Co. KGAA (2008), there are
3.6 washes per 23.5g of Boots shampoo. Assuming one shampoo application per hair wash and hair
washing on a daily basis, an annual carbon footprint would be 265.64 kg CO2 per individual, and the
annual energy consumed would be 1399.17 kWh per individual. According to current energy prices
of 14.05p per kWh (Energy Savings Trust, 2015), these energy costs would amount to £196.58 per
year, not including the cost of water consumption.
Another study, by Henkel AG & Co. KGAA (2008), calculated the carbon footprint of their Shauma 7
Krauter Shampoo under three different scenarios – climate average, climate intensive and climate
sensible (see Figure 4).
Figure 4: The scenarios employed by Henkel AG & Co. KGAA (2008) to investigate the carbon footprint of shampoo
3
The results of this study found that a climate average shower would result in a carbon footprint of
0.29 kg CO₂e, with the use phase accounting for 93.5% of the footprint and disposal accounting for
4% (Henkel AG & CO. KGAA, 2008). The study did not have access to data on shampoo bottle
recycling, so the disposal phase calculations were based on the assumption that all shampoo bottle
waste was incinerated (Henkel AG & CO. KGAA, 2008).The disposal phase also considered the
disposal of waste water, and applied eco-invent data describing the class 2 purification of waste
water in a municipal waste water treatment facility (Henkel AG & CO. KGAA, 2008).
When manipulating the results of the Boots survey – with a 2.62kg CO₂ footprint per 23.5g bottle,
and estimating 3.6 uses per bottle, we have a result of 0.73 kg CO₂ per use or per shower. This is
significantly higher than Henkel’s result for a climate average shower.
Different hair care routines
The carbon footprint and energy costs of a shower or hair wash will vary according to the type and
length of routine an individual uses, for example, the number of applications and rinses of shampoo,
whether conditioner is used, and if that conditioner is “wash-out” or “leave-in”, whether a cleansing
conditioner (also known as "2 in 1 shampoo") is used, or whether dry shampoo is used as an
alternative to replace a hair wash.
The amount of time spent in a shower, and therefore the amount of water used per shower, is very
significant in carbon footprinting as this determines the amount of energy required to heat the
water. In the UK and across most of the globe, this energy is derived from burning fossil fuels, which
release greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
For example, a study in California estimated that if every person in California switched to a cleansing
conditioner, and therefore reduced their shower time by one minute every day, around
12,000million litres of water would be saved every year (Gunshinan, 2011).
To explore these different possible routines further, 5 scenarios were created as follows.
Scenario A: Shower, shampoo once – est. 4mins, electric shower, water heated to 40°c, flow
rate 4.5litres per minute.
Scenario B: Shower, two rinses, e.g. shampoo twice, or shampoo once and condition – est. 6
mins, electric shower, water heated to 40°c, flow rate 4.5litres per minute.
Scenario C: Shower, three rinses, e.g. shampoo twice, condition once – est. 8 mins, electric
shower, water heated to 40°c, flow rate 4.5litres per minute.
Scenario D: Bath, est. 80 litres of water heated to 37°c
Scenario E: No bath or shower, but dry shampoo used only.
The Unilever Sustainable Shower Study revealed that in the UK, the average length of a shower is 8
minutes, using roughly 62 litres of hot water (Unilever, 2011). Assuming that the average shower
involves 2 shampoo rinses and 1 conditioner rinse, these figures have been applied to Scenario C,
4
and for Scenarios A and B, 2 minutes was subtracted for each rinse and the volume was recalculated
as percentages of the volume in the 8 minute Scenario. For Scenarios A, B and C, it was assumed that
the water was heated to 40°c, following the “climate average” scenario in Henkel AG & CO. KGAA,
(2008). For Scenario D, an average temperature of 37°c (Colles, 2005) and an average volume of 80
litres were used (MacKay, 2008), Waterwise, 2011).
