Laundry Pubsy 20151104 - 3

Revision of the European Ecolabel
Criteria for: Laundry detergents and

Industrial and institutional laundry
detergents
Preliminary Report
Galyna Medina, Alicia Boyano and Renata Kaps–
IPTS
Josephine Arendorf, Katherine Bojczuk, Edward
Sims, Rimousky Menkveld, Laura Golsteijn, Anne
Gaasbeek – Oakdene Hollins and Pre Consultants
2015
EUR 27380 EN
This publication is a Science for Policy report by the Joint Research Centre, the European Commission’s in-house science service. It aims to
provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policy-making process.
The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any
person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication.
JRC Science Hub

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc
JRC96846
EUR 27380 EN
PDF ISBN 978-92-79-50316-0 ISSN 1831-9424 doi:10.2791/0171 LF-NA-27380-EN-N
© European Union, 2015
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
How to cite: G. Medina, A. Boyano, R. Kaps, J. Arendorf, K. Bojczuk, E. Sims, R.Menkveld, L.Golsteijn, A. Gaasbeek; Revision of the European
Ecolabel Criteria for: Laundry detergents and industrial and institutional laundry detergents; EUR 27380 EN; doi:10.2791/0171
All images © European Union 2015, except: Cover image, shotsstudio, Fotolia.com
Towards a sustainable laundry!

The EU Ecolabels for Laundry detergents and Industrial and Institutional Laundry detergents is under revision.
This report is meant to provide a first evaluation of likely areas for investigation and provides the scientific
evidence for the revised EU Ecolabels criteria.
The identification of the main hotspots is carried out in this study by means of an initial extensive literature
review and subsequent LCA studies. LCA studies shown that the energy used for heating the washing water
during the use stage, has an impact in all the environmental categories under study but especially on fossil fuel
depletion and global warming potential. The extraction and processing of raw materials that cause impacts on the
categories such as mineral depletion, land use and energy use as well as the emissions to the environment
(discharge of wastewater) has also impacts of importance depending on the scenario under consideration. The
study reveals that there are several improvement opportunities such as detergent compaction which can bring
savings in resources or reduction in the wash temperature. Changes in the detergent formulation can also reduce
the impacts in different categories.
This preliminary report takes part of the revision of the EU Ecolabel criteria for six detergents and cleaners
related product groups. The EU Ecolabel revision process is foreseen to be held simultaneously. The progress of
these discussions can be followed through the official website:
http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/detergents/index.html
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... 3

Executive summary ............................................................................................ 7
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 9
1.1 Background ......................................................................................... 9
1.2 Purpose of this document ..................................................................... 9
1.3 EU Ecolabel for laundry detergents ......................................................... 9
1.4 Investigation overview ....................................................................... 10
2. LEGAL REVIEW, SCOPE AND DEFINITION ............................................... 11
2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 11
2.2 Scope and definition ........................................................................... 11
2.2.1 Product definition........................................................................11
2.2.2 Current EU Ecolabel product scope and definition ............................12
2.3 Feedback from stakeholder consultation ............................................... 13
2.4 Review of legislation – key changes since the previous criteria revision .... 14
2.4.1 Ecolabel Regulation .....................................................................14
2.4.2 Revision to the Detergents Regulation ...........................................15
2.4.3 The Biocides Regulation (EC) No 528/2012 ....................................16
2.4.4 Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Chemical Substances and
Mixtures ............................................................................................17
2.5 Review of national ecolabelling schemes ............................................... 17
2.6 The need for separate criteria for LD and IILD ....................................... 51
2.6.1 Stakeholder feedback ..................................................................51
2.6.2 Differences between LD and IILD products .....................................51
2.6.3 Conclusions................................................................................54
2.7 Summary of the findings..................................................................... 54
2.8 Recommendations for revision of existing criteria from the stakeholders'
survey ...................................................................................................... 55
2.8.1 Comparison between LD, IILD and GPP criteria ...............................55
2.8.2 Assessment and verification of measurement thresholds for
constituents .......................................................................................56
2.8.3 Criteria for LD product category ....................................................57
2.8.4 Criteria for IILD product category .................................................66
2.8.5 Additional hot spots ....................................................................70
2.8.6 Summary of suggested criteria changes to be further examined .......71
3. MARKET ANALYSIS ................................................................................. 74
3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 74
3.1.1 Economic indicators ....................................................................74
3.1.2 Global market overview, textile washing products ...........................78
3
3.2 Market structure ................................................................................ 79
3.2.1 Product overview ........................................................................79
3.2.2 Market segmentation ..................................................................80
3.2.3 Manufacturers and market shares .................................................84
3.2.4 Structure of supply chain .............................................................85
3.3 Production and sales .......................................................................... 87
3.3.1 EU-28 sales ...............................................................................87
3.3.2 Market trends and projections ......................................................88
3.4 Market trends .................................................................................... 89
3.4.1 Washing machine ownership ........................................................89
3.4.2 Trade-offs in the laundry detergent market – product trends ............90
3.4.3 Sales trends ...............................................................................93
3.4.4 Labelling ....................................................................................93
3.5 Product and process innovation ........................................................... 96
3.5.1 Sustainability trends ...................................................................96
3.6 Consumer trends ............................................................................... 99
3.6.1 Product fragrance .......................................................................99
3.6.2 Sustainable cleaning products ......................................................99
3.6.3 Low temperature washing .......................................................... 100
3.7 Conclusions of the market analysis .................................................... 101
4. TECHNICAL ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 103
4.1 Technological aspects ....................................................................... 103
4.1.1 Supply chain for laundry detergent production ............................. 103
4.1.2 Description of the production processes ....................................... 104
4.1.3 Laundry detergents ingredients .................................................. 105
4.2 LCA review ...................................................................................... 105
4.2.1 Selection criteria ....................................................................... 106
4.2.2 Selection of reports ................................................................... 106
4.2.3 Detailed revision of selected reports ............................................ 111
4.3 LCA review: results .......................................................................... 113
4.3.1 Results of the selected studies.................................................... 113
4.3.2 Summary of findings ................................................................. 115
4.4 Opportunities for improvement .......................................................... 115
4.4.1 Compaction of detergents .......................................................... 116
4.4.2 Wash temperature .................................................................... 116
4.5 Overview of industrial laundry, auxiliaries and alternatives for laundry
washing .................................................................................................. 119
4.5.1 Industrial laundry ..................................................................... 119
4.5.2 Auxiliaries ................................................................................ 119
4
4.5.3 Laundry washing alternatives ..................................................... 120
4.6 Summary of the key environmental impacts of laundry detergents ........ 121
4.7 Non-LCA impacts ............................................................................. 122
4.7.1 Toxicity to aquatic organisms ..................................................... 122
4.7.2 Risk assessment of chemical release ........................................... 124
4.7.3 Human health .......................................................................... 124
4.7.4 Ecosystems .............................................................................. 125
4.7.5 Sustainable sourcing ................................................................. 125
4.8 In-house LCA studies ....................................................................... 125
4.8.1 Methodology ............................................................................ 126
4.8.2 Goal definition .......................................................................... 126
4.8.3 Scope of the study .................................................................... 126
4.8.4 Functional unit and reference flow .............................................. 127
4.8.5 System description and boundaries ............................................. 127
4.8.6 Life cycle inventory ................................................................... 128
4.8.7 Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) .......................................... 132
4.9 Sensitivity analysis .......................................................................... 135
4.9.1 Washing program ..................................................................... 136
4.9.2 Energy source for heating the water ............................................ 136
4.9.3 Dosage .................................................................................... 137
4.9.4 Surfactant origin ....................................................................... 138
4.9.5 Toxicity impact of ingredients ..................................................... 138
4.9.6 Use of fabric softener ................................................................ 139
4.9.7 Sensitivity of the surfactant to the database used ......................... 141
4.10 Summary of findings ........................................................................ 143
5. PRODUCT INNOVATIONS AND IMPROVEMENT POTENTIAL ................... 145
5.1 Introduction and approach ................................................................ 145
5.2 Laundry detergent product innovations ............................................... 145
5.2.1 Compaction.............................................................................. 145
5.2.2 Low-temperature wash performance ........................................... 145
5.2.3 Low/no harmful chemicals ......................................................... 146
5.2.4 Natural/renewable ingredients .................................................... 146
5.3 Conclusions ..................................................................................... 146
6. Conclusions and further steps .............................................................. 149
7. ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ........................................................ 151
8. List of tables ......................................................................................... 154
9. List of Figues ........................................................................................ 156
ANNEXES ........................................................................................................ 157
5
ANNEX I: Stakeholder survey .................................................................... 157
ANNEX II: Laundry detergent ingredients ................................................... 181
ANNEX III: Market analysis data ................................................................ 183
ANNEX IV: Life cycle impact assessment .................................................... 186
ANNEX V: Contribution analysis of different life cycle stages ......................... 187
ANNEX VI: Sensitivity analysis .................................................................. 188
6
Executive summary
The Preliminary Report presents the research carried out on areas related to the product
groups covered by the EU Ecolabel on Laundry detergents and industrial and institutional
laundry detergents. The report provides background information that underpins to the
new criteria proposals.
Policy context
The EU Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy
(SCP/SIP) policy is an integral part of the Resource Efficiency flagship initiative of the
Europe 2020 Strategy. This policy aims to reduce the environmental impact of production
and consumption and contribute to the decoupling of the economic growth from
environmental degradation.
The EU Ecolabel is the main instrument included in this Plan aiming at promoting
products with the best environmental performance. The EU Ecolabel is a voluntary tool
awarded to a product through a process in which an applicant has to demonstrate that
the specified Ecolabel criteria for a particular product group are met. The criteria the
products must meet are being developed based on a life-cycle assessment of the most
important environmental impacts on a product group basis.
This study is being carried out by the Joint Research Centre's Institute for Prospective
Technological Studies (JRC-IPTS) together with Oakdene Hollins and Pre-consultants. The
work is being developed for the European Commission's Directorate General for the
Environment. The report will be used as a consultation document to gain feedback,
evidence and opinion from stakeholders and experts on the proposed changes and
significant environmental issues.
Key conclusions
This background document for the revision of the criteria for EU Ecolabel for Laundry
detergents and industrial and institutional laundry detergents is meant to provide a first
evaluation of likely areas for investigation as a result of stakeholder surveys, market
analysis and known concerns with existing criteria, including changes in hazardous
substance classification of commonly used ingredients. As policy-relevant
recommendations, it points out where there is scope for strengthening the EU Ecolabel
and which criteria could be removed, amended or further developed.
The information contained in this document provides an overview of changes to the
Laundry detergents and industrial and institutional laundry detergents market since the
last revision of the criteria in 2011, and a technical analysis to understand where the
greatest environmental impacts arise in their life cycle.
Main findings
The main findings of the Preliminary Report are:
The market analysis revealed that the laundry detergent market in Europe is dominated
by a few well-known brands, including Procter & Gamble, Henkel and Unilever. Laundry
detergents are available in a range of formats, but liquid laundry detergents account for
the largest market share in Europe, closely followed by powder laundry detergents.
Market trends show that sustainability is of growing importance to consumers of laundry
detergents, with an increase in concentrated/compacted products, use of plant-based
ingredients and minimisation of packaging.
The technical analysis revealed that the life cycle stage with the largest contribution to
the environmental impact profile of laundry detergents is the use phase, particularly the
energy needed to heat the water for the wash cycle. For some impact categories, the
sourcing of raw materials is also important. Based on the normalisation assessment, the
7
most significant impact categories for laundry detergents in Europe are Freshwater
Eutrophication, Human Toxicity, Freshwater Ecotoxicity, Marine Ecotoxicity, and Natural
Land Transformation.
Impact contribution %
100
80
Ingredients
60
Manufacturing
40
Packaging
20
0 Transport
CC TA Use Phase
ME POF TTox
MTox ALO End of Life
NLT MD
Midpoint impact categories
These impacts are strongly correlated to each other via the energy use in the use phase
(with the exception of natural land transformation). The use phase dominates the impact
categories freshwater eutrophication, human toxicity, and marine ecotoxicity, and
ingredients sourcing dominates the freshwater ecotoxicity and natural land
transformation.
The key environmental performance indicators (KPIs), i.e. those variables that mainly
drive the results for laundry detergents in Europe, based on the results of this study are:
 Wash temperature,
 Amount of product used per application,
 Choice of and amount of surfactant (although there are trade-offs between impact
categories),
 Energy source used to heat the water,
 Emissions to water.
Related and future JRC work
This preliminary report takes part of the revision for EU Ecolabel criteria for six detergent
product groups, namely: "Detergents for dishwasher", "Industrial and institutional
automatic dishwasher detergents", "Laundry detergents", "Industrial and institutional
laundry detergents", "All-purpose cleaners and sanitary cleaners" and "Hand dishwashing
detergents". The publication of this report is foreseen to be followed by continuous wide
consultation with experts and stakeholders, i.e. manufacturers, supply chain industry,
consumer organizations and NGOs. The progress of these discussions can be followed
through the official website http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/detergents/index.html.
8
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The EU Ecolabel initiative is a policy instrument designed to encourage the production
and use of more environmentally friendly products and services through the certification
and specification of products or services which have a reduced environmental footprint. It
forms part of the European Commission’s action plan on Sustainable Consumption and
Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy adopted on 16 July 2008.1
The EU Ecolabel is a voluntary scheme coordinated by the European Commission2 which
is used to distinguish environmentally beneficial products and services. The EU Ecolabel
is awarded through a process in which an applicant has to demonstrate that the specified
Ecolabel criteria for a particular product group are met. Successful applicants are then
allowed to use the EU Ecolabel logo and to advertise their product as having been
awarded the EU Ecolabel.
1.2 Purpose of this document

