The hidden risk in beauty supply chains

THE PROBLEM

The footprint sits where data can't see it

A large share of cosmetics brands' Scope 3 footprint traces back to process heat, invisible to spend-based reporting. Two suppliers with identical spend can carry emissions an order of magnitude apart: one runs a gas boiler, one runs a heat pump.

~90%%

of a cosmetics brand's total carbon footprint sits in Scope 3.

26x

supply chain Scope 3 emissions average 26 times Scope 1 and 2.

~18%

of global GHG emissions come from industrial process heat.

IN THE REPORT

What you will read, and why it changes how you act.

With industry and Secaro data you'll discover.

timer_1

The emissions visibility problem

Spend based Scope 3 inventories create a visibility challenge. Without supplier data, you can't separate emissions progress from the opportunity to decarbonize heat.

timer_2

Why clean heat pays back

Most cosmetics manufacturing runs in the 60–200°C band, where industrial heat pumps now work, cutting energy cost by 40–70%, with payback in 18 to 36 months.

timer_3

Intro to the Clean Heat Program

Learn how the program delivers a clear path from data to decision to delivery, ensuring projects are planned and funded.

Where decision pressure is emerging first

See which areas of emissions, energy, and supplier risk are being scrutinized earliest as data becomes more visible, and why some decisions are questioned sooner than others.

The gap between ambition and supplier capability

Based on data from 8,000+ supplier facilities, uncover where ambition is accelerating faster than supplier readiness and how that gap is turning into financial, reputational, and governance risk.

What makes some decisions hold up and others fall apart

Learn how organizations that can clearly explain and justify prioritization are navigating scrutiny and why data quality, comparability, and completeness now matter more than commitments alone.