The following formula was employed to calculate the energy required:
Total Energy (J) = mass of water (litres) x heat capacity of water (J/litre/°c x
temperature change (°c)
The sum was then converted into kWh, and multiplied by DEFRA carbon emission factors to obtain
measurements of CO2e (kg) for each scenario (– see Appendix A for full calculations table).
Table 1: Water (litres) and energy (kWh) consumes, and carbon (kg CO2e) emitted in each scenario.
The results, as shown in Table 1 show that the scenario with the highest energy costs and carbon
footprint is Scenario D – a bath at 37°c, then, as expected, as shower time increases, so does energy
expenditure and carbon footprint.
Data for Scenario E, dry shampoo does not involve any water heating calculations as a shower is not
included in this scenario. The carbon footprint dry shampoo cannot be calculated without
information on the raw materials, manufacturing process, distribution and disposal phases of its
lifecycle. We can however, assume that there is very little carbon footprint and no energy cost
associated with the use phase of dry shampoo.
Dry shampoo
Dry shampoos are powders, most commonly in aerosol form, which rapidly "cleanse" the hair
without using water (Bouillion, 1996). Dry shampoos do not contain surfactants like ordinary
shampoos, but ingredients such as rice or corn starch to absorb oils, and abstergent substances such
as borax or sodium carbonate, to shift soil and alkaline matter (Bouillion, 1996).
The Unilever Progress Report 2012 estimated that using dry shampoo instead of having a shower
and using normal shampoo, reduces CO₂ by roughly 90%. Data from a consumer panel indicated that
for customers who bought dry shampoo, it replaced a normal hair wash 60% of the time (Unilever,
2012).
5
If an individual who showers 8 minutes (Scenario C) every day for a year replaces 60% (31.2) of their
showers with dry shampoo, this saves 219.65kgCO2e and 475.23kWh. It would also save 13578 litres
of water.
The greatness of these potential energy and CO2 savings for just one individual are highly significant.
If the use of dry shampoo can replace 60% of showers for the entire UK population (of 60 million)
following (using Scenario C calculations), this would save 13,000 million kg of CO2e, 28,000 million
kWh of energy and 0.8 billion litres of water per year.
Table 2: Estimated annual savings of water, energy and carbon, for each scenario, based on the assumption
that an individual replaces 60% of showers with dry shampoo, and the individual showers daily.
Table 3: Estimated annual savings of water, energy and carbon for each scenario, based on the population of the UK replacing 60% of
showers with dry shampoo, and the assumption that the population showers daily.
This small change in routine could therefore lead to highly significant savings on a large scale, in
addition to significantly decreasing carbon footprints at an individual level.
Although it is impossible to analyse the carbon footprint of shampoo without information on the
ingredients and raw materials, the manufacturing and distribution process, usage and disposal, one
can assume that since dry shampoos are most commonly produced in aerosol form, the carbon
footprint would, to a certain extent, resemble that of aerosol deodorant. Manipulating figures from
Unilever (2014), it can be estimated that the carbon footprint of a ordinary, non-compressed aerosol
deodorant is approximately 0.288kg of CO2 (assuming average annual consumption of 10 aerosol
deodorant cans - (Planet Ark, 2015)).
The carbon footprint of an aluminium can, such as that which aerosol dry shampoo is packaged in, is
estimated to be approximately 8.96 kg CO2e per kg of cans, assuming a 50% recycling rate
(International Aluminium Institute, 2013).
Dry shampoo aerosols contain hydrocarbons and or compressed gases which act as propellents
(Scientific American, 2004), and are released into the air during the use phase of dry shampoo,
contributing significantly to the products carbon footprint.
6
There are ways to reduce the carbon footprint of dry shampoo by improving the packaging. In 2011
Unilever developed a compressed can for its aerosol deodorants, with a 25% smaller carbon
footprint than that of the regular can (Unilever, 2011). The reduction of carbon was due to a 50%
reduction in the amount of propeller gas needed, and a 28% reduction of aluminium needed in the
compressed can (Unilever, 2011). Similarly, compressed cans may be developed for dry shampoo,
that minimize the amount of hydrocarbons released as the product is used, and the amount of
greenhouse gases produced as the raw materials are extracted and manufactured.