This document forms part of the process of revising existing EU Ecolabel criteria for
laundry detergents and encapsulates the activities and outputs of Tasks 1-4 (i.e. goal
and scope definition, market analysis, technical analysis and analysis of innovation and
improvement opportunities). This report represents a first evaluation of likely areas for
investigation as a result of stakeholder surveys, market analysis and known concerns
with existing criteria including, amongst others, changes in hazardous substance
classification. In doing so, it identifies where there is scope for strengthening the EU
Ecolabel criteria through amendments, removal or further development.
The information contained in this document provides an overview of changes to the
laundry detergents market since the last revision of the criteria in 2011, and a technical
analysis to understand where the greatest environmental impacts arise in the life cycle of
laundry detergents.
This report is also being used as a consultation document to gain feedback, evidence and
opinion from stakeholders and experts on proposed changes and significant
environmental issues. This document covers the EU Ecolabel criteria for both domestic
and industrial & institutional laundry detergents.
1.3 EU Ecolabel for laundry detergents

The EU Ecolabel criteria for laundry detergents (LD) were adopted in 2011 (Commission
Decision 2011/264/EU) and the ones for industrial and institutional laundry detergents’
(IILD) in 2012 (Commission Decision 2012/721/EU)3 The aim of these criteria
documents was to promote laundry detergents that corresponded to the best 10-20 % of
the products available on the Community market in terms of environmental performance
considering the whole life-cycle of production, use and disposal. These criteria documents
1
Communication from The Commission to The European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and The
Committee of the Regions on the sustainable consumption and production and sustainable industrial policy action plan, Brussels 16.7.2008.
Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/pdf/com_2008_397.pdf
2
Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of The European Parliament and of The Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel. Available from:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:027:0001:0019:en:PDF
3
Documents available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/products-groups-and-criteria.html
9
are due to expire in 2016. A breakdown of EU Ecolabel products for the LD and IILD
categories can be found in Section 2.2, "Scope and definition", of this report.
1.4 Investigation overview

The revision process takes the existing criteria documents as the starting point and seeks
to update these, taking into account technological and economic changes in the European
market, relevant legislative changes and improved scientific knowledge.
To review the existing EU Ecolabels, the following aspects have been investigated:
1) Product definition and categorisation of domestic LD and IILD.
2) The reasons that support keeping the two sets of criteria separate.
3) An economic and market analysis.
4) Technical analysis including environmental performance investigation of the
laundry detergents product groups.
5) Product innovations and improvement opportunities for laundry detergents.
10
2. LEGAL REVIEW, SCOPE AND DEFINITION
2.1 Introduction
The aim of the first task is to conduct a review of the practicality of the existing product
group definition and scope. The areas where the existing criteria and scope are no longer
in line with current legislation or market conditions will be identified. The review will
consider: feedback from stakeholders, literature reviews, legal reviews and alternative
ecolabels. This first task has been divided into the following sub-tasks:
1) An introduction to the existing product scope and definition.
2) A summary of the feedback received from the stakeholder questionnaire.
3) A review of existing EU legislation that is likely to affect the criteria revision.
4) A review of alternative and national ecolabels for laundry detergents.
5) An investigation into the need for separate criteria for LD and IILD.
6) The proposed scope and definitions for the LD and IILD categories.
7) Recommendations for revision of existing criteria based on stakeholder feedback.
8) A summary of the proposed changes to the criteria which require further
investigation.
As a key element of this task a stakeholder survey has been conducted, a blank copy of
which can be found in Annex I. The survey has been used to gain viewpoints of the
successes and failings of the criteria and to guide the development of the criteria
revision. The survey addressed principal questions such as: the validity of the product
group, definition and scope, the potential for merging LD and IILD criteria, additional
technological or environmental matters that have arisen since the previous revision and
issues with specific criteria. Outputs from the stakeholder survey have been used
throughout this section of the report.
2.2 Scope and definition