An alternative option to aerosol dry shampoo cans is powdered dry shampoo. The powder is
packaged within plastic bottles, and can be sprayed on without the use of propellant gases (Klorane,
2015).
Different types of showers
The type of shower used is also extremely significant when it comes to the carbon footprint of a hair
wash. Experts suggest eco shower heads can save approximately 1.1kWh per shower (Palmer et al.,
2012), whilst power showers have been reported to use as many as 136 litres per shower
(Waterwise, 2011).
According to Critchley and Phipps (2007), electric showers have significantly lower flow rates,
resulting in fewer litres of water consumed per shower, and more energy saved (see Table 3).
Critchley and Phipps (2007) also identifies an average flow rate of just under 4 litres per minute for
an electric shower, 8 litres per minute for a mixer shower, and 12 litres per minute for a pumped
shower (power shower). DEFRA (2011) has fairly similar flow rate estimations of 5 litres per minute
for an electric shower, 7.2 litres per minute for a mixer, and 11.8 litres per minute for a power
shower.
Using these DEFRA figures and comparing to the Unilever average shower figures as used in the
Scenario analysis, we see that the average shower figure most closely resembles the DEFRA figures
for mixer showers. We also see that the most eco-friendly option is the mixer shower, whilst the
least eco-friendly is the power shower, consuming more than twice as much water and energy, and
releasing twice as much greenhouse gas emissions as the electric shower.
Table 3: Per minute consumption of water and energy, and per minute carbon footprint of different types of shower.
One way of reducing the amount of water used per shower is by using an eco-friendly, low flow
shower head. The most popular type of low flow shower head is an aerated head, which combines
air and water to maintain steady pressure and create a full shower spray (Eartheasy, 2015). Non7
aerated shower heads do not combine the water with air, but concentrate it through small holes in
the shower head, thus restricting flow and producing a hard shower spray (Aldred, 2008).
Conventional shower heads typical use 11 to 27 litres per minute, whilst eco-shower heads use 2.8
to 9.5 litres per minute (BuildingGreen Inc, 2001).
However, a study by Mayer and Deoreo (1999) states that shower time increases with “Low-Flow”
showers. The study revealed that whilst the average shower takes 6 minutes 48 seconds with a
regular shower head, but 8 minutes 30 seconds with a “Low Flow” shower head. Research may be
required to investigate this pattern– it is not clear if the “Low Flow” showers are longer due to
necessity – i.e. washing takes more time with a “Low Flow” shower, or if they are longer because
participants are more likely to take a longer shower if they are aware they are using an eco-friendly
shower head.
Different types of boiler
The amount of energy required to heat water will also vary according to the type of boiler used to
heat the shower. Figure (5) demonstrates that electric immersion heaters are the most energyexpensive type of boiler. The most energy saving showers use gas heated water in cylinders, electric
showers, gas heated stored water, and combi boilers (Confusedaboutenergy, 2015).
Today, new boilers must fit the “Grade A” category of 88% energy efficiency (Centre for Sustainable
Energy, 2013). Combi boilers are the most popular type of boiler in the UK, heating only the water
intended for use (British Gas, 2015). Immersion heaters are the most expensive method of boiling
water (Energy Savings Trust 2014a).
Figure 5: Monetary costs of different types of showers and boilers (Confusedaboutenergy, 2015).
Heat recovery systems could also help reduce the amount of energy required to heat water, as they
capture energy that would otherwise have been lost, and use it to heat the water (Energy Savings
Trust, 2014b). Condensing boilers use heat recovering systems – large heat exchangers, and are
8
therefore generally considered to be the most energy efficient (Energy Savings Trust, 2014b). Today,
new boilers must fit the “Grade A” category of 88% energy efficiency (Centre for Sustainable Energy,
2013).