2.2.1 Product definition
Before investigating the classification and definition of laundry detergent products, it is
important that key concepts of the product, such as its composition, are fully described.
Within the context of the EU Ecolabel and this report, the definition used for laundry
detergents is taken from Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 (the Detergents Regulation). 4
‘Detergent’ means any substance or mixture containing soaps and/or other
surfactants intended for washing and cleaning processes. Detergents may be in
any form (liquid, powder, paste, bar, cake, moulded piece, shape, etc.) and
marketed for or used in household, or institutional or industrial purposes.
‘Auxiliary washing mixture’ is intended for soaking (pre-washing), rinsing or
bleaching clothes, household linen, etc.
4
Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents. Available at http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:104:0001:0035:en:PDF
11
‘Laundry fabric-softener’ is intended to modify feel of fabrics in processes which
are to complement the washing of fabrics.
Before discussing in detail the classification of laundry detergents, it is important that
certain key concepts of their composition are described. Laundry detergent formulations
are made up of several components which include surfactants, builders,
biocides/preservatives, bleaches, enzymes, optical brighteners, fragrances, dyes,
solvents and fillers. As a result, the overall composition of detergents varies significantly
and this will affect the impact of the product on the environment, human health and
costs. A brief overview of the functions of the main ingredients can be found in Annex II.
2.2.2 Current EU Ecolabel product scope and definition

Commission Decision 2011/264/EC5 establishing the Ecolabel criteria for the award of the
EU Ecolabel for laundry detergents and Commission Decision 2012/721/EC6 establishing
the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for Industrial and Institutional
Laundry Detergents define ‘laundry detergents’ and ‘industrial and institutional laundry
detergents’ as the following:
Laundry detergents: The product group ‘Laundry Detergents’ shall compromise:
laundry detergents and pre-treatment stain removers whether in powder, liquid or
any other form which are marketed and used for the washing or textiles
principally in household machines but not excluding their use in laundrettes and
common laundries.
Pre-treatment stain removers include stain removers used for direct spot
treatment of textiles (before washing in the machine) but do not include stain
removers dosed in the washing machine and stain removers dedicated to other
uses besides pre-treatment.
This product group shall not comprise products that are dosed by carriers such as
sheets, cloths or other materials nor washing auxiliaries used without subsequent
washing such as stain removers for carpets and furniture upholstery.
Industrial and institutional laundry detergents: The product group ‘Industrial
and Institutional Laundry Detergents’ shall comprise: laundry detergent products
performed by professional users in the industrial and institutional sector.
Included in this product group are multi-component-systems constituting of more
than one component used to build up a complete detergent or a laundering
program for automatic dosing system.
This product group shall not comprise products for obtaining textile attributes
such as water-repellent, waterproof or fire-proof, etc. Furthermore, the product
group shall not comprise products that are dosed by carriers such as sheets,
cloths or other materials, as well as washing auxiliaries used without subsequent
washing, such as stain removers for carpets and furniture upholstery.
Consumer laundry products are excluded from the scope of this product group.
5
Commission Decision of 28 April 2011 on establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for laundry detergents
(notified under document C(2011) 2815), 2011/264/EU
6
Commission Decision of 14 November 2012 on establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for Industrial and
Institutional Laundry Detergents, (notified under document C(2012) 8055). 2012/721/EU
12
2.3 Feedback from stakeholder consultation
To obtain feedback on the current EU Ecolabel product scope and definition for LD and
IILD, a questionnaire was sent to stakeholders (see blank copy in Annex I). The target
groups for the questionnaire were European Ecolabel competent bodies, industry,
technology institutes and trade associations. Eighteen stakeholders formally responded to
the consultation by returning the completed questionnaire. The respondents feature a
mixture of stakeholders, as summarised in Table 1.
Table 1: Summary of respondents to questionnaire
Stakeholder Number of respondents
Competent bodies 3
Environment Agency 1
Industry 10 (5 IILD, 1 LD, 4 both)
Consulting agency 1
Research institute 1
The consultation invited comments on the proposal to merge LD and IILD criteria, as well
as feedback on existing criteria and proposed changes. The responses are summarised
for both LD and IILD in Table 2. Further detail of the respondents' suggestions can be
found later in this section.
Table 2: Summary of questionnaire analysis
Criterion No. of Summary of responses
responses
18/19 60 % of respondents agreed with the existing products in scope for LD, and over 80 %
of respondents agreed with the existing products in scope for IILD. For the LD
category, respondents called for the addition of fabric softeners and in-wash stain
removers. Seven of the respondents suggested that fabric softeners should be
included within scope. When asked if the product category should include other stain
removers in addition to pre-treatment ones, five of the stakeholders said that in-
Scope and definition
wash stain removers should be included. No specific reasons were given for why
fabric softeners should be included - or indeed excluded - from the criteria. For the
IILD category, three of the stakeholders suggested that the scope should be extended
to cover products for obtaining textile attributes such as water proofing. It was also
added that with the current definition for IILD it is unclear whether or not softeners,
rinsing aids and stain removers are covered by multi-component systems.
Some useful additional comments were made, such as: “Clearly describe in the
application that the product group covers complete powders and complete liquid
detergents as well as multi-component systems”.
80 % of respondents considered that the LD and IILD criteria, and therefore EU

Ecolabels, should remain separate.
17/19 Over 80 % of the respondents thought that the existing criteria for dosage
requirements
requirements for LD are strict enough. Only 20 % of the respondents thought that
Dosage
additional dosage requirements, such as maximum dosage limits are needed for IILD.
In terms of water hardness, the general comments (for both LD and IILD) were that in
Europe there are significant differences in water hardness and the criteria should
take this into account.
16/19 Only 25 % of the respondents thought that the existing critical dilution volume (CDV)
aquatic organisms
values for LD are not effective in distinguishing the best environmentally performing
Toxicity to
products on the market. All 14 of the respondents to the question agreed that the
current CDV criteria for IILD are strict enough for promoting the best top
environmental performers
A general comment (for both LD and IILD) from the feedback was that the CDV values
should be recalculated in accordance with the revised DID list.
13
Criterion No. of Summary of responses
responses
18/19 30 % of respondents considered that there are additional ingredients which should be
Excluded or limited
excluded or limited from EU Ecolabel detergents.

Stakeholders provided several suggestions for additional substances/mixtures for
substances
which exclusion/limitations should be considered. Including peracetic acid, hydrogen

peroxide, endocrine disruptors and surfactants classified with H412.
Apart from the feedback received through the stakeholders consultation, DG ENV
received a request for derogating the enzyme subsitilisin that has recently changed
classification
16/19 The majority of respondents, over 90 %, thought that the current limits set for aNBO
and anNBO for LD are strict enough when considering the laundry detergents
Bio-degradability
currently on the market.

However, opinion was divided on whether specific requirements should apply to the
biodegradability of surfactants for LD. With just under 50 % of respondents to the
question, replying that specific requirements should apply and the remaining
respondents replying that they should not apply. This question was not asked for IILD
as there is already a requirement for all surfactants to be biodegradable in the IILD
criteria.
15/19 Most stakeholders did not support the suggestion that additional criteria should be
requirements
set to further promote the use of recycled materials in packaging, with only 15 % of
Packaging
respondents agreeing to this statement.

However, the feedback did provide several suggestions for the packaging criteria,
such as promoting recyclability through the use of easy-to-access concepts. For IILD
one of the stakeholders questioned the relevance of WUR for professional products.
8/19 Stakeholders were asked to give general comments on the washing performance
performance
tests. The majority of respondents had no further comments to make and were
Washing
happy with the current testing procedure.
15/19 Almost 75 % of respondents thought that the points system effectively promotes cold
(LD only)
water and low temperature products.