Hair dryers and straighteners
Electrical appliances for the drying and styling of hair are often energy intensive, and again, can
contribute significantly to an individual’s carbon footprint. Different appliance types and models
have a range of different wattages, according to how much energy each appliance requires. Wattage
will also vary based on a hairdryers settings - i.e. high heat or low heat, high air or low air. This
makes it difficult to estimate hairdryer wattage, which can range from 80-2200 watts. These
calculations have been based on the use of a 1000 watt hairdryer (Diverse Power, 2015)
Assuming the use of a 1000 watt hairdryer for 10 minutes, this would consume 0.1667kWh of
electricity, and 0.077kgCO2e.
Hair straighteners also vary in wattage, with sources ranging from 35 watts to 185 watts. Assuming
the use of a 75 watt (EON) hair straightener for 10 minutes would consume 0.0025kwh of electricity
and 0.001kgCO2e.
Shampoo Packaging
The carbon footprint study conducted by Boots in 2008 revealed that the “Raw Material” extraction
phase was the second greatest contributing to the overall carbon footprint, with approximately 85g
of CO2 and 0.75kWh per 23.5g bottle of shampoo (see Figure 5).
Figure 5: The energy consumption and carbon emissions of shampoo excluding the “Use” phase of the life cycle (Carbon Trust, 2009)
Figure 5 also demonstrates that it is the bottle and cap raw materials – i.e. the raw materials
required to manufacture plastic, that are responsible for the majority of the CO2 and kWh costs of
9
the “Raw Material” phase. The carbon produced and energy consumed in the disposal phase can be
reduced by improving recycling, and by recovering reusable materials.
One way to reduce these costs in the raw material phase, is to opt for low-carbon packaging.
Bioplastics for example, use significantly less energy in the manufacturing process, although the
materials do contain elevated levels of CO2, which will increase the carbon footprint at the
“Disposal” phase (Soil Association, 2013).
The carbon produced and energy consumed in the disposal phase can be reduced by improving
recycling, and by recovering reusable materials.
Conclusion
The least carbon expensive and energy intensive hair care routines are those which result in less
time spent in the shower, and therefore significant savings in the amount of energy required to heat
water per hair wash. As expected, the fewer rinses involved in a scenario, the smaller the carbon
footprint and energy costs. Individuals must also be informed of how the length, temperature and
frequency of the showers significantly affect their carbon footprint. The most effective ways of
reducing shower time and hot water consumption are by only shampooing once, using a leave in
conditioner or cleansing conditioner to reduce the number of product applications and rinses per
shower, reducing the temperature of the shower, using a more energy efficient boiler, or an ecoshower head.
Using dry shampoo as a shower replacement is possibly the most efficient way of reducing your
carbon footprint, and if 60% of hair washes are replaced with dry shampoo, the UK could potentially
save 13,000 million kg of CO2e, 28,000 million kWh of energy and 0.8 billion litres of water every
year.
Improvements in packaging materials will also help reduce energy consumption and carbon
emissions, and increased use of recyclable materials will also help reduce energy and carbon costs of
disposal. Human behaviour will also need to adapt, as this is the most important factor in recycling,
and education is the key to informing individuals and implementing behaviour change.
10
References
Aldred, J. (2008) Tread lightly: Switch to low-flow shower heads, The Guardian [Online] Available at:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ethicallivingblog/2008/mar/14/switchtolowflowshower
heads [Accessed 30/09/2015]
Bouillon, C. (1996) Shampoos, Clinics in dermatology, 14 (1), 113-121
British Gas (2015) Combi Boilers, British Gas [Online] Available at:
http://www.britishgas.co.uk/products-and-services/boilers-and-central-heating/newboilers/central-heating-and-boilers-explained/combi-boilers.html [Accessed 01/10/2015]
BuildingGreen Inc. (2001) Greening Federal Facilities: An energy, environmental and economic
resource guide for federal resource managers and designers, 2nd ed. DOE/GO-102001-1165. U.S.
Dept. of Energy
Carbon Trust (2008) Working With Boots – Product Carbon Footprinting in Practice. Carbon Trust
Case Study CTS 053
Centre for Sustainable Energy (2013) Upgrading your boiler, Centre for Sustainable Energy [Online]
Available at: https://www.cse.org.uk/advice/advice-and-support/upgrading-your-boiler [Accessed
02/10/2015]
Colles, R. (2005) IN “So Mr Prescott, how hot should my bath be?” The Guardian [Forder, R. (ed)]
[Online] Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/3318578/So-Mr-Prescott-how-hotshould-my-bath-be.html [Accessed 04/10/2015]
Confused About Energy (2015) Energy saving tips: Hot water, Confused About Energy [Online]
Available at: http://www.confusedaboutenergy.co.uk/index.php/energy-saving-tips/hot-water
[Accessed 16/08/2015]
Critchley, R. & Phipps, D. (2007) Water and energy efficient showers: Project Report, United Utilities
[Online] Available at: http://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/assets/0/28/142/48/88/c86deb332463-4795-be5e-a66ea64cab3e.pdf [Accessed 16/08/2015]
DEFRA (2011) BNWAT02 Showers: market projections and product details, DEFRA Market
Transformation Programme [Online] Available at: http://efficientproducts.ghkint.eu/spm/download/document/id/962.pdf [Accessed 16/08/2015]
Eartheasy (2015) Low-flow aerators/shower heads, Eartheasy [Online] Available at:
http://eartheasy.com/live_lowflow_aerators.htm [Accessed 20/08/2015]
Energy Savings Trust (2014a) Saving Water, Energy Savings Trust [Online] Available at:
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/domestic/saving-water [Accessed 02/10/2015]
Energy Savings Trust (2014b) Replacing my boiler, Energy Savings Trust [Online] Available at:
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/domestic/replacing-my-boiler [Accessed 02/10/2015]
Energy Savings Trust (2015) Our Calculations, Energy Savings Trust [Online] Available at:
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/content/our-calculations [Accessed 16/08/2015]
11
Gunshinan, J. (2011) How to wash that energy waste right out of your hair, KQED Science [Online]
Available at: http://ww2.kqed.org/quest/2011/12/15/how-to-wash-energy-waste-out-of-your-hair/
[Accessed 04/10/2015]
International Aluminium Institute (2013) Carbon Footprint Guidance Document, International
Aluminium Institute [Online] Available at: www.worldaluminium.org/media/filer_public/2013/.../fl0000169.pdf [ Accessed 26/09/2015]
IPCC (2013): Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y.
Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
New York, NY, USA, pp. 1–30
Jenkins, A. (2014) Addressing the Complexity of Sustainability in Retail, Alliance Boots. Presentation
given at the Sustainable Cosmetics Summit, Paris, November 2014.
Klorane (2015) Dry Shampoo, Klorane [Online] Available at: http://www.kloraneusa.com/dryshampoo [Accessed 02/10/2015]
MacKay (2008) Sustainable Energy: Without the hot air, UIT Cambridge [Online] Available at:
www.withoutthehotair.com [Accessed 18/09/2015]
Mayer, P. & Deoreo, W. (1999) Residential Uses of Water, American Water Works Association
[Online] Available at: http://www.waterrf.org/publicreportlibrary/rfr90781_1999_241a.pdf
[Accessed 01/10/2015]
Planet Ark [Online] Factsheet: Aerosol Can Recycling, Planet Ark [Online] Available at:
recyclingweek.planetark.org/documents/doc-1217-aerosols-factsheet.pdf [Accessed 26/09/2015]
Owens, J. W. (1997) Life cycle assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 1 (1), 37-49
Prüss‐Ustün, A., Bartram, J., Clasen, T., Colford, J., Cumming, O., Curtis, V., Bonjour, S., Dangour, A.,
De France, J., Fewtrell, L., Freeman, M., Gordon, B., Hunter, P., Johnston, R., Mathers, C., Mäusezahl,
D., Medlicott, K., Neira, M., Stocks, M., Wolf, J. & Cairncross, S. (2014) Burden of disease from
inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene in low‐and middle‐income settings: a retrospective
analysis of data from 145 countries, Tropical Medicine & International Health, 19 (8), 894-905
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F., Lambin, E., Lenton, T., Scheffer, M.,
Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H., Nykvist, B., De Wit, C., Hughes, T., Van Der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S.,
Snyder, P., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R., Fabry, V., Hansen, J.,
Walker, B., Liverman, D., RIchardson, K., Crutzen, P. & Foley, J. (2009) A safe operating space for
humanity, Nature, 461 (7263), 472-475
Scientific American (2004) Bad hair day: Are aerosols still bad for the ozone layer? Scientific
American [Online] Available at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-aerosols-still-bad/
[Accessed 27/09/2015]
12
Soil Association (2013) Factsheet: The Carbon Impact of Packaging, Campden BRI [Online] Available
at: http://www.soilassociation.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=4WUuz5QnJJM%3D&tabid=1482
[Accessed 26/09/2015]
Unilever (2011) UK Sustainable Shower Study, Unilever [Online] Available at:
http://www.unilever.co.uk/media-centre/pressreleases/2011/sustainableshowerstudy.aspx
[Accessed 17/09/2015]
Unilever (2014) Unilever's 'compressed' deodorant can set for big sustainable impact, Unilever
[Online] Available at: http://www.unilever.co.uk/mediacentre/pressreleases/2013pressreleases/deodorantcans.aspx [Accessed 27/09/2015]
United Nations, (1987) Our Common Future - Brundtland Report. Oxford University Press, p. 204.
Waterwise (2011) Showers vs. Baths: facts, figures and misconceptions, Waterwise [Online] Available
at: http://www.waterwise.org.uk/news.php/11/showers-vs.-baths-facts-figures-and-misconceptions
[Accessed 17/09/2015]
Williams, I., Kemp, S., Coello, J., Turner, D., & Wright, L. (2012) A beginner’s guide to carbon
footprinting, Carbon Management, 3 (1), 55-67
Wright, L., Kemp, S., & Williams, I. (2011) ‘Carbon footprinting’: towards a universally accepted
definition. Carbon management, 2 (1), 61-72
WWF (2015) Freshwater: What’s at stake, what we’re missing, what we’re losing, and what it’s
worth, WWF [Online] Available at:
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/about_freshwater/importance_value/ [Accessed
16/08/2015]
COMMENTS


Need to update PowerPoint and check figures are correct.
Need to check quiz is correct (as can do 1st 2 now).

It would be useful also to show cost savings and include assumptions so figures can be
updated easily as energy costs change.
Show time savings
Include column with figures on cost savings which include time (e.g. include assumption of
how to cost time e.g. cost time at £10 per hour).
Make a little more of how shower temperature affects figures.
Build in issue of where energy is coming from. According to the 2013 Ethical Consumer
Report, the most environmentally friendly energy providers in order are: Good Energy,
Green Energy's Sparkling tariff, Planet and Pocket tariffs from LoCO2 Energy, OVO Green
Energy and Ecotricity's Green Electricity. You can include green credentials when using
comparison websites too – green does not always mean more expensive.




13



Build in questions: e.g. over the course of a year which practise will save the most energy?
answers e.g. changing boiler, lowering temperature of water, reducing shower time by 2
minutes (e.g. by using leave-in conditioner, shampooing once not twice, using cleansing
conditioner/2in1 shampoo/conditioner), reducing blow dry time by 10 minutes per week;
replacing one shampoo a week with dry shampoo etc.; change shower head etc.
Ask them to calculate energy and cost savings (including time) for various changes (include
both changes in appliance type and changes in behaviour).
FOR DANIELLE/LYNDA: Integrate advice for specific hair types and issues: can do this by
going through sections and marking where changes benefit a specific type of hair (e.g. dry,
flyaway, greasy etc). Also then do it the other way and list types of hair and mark out the
practices/products that would help it (e.g. flyaway/frizzy hair try dry shampoo or leave in
conditioner; dry hair, using cleansing conditioner, shampoo less, blow-dry less, cooler water;
greasy hair, try without conditioner, cooler water; coloured hair – less frequent washing etc)
14