Points
When asked about what further measures could be taken to promote low
temperature washing, stakeholders suggested that more information should be
provided to consumers.
14/19 Over 90 % of all respondents thought that the requirements for dosage instructions
information
consumer
in the existing criteria are efficient. In general few comments were received regarding
User/
criteria on user and consumer information. Two of the stakeholders suggested that
the consumer information should be up to the manufacturer to propose for LD.
2.4 Review of legislation – key changes since the previous criteria

revision
2.4.1 Ecolabel Regulation
Regulation EC/1980/20007 on a revised Community eco-label award scheme was
replaced by Regulation EC/66/2010 on the EU Ecolabel (the Ecolabel Regulation) to
7
Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 on a revised Community eco-label award
scheme
14
increase its effectiveness and streamline its operation. A number of key changes,
relevant to this product group, were incorporated:
1) Criteria would be determined on a scientific basis (Ecolabel Regulation - Art. 6.3).
2) There would be a focus on the most significant environmental impacts over the
product life cycle (Ecolabel Regulation - Art. 6.3.a).
3) The substitution of hazardous substances with safer substances (Ecolabel
Regulation – Art. 6.3.b).
4) Any substances classified according to CLP8 as hazardous to the environment,
toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction (CMR) and referred to in
Art. 57 of Regulation EC/1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) would be restricted
(Ecolabel Regulation - Art. 6.6).
5) Derogations may be given in respect of the above, if substitution or use of
alternative materials is not technically feasible. However no derogations are
possible in respect of substances of very high concern (SVHC) identified in
accordance with the procedure set out in REACH - Art. 59 (Ecolabel Regulation -
Art. 6.7).
2.4.2 Revision to the Detergents Regulation

The 2012 Revision to the Detergents Regulation 9 regulates the use of phosphates and
other phosphorus compounds in consumer laundry detergents and consumer automatic
dishwasher detergents in the EU (see Regulation (EU) No 259/2012).10 The Revision
limits the use of phosphorus compounds in laundry detergents to reduce their
contribution to eutrophication and the cost of their removal during wastewater treatment.
The limit applies to both phosphorus and its compounds, so that the one is not simply
substituted for the other.
The 2012 Revision defines laundry detergents as “a detergent for laundry placed on the
market for use by non- professionals, including in public laundrettes”. The Revision notes
that technically and economically- feasible alternatives to the use of phosphates and
phosphorus compounds in IILD are not yet available.
It expresses concern that phosphate-based substitutes (phosphonates) pose a potential
risk to the environment. Accordingly, it encourages producers to use alternative
substances with a more environmentally-friendly profile than phosphate-based
substitutes in the manufacture of laundry detergents. The Revision is clear that these
alternative substances should either be risk-free or pose only a limited risk to humans
and the environment (under normal conditions of use). Where appropriate, the
framework for assessing chemical risk as described by the REACH system will be used to
evaluate the suitability of these alternative substances.
The 2012 Revision also lays down requirements for dosage information to be clearly
indicated on laundry detergent package labelling. The laundry detergent producer is
required to indicate a recommended standard dosage (in either grams or millilitres) for a
8
Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and
packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No
1907/2006
9
Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents
10
Regulation (EU) No 259/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 as
regards the use of phosphates and other phosphorus compounds in consumer laundry detergents and consumer automatic dishwasher
detergents
15
standard washing machine load11 operating on a normal washing cycle. The producer
should also indicate different dosages for soft, medium, and hard water hardness, and
should also make provision for one- or two-cycle washing processes. The producer is also
required to indicate, in either millilitres or grams, the capacity of any provided measuring
cup. The provided measuring cup should also have markings to indicate the dosage of
detergent appropriate for a standard washing machine load at soft, medium and hard
water hardness levels.
The Revision also requires manufacturers of heavy-duty detergents (standard laundry
detergents) to indicate the number of standard washing machine loads of “normally
soiled” fabrics that can be washed using the contents of the laundry detergent package,
with water of medium hardness (2.5 millimoles of CaCO 3 per litre). Manufacturers of
light-duty detergents (detergents for delicate fabrics) are required to indicate the number
of standard washing machine loads of “lightly soiled” fabrics that can be washed using
the contents of the laundry detergent package, with water of medium hardness (2.5
millimoles of CaCO3 per litre).
2.4.3 The Biocides Regulation (EC) No 528/2012

The EU Biocidal Products Directive (98/8/EC) 12 applies to insecticides and products that
have anti-microbial properties, including disinfectants. In laundry detergents, biocides
may be used in small amounts as preservatives to maintain product quality. The original
Biocidal Products Directive (98/8/EC) regulated the placing of biocidal products on the EU
market. The Directive applied only to products containing active agents that imparted
biocidal properties to the product into which they were incorporated.
Under to the 1998 Biocidal Products Directive, active substances had to be assessed at
the Community level. Once an active substance had been assessed, it could be included
in Annex I. Each Member State was then required to authorise products containing the
biocide before they could be placed on the market in that individual Member State. Once
authorised by one EU Member State, the product could then be placed on the market in
any other EU Member State.
Regulation (EU) No 528/201213 concerning the making available on the market and use
of biocidal products repeals and replaces the 1998 Biocidal Products Directive. Under the
2012 Biocides Regulation, each EU Member States retains the obligation to authorise
products containing biocides before they can be placed on the market in that individual
Member State. In addition, the rules on the mutual recognition of existing authorisations
have been simplified to speed up decision-making, facilitate market access to other
Member States, and avoid duplication.
Under the 2012 Biocides Regulation, the mandate for the regulation of biocidal products
has been transferred to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), with the aim being
further convergence with the biocidal requirements of REACH. The Biocides Regulation
also establishes a Register for Biocidal Products, which allows the Member States, the
Commission and ECHA to make available to each other the particulars and scientific
11
Commission Decision 1999/476/EC establishing the Ecological Criteria for the award of the Community Eco-label to Laundry Detergents
defines a standard washing machine load as 4.5 kg of dry fabric for heavy-duty detergents and 2.5 kg of dry fabric for light-duty detergents.
Laundry detergents are generally considered to be heavy-duty detergents, unless the primary claim of the manufacturer is that the
detergent promotes fabric care (i.e. low temperature wash, delicate fibres and colours), in which case the detergent is classed as a light-
duty detergent.
12
Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the
market
13
Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the
market and use of biocidal products.
16
documentation submitted in connection with applications for authorisation of biocidal
products.
2.4.4 Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Chemical

Substances and Mixtures
The use of many (often incompatible) national systems for providing information on
hazardous properties and control measures of chemicals requires multiple labels and
Safety Data Sheets for the same product. This causes confusion for customers of these
chemicals and increases the burden on companies complying with many different
regulations. To address this, the EU Regulation (EC) No 1272/200814 on the
Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures (the CLP Regulation)
was developed to harmonise the process, requiring only one set of labels for all products
sold throughout the EU.
The CLP Regulation entered into force on 20 January 2009 and implemented the UN
Globally Harmonised System (GHS) at EU level. The new system of classification,
labelling and packaging was implemented by 1 December 2010 for substances, and will
be implemented by 1 January 2015 for mixtures. However, substances and mixtures will
still have to be classified and labelled according to the predecessor Dangerous
Substances Directive (67/548/EEC)15 and the Dangerous Preparations Directive
(1999/45/EC)16, until 1 June 2015.
2.5 Review of national ecolabelling schemes

The aim of this section is to identify which alternative national labels have product
categories for laundry detergents and what are their fundamental criteria. Besides the EU
Ecolabel, which operates Europe-wide, there are national labels in Europe that can be
sought out for laundry detergents, e.g. Nordic Swan and Czech Ecolabelling. A number of
labels are also used elsewhere, including ‘Green Seal’ (predominantly used in the USA)
and the ‘Environmental Choice’ labelling programme (New Zealand). 17 In general, labels
can be categorised as either single-attribute or multi-attribute standards. Single attribute
refers to certifications which only relate to one environmental characteristic, whereas
multi-attribute certifications relate to more than one environmental characteristic. As the
EU Ecolabel is a multi-attribute certification, only multi-criteria ecolabels will be
compared in this section. An overview of alternative voluntary labelling schemes is
presented in Table 3.
A rough review of international standards relevant to laundry detergents revealed that
standards are related directly to washing machines and the testing of washing and
attributes of ingredients of detergents rather than the laundry detergent itself. Thus they
are of little significance for the definition revision.
14
Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and
packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No
1907/2006
15
Directive 67/548/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and
administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances.
16
Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 1999 concerning the approximation of the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous
preparations.
17
Information on ecolabels on detergents, including laundry detergents can be found on the following website:
http://www.globalecolabelling.net/categories_7_criteria/list_by_product_category/1301.htm?xhighlightwords=detergents
17
Table 3: Alternative voluntary labelling schemes and standards
Labelling programs Region Product category Date of adoption/last
revision
Denmark, Laundry detergents and stain Version 7.6 – 15 December
18
Finland, Iceland, removers 2011 to 31 December 2017
Nordic Swan
Norway, Laundry detergents for professional Version 3.0 19 March 2014
19
Sweden. use – 31 March 2019
Blue Angel Germany No criteria for laundry detergents N/A
Austrian Ecolabel Austria No criteria for laundry detergents N/A
20
03-2012 Detergents Revised 2012
Czech Ecolabelling Czech Republic 72-2013 Detergents used in industry
21 Revised 2013
and institutions
Bra Miljöval (Good
22
Environmental Sweden Chemical products December 2006
Choice)
BP X30-323-2 Household Heavy
AFNOR-ADEME France 23 December 2012
Duty Laundry Detergents
No categories, only Procter &
P&G Future
UK Gamble products can be awarded Launched in the UK in 2007
Friendly
the label
24 Global (founded Natural detergents and Natural
Ecocert 25 Last revised May 2012
in France) detergents made with organic
GS-48 Laundry Care Products for
26 12 July 2013
Household Use
Green Seal USA
GS-51 Laundry Care Products for 12 July 2013
27
Industrial and Institutional Use
28
EC-02-14 Laundry Detergents January 2014
Environmental
New Zealand EC-38-14 Commercial and
Choice 29 January 2014
Institutional Laundry Detergents
18
Nordic Ecolabelling of Laundry detergents and stain removers, Version 7.6, 15 December 2011 – 31 December 2017. Available from:
http://www.nordic-ecolabel.org/criteria/product-groups/?p=2
19
Nordic Ecolabelling of Laundry detergents for professional use, Version 3.0, 19 March 2014 – 31 March 2019. Available from:
http://www.nordic-ecolabel.org/criteria/product-groups/?p=2
20
Technical Guidelines Detergents, V03, 2012, Ministry of Environment available from: http://www.cenia.cz/web/www/web-
pub2.nsf/$pid/MZPMSFHMV9DV/$FILE/032012.pdf
21
Technical Guidelines Detergents used in industry and institutions, V72, 2013, Ministry of Environment available from:
http://www1.cenia.cz/www/sites/default/files/722013.pdf
22
Good Environmental Choice criteria: Chemical products, Version 2006:4, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, available from:
http://www.naturskyddsforeningen.se/sites/default/files/dokument-media/bra-miljoval-engelska/bmv-kem-chemical-crit.pdf
23
General principles for an environmental communication on mass market products: methodology for the environmental impacts
assessment of household heavy duty laundry detergents, BP X£)-323-2, ADEME, December 2012. Available from: http://www.base-
impacts.ademe.fr/documents/RG_detergents.pdf
24
Ecocert is a certification body and not a program labelling. However, they have also expertise in developing standards, especially related
to detergents that have no petrochemical ingredients. The standards is the result of a partnership between ECOCERT Greenlife, a
certification body in the environmental field, and certain detergent professionals who have long expressed the need to find a solution to
the detergent problems. http://www.ecocert.com/sites/default/files/u3/Natural-Detergents-made-with-Organic-Ecocert-Greenlife-
11.05.2012.pdf
25
Ecocert Standard: Natural detergents and natural detergents made with organic, May 2012, Ecocert Greenlife SAS, available from:
http://www.ecocert.com/sites/default/files/u3/Natural-Detergents-made-with-Organic-Ecocert-Greenlife-11.05.2012.pdf
26
Green Seal GS-48 Standard for Laundry Care Products for Household Use, Edition 1.1, July 2013. Available from:
http://www.greenseal.org/GreenBusiness/Standards.aspx?vid=ViewStandardDetail&cid=0&sid=35
27
Green Seal GS-51 Standard for Laundry Care Products for Industrial and Institutional Use, Edition 1.2, March 2014. Available from:
http://www.greenseal.org/GreenBusiness/Standards.aspx?vid=ViewStandardDetail&cid=0&sid=43
28
The New Zealand Ecolabelling Trust Licence Criteria for Laundry Detergents, EC-02-14. Available from:
http://www.environmentalchoice.org.nz/docs/publishedspecifications/ec0214_laundry_detergents.pdf
29
The New Zealand Ecolabelling Trust Licence Criteria for Commercial and Institutional Laundry Detergents, EC-38-14. Available from:
http://www.environmentalchoice.org.nz/docs/publishedspecifications/ec3814_commercial__institutional_laundry.pdf
18
Labelling programs Region Product category Date of adoption/last
revision
30
EL307 Liquid Laundry Detergents 2008
31
Korea Eco-Label Korea EL 302 Powder laundry detergents 1998
32
EL306 Fabric Softeners 2008
Singapore Green 33 Launched in 1992. Criteria
Singapore Laundry Detergents
Label last issued May 2013
Greenmark 34
Chinese Taipei Laundry Detergents 1995 (revised 2013)
Program
Cradle to Cradle USA No product specific categories Last revised January 2013
Good
35
Environmental Australia Cleaning products Last revised November 2011
Choice Australia
Nordic Swan36: The Nordic Swan became the official ecolabel for the Nordic countries in
1989. It is a voluntary scheme that uses a life cycle based approach to evaluate a
product’s impact on the environment. At present there are 63 product categories covered
by the Nordic Swan; these include products and services. Each Nordic country has a
national office which is responsible for licensing, auditing, marketing and criteria
development. As per the EU Ecolabel, the Nordic Swan uses the same DID list for data on
ingredient ecotoxicity and degradability.
Czech Ecolabelling37: The Czech Ecolabel was launched in 1994 and is administered by
CENIA, the Czech Environmental Information Agency. The Czech Ecolabel covers a wide
range of products and services; for many of these it employs the EU Ecolabel criteria.
The criteria for product groups which exist in both labelling schemes are gradually being
unified. At present the Czech Ecolabel has published its own criteria for LD and IILD;
however, these will gradually become discontinued and the EU Ecolabel criteria for these
product groups will be used instead.
Bra Miljöval (Good Environmental Choice) 38: Good Environmental Choice (Bra
Miljöval in Swedish), is the ecolabelling system established by the Swedish Society for
Nature Conservation. A life-cycle analysis based approach is employed for the testing and
award procedure. At present the system covers 11 product areas including chemical
products. For detergents the criteria sets limits on aquatic toxicity and biodegradability.
The scheme sets limits by ingredient type, for instance solvents or complexing agents.
For biodegradability, OECD 301 or an equivalent test must be used; surfactants must be
anaerobically in accordance with ISO 11734. The toxicity of chemical substances to
aquatic organisms, where possible, should be specified in accordance with OECD 201-
203.
30
Korea Eco-Label: Liquid laundry detergents, EL307-2008. Available from: http://el.keiti.re.kr/enservice/enpage.do?mMenu=2&sMenu=1
31
Korea Eco-Label: Powder laundry detergents, EL307-1998. Available from:
http://el.keiti.re.kr/enservice/enpage.do?mMenu=2&sMenu=1
32
Korea Eco-Label: Fabric softeners, EL307-2008. Available from: http://el.keiti.re.kr/enservice/enpage.do?mMenu=2&sMenu=1
33
Singapore Green Labelling Scheme Certification Guide: Laundry Detergents, May 2013. Available from:
http://www.sec.org.sg/sgls/standards-criteria.php
34
Green Mark, Laundry Detergents, General No:24, Classified No: L-01, 1995. Available from:
http://greenliving.epa.gov.tw/GreenLife/uploadfiles/Criteria/24/02caeed6-847c-411b-9209-0f5823989625.pdf
35
Good Environmental Choice Australia, Environmental performance standard: Cleaning products, Standard no: CP V2.2-2012, issued
November 2013. Available from: http://www.geca.org.au/media/medialibrary/2013/11/CPv2.2-
2012_Cleaning_Products_Standard_Final.pdf
36
More information available at: http://www.nordic-ecolabel.org/
37
More information available at: http://www1.cenia.cz/www/ekoznaceni/ekologicky-setrne-vyrobky
38
More information available at: http://www.naturskyddsforeningen.se/in-english
19
AFNOR-ADEME39: In France the General Directorate for Sustainable Development
manages the implementation of environmental impact labels for consumer goods. The
labels aim to target all products and not only those with the best environmental
characteristics; this is in order to make purchasing decisions easier for consumers.
P&G Future Friendly40: Future Friendly is a private label, in such that it can only be
awarded to Procter & Gamble products. It was established in 2007 by a partnership
between P&G and sustainability experts including Energy Saving Trust, Waste Watch and
Waterwise.
Ecocert41: Ecocert is an inspection and certification body founded in France in 1991,
their focus is on sustainable development and organic agricultural products. Ecocert
develops internationally recognised standards for products, systems and services. The
product categories include natural cleaning products, paintings and coatings from natural
origins and inputs eligible for use in organic farming. The basic principle of the scheme is
to protect our planet and its resources, to protect and inform the consumer and to reduce
unnecessary waste and discharges. In France Ecocert is accredited by the French
Accreditation Committee (Cofrac)
Green Seal42: Green Seal is an independent non-profit certification organisation that
operates in the USA and was established in 1989. Green Seal uses a lifecycle approach to
evaluate the environmental impacts of products, services and companies. It develops its
label with input from industry, government, academia and the public.
Environmental Choice (New Zealand): The Environmental Choice ecolabel is operated
by the New Zealand Ecolabelling Trust and is endorsed by the New Zealand government.
The ecolabel was launched in 1992 and has standards based on life cycle considerations
for a wide range of products, services and companies.
Korea Eco-Label 43: The Korean Eco-Label was launched by the government of the
Republic of Korea in 1992. The label uses a life cycle based approach and is verified by
an independent organisation. The Korea Eco-Label covers a wide range of products and
services.
Singapore Green Label: The Singapore Green Label Scheme was launched by the
Ministry of the Environment in 1992. Since 1995 the scheme has been run by the
Singapore Environment Council, which is an independently managed non-profit and non-
governmental organisation. The green label considers overall product environmental
impacts such as raw materials, manufacturing process, health impacts and disposal. The
label covers a wide range of products, but does not cover services and processes. In
addition there are five levels of certification: basic, bronze, silver, gold and platinum.
Products are scored across all five criteria categories and the overall certification level is
equal to the lowest score in any category.
Greenmark Program44: The Green Mark Program was founded in 1992 and is the
official voluntary Ecolabel in Chinese Taipei. The program is run by the Environmental
Protection Agency. It aims to promote recycling, pollution reduction and resource
conservation. The Green Mark Ecolabel covers 117 product categories including cleaning
products, office equipment and home appliances.
39
More information available at: http://www2.ademe.fr/
40
More information available at: http://www.pg.com/en_UK/sustainability/environmental-sustainability/pg-future-friendly.shtml
41
More information available at: http://www.ecocert.com/
For the detergent standards check: http://www.ecocert.com/sites/default/files/u3/Natural-Detergents-made-with-Organic-Ecocert-
Greenlife-11.05.2012.pdf
42
More information available at: http://www.greenseal.org/Home.aspx
43
More information available at: http://el.keiti.re.kr/enservice/enindex.do
44
More information available at: http://greenliving.epa.gov.tw/GreenLife/eng/english.aspx
20
Good Environmental Choice Australia: The Australian Good Environmental Choice
program was launched in November 2011 and is currently managed by a non-profit
organisation. The program is compliant with ISO 14024 and provides standards for a
wide range of products and services.45 The scheme aims to enable consumers to choose
certified products and standards and have confidence that they have a lower impact on
the environment, human health and address important social considerations.
The Charter for Sustainable Cleaning: This charter is a voluntary initiative of A.I.S.E,
the International Association for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance Products.46
Although it is not a national labelling scheme it is relevant for the revision of the The
Charter aims to encourage both consumers and industry to adopt more sustainable
approaches to cleaning. The Charter is based on a lifecycle analysis and covers
initiatives and activities ranging from human and environmental safety of chemicals and
products to eco-efficiency, occupational health and safety, resource use and consumer
information. The Charter has advanced sustainability profiles (ASPs) for the following
categories of laundry detergent products: household solid laundry detergents, household
liquid laundry detergents and household fabric conditioners. The ASPs are sustainability
criteria which have been created for each A.I.S.E. product category using a life cycle
approach. However, there are no limits values set for environmental impacts such as
aquatic toxicity and biodegradability. The ASP for a given product category describes the
product group characteristics which the industry considers to represent a good
sustainability profile. For laundry detergents the ASPs have criteria covering the product
formulation, packaging, wash temperature, end user information and performance.
Applicant companies are assessed by independent verification in order to certify that the
company has the required Charter Sustainability Procedures (CSPs) in place, under
control and adequately applied. In addition, all ordinary company members of the charter
must report annually to A.I.S.E. on a set of key performance indicators (KPIs). The KPIs
report on the use of poorly biodegradable organics, the packaging used, water
consumed, waste and the percentage of production which is compliant with ASPs and
other indicators.
In addition to taking on board feedback from the stakeholders, the current scope and
definition of the different ecolabels in categories related to laundry detergents have been
reviewed as shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Product group definitions and scope of alternative voluntary labelling schemes
Labelling Product Definitions & scope
programs category
Laundry detergents and pre-treatment stain removers whether in powder, liquid or any
other form which are marketed and used for the washing of textiles principally in
Laundry detergents
household machines but not excluding their use in laundrettes and common laundries.
EU Ecolabel
Pre-treatment stain removers include stain removers used for direct spot treatment of
textiles (before washing in the machine) but do not include stain removers dosed in the
washing machine and stain removers dedicated to other uses besides pre-treatment.
45
ISO 14024:1999 Environmental labels and declarations – Type I environmental labelling – Principles and procedures. More information
available at: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=23145
46
More information available at: http://www.sustainable-cleaning.com/en.home.orb
21
programs category
Laundry detergent products performed by professional users in the industrial and
Industrial and institutional

institutional sector. Included in this product group are multi-component-systems
laundry detergents
constituting of more than one component used to build up a complete detergent or a
laundering program for automatic dosing system.
This product group shall not comprise products for obtaining textile attributes such as
water-repellent, waterproof or fire-proof, etc.
Furthermore, the product group shall not comprise products that are dosed by carriers
such as sheets, cloths or other materials, as well as washing auxiliaries used without
subsequent washing, such as stain removers for carpets and furniture upholstery.
The product group encompasses laundry detergents and stain removers in powder,
tablets, liquids, gel or any other form. The products shall be used for washing of
Laundry detergents and stain removers
textiles, and are intended to be used in household machines, but not excluding the use
in launderettes and common laundries. The ecolabel criteria distinguish between
heavy-duty detergents and low-duty detergents.
Heavy-duty detergents are defined as detergents used for regular washing of white and
(domestic use)
coloured textiles at any temperature.

Low-duty detergents are defined as detergents promoting special fabric care: e.g. use
for delicate fabrics such as viscose, wool, silk, microfiber or other fabric requiring
special care. Special care could be e.g. no bleach, no enzymes and gentle wash in
excess water. Liquid detergents for normal washing of white and coloured textiles are
not considered low-duty detergents.
The product group does not comprise products that are exclusively used for hand-
The Nordic Swan
washing and products that are dosed via carriers such as sheets, cloths or other
materials. The product group does not comprise multiple function detergents such as
“2 in 1” products with both detergent and fabric softening effects/claims.
Products intended for laundering textiles in water, and that are intended for use by
large-scale consumers and professional users. The criteria apply to both complete
Laundry detergents for professional use
powders and complete liquid detergents, and multi-component systems (where rinsing
agent and stain remover may also be included). Fabric softeners and stain removing
agents may also be Nordic Ecolabelled when they are constituents of a multi-
component system.
Multi-component systems are detergent systems based on the use of various
components to form a complete detergent, a stock solution, or a wash programme for
automatic dosing. This type of system may include several products, such as pre-wash
agent, main detergent, wash booster, bleaching agent, fabric conditioner, disinfectants,
neutralizing agents and detergent for delicate fabrics.
The criteria apply to all products that come into contact with the laundry during
washing, but do not apply to special impregnating agents that have, for example, a
water-repelling or flame-retardant function. Dyes for colouring textiles are not covered
by this product group. Products with specifically added microorganisms are also not
included in the product group definition.
Household laundry detergents category includes concentrated and ultra-concentrated
Heavy Duty LD
BP X30-323-2
laundry washing liquid, regular laundry washing liquid and regular laundry washing
Household
47
AFNOR-
ADEME
powder. Hand wash is not covered.
47
General principles for an environmental communication on mass market products: methodology for the environmental impacts
assessment of household heavy duty laundry detergents, BP X£)-323-2, ADEME, December 2012.
22
programs category
Refers to EU Ecolabel criteria (Commission Decision 2011/264/EU) for category
Detergents
definition.
48
Czech Ecolabelling
Refers to EU Ecolabel criteria (Commission Decision 2012/271/EU) for category

Detergents
definition.
II
Laundry detergents - products that are used for hand washing and machine washing of
Bra Miljöval
Env Choice)
Chemical
products
textiles.
(Good
Fabric softeners: products that are added to textiles to make them softer and to reduce
static.
Stain removers: Products that remove stains or discolouration from textiles.
Products that can be certified: laundry pre-wash, everyday laundry detergents (and
GS-48 Laundry
for Household
Care Products
combination products), fine washable laundry detergents, spot removers, stain

removers, bleaches, antimicrobial pesticide products for home health care, laundry
Use
detergents sold in Laundromat dispensers, fabric softeners (liquids and single-use dryer
sheets), anti-static products (liquids and single use sheets), anti-wrinkle products, fabric
Green Seal (USA)
protectants, fabric refreshers, starch, sizing and fabric finish.

Products that can be certified: laundry prewash, laundry detergents (complete/built
detergent and multi-component systems), home-style detergents (used in a home-
Care Products for
GS-51 II Laundry
style machine in the industrial and institutional market), spot removers, stain
removers, bleaches, antimicrobial pesticide products used in I&I laundries for health
care and food service, builders (water conditioners), alkali boosters, laundry sours,
antichlor products, fabric softeners (liquids & single-use dryer sheets), anti-static
products, anti-wrinkle products, fabric protectants, fabric refreshers, starch, sizing,
fabric finish.
All laundry detergent, soaps, bleaches; in powder, liquid or any other form; for washing
Detergents
EC-02-14
Laundry
textiles; and which are intended to be used principally in household machines, but not
excluding the use in laundrettes and common laundries.
Env Choice New Zealand
Products intended for laundering textiles in water by professional or commercial users

like institutional/industrial users and other large-scale consumers. The product group
covers complete powders and complete liquid detergents as well as a multi-component
system, Softeners, rinsing agents and stain removers are also covered by these criteria.
EC-38-14 Commercial and
A multi-component system is a detergent system based on components used to build

up a complete detergent, stock solution or a laundering programme for automatic
dosing. This system may incorporate a number of products such as pre-wash agents,
basic detergents, washing strengtheners, bleaching agents, rinsing agents and special
detergents for laundering delicates. Special impregnating agents with a water-repelling
or flame-retarding function are not covered. Products which are intended to be used
principally in household machines or those used by the general public in laundrettes
and common laundries.
48
Technical Guidelines Detergents used in industry and institutions, V72, 2013, Ministry of Environment available from:
http://www1.cenia.cz/www/sites/default/files/722013.pdf
23
programs category
This category establishes criteria for all laundry detergents in powder and liquid/gel
Detergents
Singapore
form, for washing textiles; and which are intended to be used principally in household
Green
Label
Laundry machines, but not excluding the use in laundrettes and common laundries.
Laundry detergents for household washers, which include powder type, small particle
Powder LD
type and sheet type detergents.

EL302.
49
Korea Eco-Label
Liquid laundry detergent which is used in home washing machines.

liquid LD
EL307
Fabric softeners used to soften fabric in the final phase of rinse and to prevent the
softeners
generation of static electricity when fabric products, such as clothes are washed at
general households.
Fabric
EL306
The products included in the scope and definition of the different ecolabels varies
considerably. The Green Seal Ecolabel covers all categories and types of laundry care
products and so, in defining the scope, takes a different approach to the EU Ecolabel. A
better comparison is the Nordic Swan Ecolabel. For LD the main difference in product
scope is that the Nordic Swan covers stain removers in any form, whereas EU Ecolabel
only covers pre-wash stain removers. The New Zealand Environmental Choice label for
LD also has a wider product scope.
For IILD the EU Ecolabel has a similar product group definition to both the Nordic Swan
and the Environmental Choice ecolabels. The definitions used in the other ecolabels are
more detailed which is likely to help avoid confusion over which products are covered.
For instance the Environmental Choice label defines a multi-component system as “… a
detergent system based on components used to build up a complete detergent, stock
solution or a laundering programme for automatic dosing. This system may incorporate a
number of products such as pre-wash agents, basic detergents, washing strengtheners,
bleaching agents, rinsing agents and special detergents for laundering delicates”. In
addition, like the EU Ecolabel these ecolabels exclude special impregnating agents from
their scope.
An overview of the requirements of the criteria documents for different ecolabels for LD is
given in Table 5 and Table 6, for DD and IILD respectively. The excluded substances for
different ecolabels are compared in Table 7. All of the criteria documents for the
ecolabels listed in Table 4 were examined, however, only those which have a similar
scope to the EU Ecolabel were included. Please note that for ease of comparison, some
details of environmental criteria for LDs have been excluded. The criteria for the Czech
Ecolabel have been excluded based on their similarity to the EU Ecolabel.
49
http://el.keiti.re.kr/enservice/enpage.do?mMenu=2&sMenu=1
24
Table 5: Overview of the requirements of different ecolabels for consumer laundry detergents
EU Ecolabel Nordic Swan Environmental Choice New Zealand Bra Miljöval (Good Singapore Green
(laundry detergents) (laundry detergents) (laundry detergents) Environmental Choice) Label Scheme
(laundry detergents)
Limited substances
Fragrances: any ingredients added to the Fragrances: Fragrances encompassed by Fragrances: Fragrances must be Fragrances: No more than 0.50 % by Fragrances: all
product as a fragrance shall be the declaration requirement in the produced and used in accordance weight fragrance content is fragrances
manufactured and handled following the Detergents Regulation 648/2004/EEC with the code of practice compiled by permitted in the product. This limit synthesised and
code of practice of the International and its subsequent amendments must IFRA. also applies to concentrated products included in the final
Fragrance Association (IFRA). not be present in quantities >100 ppm that are diluted before use. product must comply
Biocides and preservatives: The
(0.010 %) per substance. Fragrances must be used in with IFRA’s code of
Biocides: the product may only include product may only include biocides in
accordance with the practice.
biocides in order to preserve the Fragrance substances classified with order to preserve the product, and in
recommendations drawn up by IFRA.
product, and in the appropriate dosage H317/R43 and/or H334/R42 can be the appropriate dosage for this Phosphorus:
Nitromusk compounds and polycyclic
for this purpose alone. This does not included, the amounts have to be <0.010 purpose alone. phosphonates are
musk compounds are not permitted
refer to surfactants which may also have % (100 ppm). prohibited from the
This criterion does not apply to in fragrances.
biocidal properties. product. The total
Any ingredients added to the product as ingredients (e.g. quaternary
Phosphorus: Ingredients that contain amount of
a fragrance shall have been ammonium salts) added for other
phosphorus must not be added to the phosphorus shall be
manufactured and/or handled following functions but which may also have
product intentionally. <0.5 %.
the IFRA code of practice. biocidal properties.
Enzymes are approved in products Enzymes: no micro-
Phosphorus: The total content of Enzymes: The enzyme production
that bear the Bra Miljöval label. organism should be
phosphorus in the product is limited to: micro-organism shall be absent from
present in the
the final enzyme preparation. Colouring agents are not permitted.
Product type P (g/kg wash) concluding step of
Heavy-duty LD 0.030 In other products, enzymes must be Complexing agents: Organic any enzyme
(normally soiled) present in liquid form or as a dust- complexing agents must be readily production process.
Low-duty LD 0.030 free granulate. biodegradable according to OECD or Enzymes used in the
(lightly soiled) equivalent test. Product may contain product must be in
Colorants: Colouring agents may be liquid state or anti-
Stain-removers 0.010 a maximum of 2.0 % by weight of
added to liquid products only, dust particulate state.
(in-wash) complexing agent that does not meet
provided they have been approved a
Stain-removers 0.0050 requirement 3.1, but is potentially
food additive or are not bio- Colorants: only dyes
(pre-treatment) biodegradable according to
accumulative. accepted for use in
OECD 302.
food colouring and
Complexing agents: The maximum non-bioaccumulative
Colouring agents: Colouring agents may Solvents: Solvents must be readily
concentration of complexing agents dyes may be used in
be added to liquid products provided biodegradable according to OECD 301
in the product must not exceed 10 the product.
that the colouring agent has been or an equivalent test.
g/kg laundry (dry weight). Citrate
approved for use in foodstuffs or is not shall not be included in this amount. Solvents, preservatives, thickening Heavy metals:
bioaccumulable. agents/ dissolving agents, bleaching specified substances
25
Sensitizing substances: Substances The product must not contain > 0.15 agents must have a bioconcentration are prohibited:
classified as respiratory sensitizers with g phosphonates which are not readily factor (BCF) < 100 according to OECD arsenic, cadmium,
H334/R42 and/or H317/R43 may not be biodegradable per kg laundry (dry 305. If no BCF data is available, log chromium, lead,
used in products. The following are weight) KOW < 3 according to OECD 107 or mercury and zinc.
exempt to this requirement: enzymes 117. Unless found in trace
Heavy metals: Laundry detergents
(added as liquid or encapsulated amounts (under 0.1 %
shall not be formula-ted or Bleaching agents: Hydrogen peroxide
granulates, bleach-catalysts and by weight).
manufactured with compounds or and percarbonate may be stabilised
fragrance.
substances that contain toxic metals, with no more than 0.2 % by weight of Chemical dyes: shall
including arsenic, cadmium, complexing agents that do not meet be within the
chromium, lead or mercury. the requirements for bleaching specified limit of
agents. <0.05 %.
Palm oil and palm kernel oil: the
licence applicant must have an Nitrogen: The nitrogen content of the Optical brighteners:
effective purchasing policy for all product must not exceed 1.0 % by shall be within the
palm oil, palm kernel oil (or weight. specified limit of
derivatives) or raw materials that are <0.05 %.
Fillers must meet the requirements
manufactured from palm kernel oil to
for other additives. For laundry The pH value of the
maximise the use of palm oil and
detergents filler content must not detergent shall be
palm kernel oil from sustainable
exceed 0.5 % by weight. <11.
sources.
Hazardous substances and mixtures

The product or any part of it thereof Products must not be classified The following
shall not contain substances or mixtures according to the classifications listed substances shall not
meeting the classification with the below: be incorporated into
hazard class or categories listed below: the manufacturing
Classifi- Hazard EU Risk process or final
GHS EU Risk Phrase cation statement Phrase product: carcinogens,
Hazard (CLP Reg) mutagens, endocrine
statement H400 N with R50 disruptors such as
Hazardous to
H300 R28 H410 R50/53

environment
reproductive toxins
the aquatic
H301 R25 H411 R52, and phthalates.

H304 R65 H412 R53 or
H310 R27 H413 R52/53
H311 R24 without N
H330 R23/26
H331 R23
H340 R46
26
H341 R68 H300 Xn with
H350 R45 H301 R20, R21,
H350i R49 H302 R22, R65
H351 R40 H304 T with R23,
H360F R60 H310 R24, R25
Acute toxicity
H360D R61 H311 T+ with
H360FD R60/61/60-61 H312 R26, R27,
H360Fd R60/63 H330 R28
H360Df R61/62 H331
H361f R62 H332
H314 C with R34
H361d R63
or R35
corrosion
H361fd R62-63
H362 R64
Skin
H370 R39/23/24/25/26/27/28
H371 R68/20/21/22
H317 Xi with R43
H372 R48/25/24/23
sensitisation
H334 Xn with
respiratory
H373 R48/20/21/22
R42
H400 R50
Skin or
H410 R50-53
H411 R51-53
H412 R52-53 H370 Xn with
H413 R53 H371 R48/20
EUH059 R59 H372 R48/21
Specific target organ toxicity/ repeated
EUH029 R29 H373 R48/22

EUH031 R31 R68/20 T
EUH032 R32 with
EUH070 R39-41 R39/23
R39/24
H334 R42
R39/25
H317 R43
R48/23
R48/24
Derogations: the following substances or R48/25 T+
mixtures are specifically exempted from with
exposure
this requirement: R39/26

R39/27
Substance (CLP EU Risk R39/28
/mixture Reg) Phrase
27
Surfactants H400 R50 Substances in the product must not be
(in conc < 25 classified according to the classifications
% wt) in the table below:
Biocides for H401 R50-53
Classifi- Hazard EU Risk
preservation
H411 R51-52 cation statemt Phrase
purposes
(CLP Reg)
H412 R52-53 H350 Carc with
Carcinogenic
H350i R40, R45
Fragrance H412 R52-53 H351 and/or R49
Enzymes H334 R42
H317 R43
Nitrilo tri- H351 R40
H340 Mut with
acetic acid mutagen-
Germ cell
(NTA) as H341 R46 and/or

R68
impurity in
icity
MGDA and
GLDA H360F Repr with
Bleach H317 R43 H360D R60, R61,
Toxic for
catalysts
duction
H361f R62, R63

repro-
Optical H413 R53 H361d and/or R64

brighteners H362
(only for
heavy duty
LD) The content of substances classified as
environmentally hazardous (according to
Regulation 1272/2008 and Directive
67/548/EEC), must not exceed the
following values:
Dosage (g/kg wash)*(100*concH410 +
10*concH411 + concH412) ≤ 0.18 g/kg
wash,
or
Dosage (g/kg wash)*(100*concR50/53 +
10*concR51/53 + concR52/53) ≤ 0.18
g/kg wash
28
Surfactants
All surfactants must be aerobically and All surfactants must be readily Surfactants must be readily A biodegradability
anaerobically biodegradable. biodegradable and anaerobically biodegradable according to OECD 301 test for anionic
degradable. or an equivalent test. surface active agents/
surfactants is
Surfactants must be 60 %
required:
anaerobically biodegradable in
accordance with ISO 11734 or an  If anionic surfactant
equivalent test. content is more
than 5 % by weight
Surfactants must have a very low
in the product, the
residual content of organo-halogen
biodegradability
compounds – below 100 mg/kg TOX
test needs to be
Surfactants must not be very toxic to performed on the
aquatic organisms (LC50, EC50 and surfactant and it
IC50> 1mg/L). Surfactants must not must be > 90 %
be classified as R50, very toxic to biodegradable.
aquatic organisms.
 If anionic surfactant
If palm oil is used as a raw material in content is below
surfactant production, the surfactant 5 % by weight in the
manufacturer or the palm oil supplier product, it is not
must be a member of the Roundtable necessary to do the
on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) or be biodegradability
able to show that the palm oil used to test.
produce the surfactants comes from
 If cationic or non-
a plantation that is certified in
ionic surfactants are
accordance with RSPO’s sustainable
used, it is not
cultivation rules.
necessary to do the
biodegradability
test.
Biodegradability of
anionic surfactants
should be measured
according to
ISO 7827, 9439,
10707, 10708, 9408,
29
14593 or OECD
methods 310A – F.
Dosage and dosage instructions

The recommended maximum dosage The dosage of the product shall not Dosage instructions shall appear on The recommended dosage must be
amounts are: exceed: the product packages. The stated on the packaging. Products for
Product type Dosage recommended dosages shall be bulk users may have the dosage
Product type g/kg wash specified for ‘normally’ and ‘heavily’ information printed on a data sheet
/kg wash
Heavy-duty LD 14.0 soiled textiles, and for the ranges of or the like. The dosage for consumer
Heavy-duty LD 17.0 g
powder/tablet water hardness appropriate to where products must be stated in litres,
powder/tablet
Heavy-duty LD – 14.0 the product is marketed. decilitres, millilitres or other
Heavy-duty LD – 14.0 ml
liquid/gel measurement units; a phrase of the
liquid/gel
Low-duty detergent 4.5 type “try not to use more than
Low-duty detergent 17.0 g or
17.0 ml Stain-removers (pre- 2.7 needed” should be printed on the
treatment) packaging.
Stain-removers 2.7 ml
*reference water hardness: soft for
(pre-treatment) Products must give good washing
detergents and all levels for stain-
removers results at a dosage not exceeding:
The recommended dosage for middle- Prod type Dosage

hard water must not exceed 130% of the Powder LD 40 g per wash
recommended dosage for soft water. (9 g/kg wash)
The recommended dosage for hard Liquid LD 50 ml/wash
water must not exceed 160% of the (11g/kg wash)
recommended dosage for soft water. Stain removers 40 ml/wash
and bleaching (9ml/kg wash)
If a specific dosage is recommended for agents
lightly soiled textiles, this dosage must Fabric softener 25 ml/wash
not exceed 70% of the recommended
prods (5.5ml/kg wash)
dosage for normally soiled textiles. If a
*Dosage is for soft water in a washing
specific dosage is recommended for
machine that takes a 4-5 kg load.
heavily soiled textiles, this dosage must
not exceed 130 % of the recommended For powder laundry detergents the
dosage for normally soiled textiles. density must be at least 67 g/dL.
If recommendations for both prewash The recommended dosage for
and subsequent wash apply, the total different water hardness levels must
recommended dosage (prewash + be clearly stated on the packaging.
subsequent wash) has to comply with
30
the maximum dosage level.
Water hardness for the recommended
dosage must be stated in German
degrees of hardness (°dH). Water
hardness must be expressed in ranges
that are relevant to the geographic areas
in which the product is on sale.
Toxicity to aquatic environments

The critical dilution volume of the The CDVchronic and CDVacute values must The toxicity of chemical substances to
product must not exceed the following not exceed the following limits: aquatic organisms must be specified,
limits (CDVchronic): giving results for fish, daphnia and
Product type CDVchronic algae (except for preservatives for
Product type CDVchronic
(l/kg wash)
(l/kg wash) which data is only required for fish
Heavy-duty LD 45,000 and daphnia).
Heavy-duty LD 35,000
(normally soiled)
Low-duty LD 20,000
Low-duty LD (lightly 15,000 Complexing agents must not be very
Stain- 3,500 toxic to aquatic organisms (LC50,
soiled)
removers (pre- EC50 and IC50 > 1 mg/L).
Stain-removers 7,500
treatment)
(in-wash) Solvents must not be toxic to aquatic
Stain-removers (pre- 3,500 organisms (LC50, EC50 and IC50 >
treatment) 10 mg/L).
Included solvents must not be
Product type CDVacute (l/kg harmful to aquatic organisms (LC50,
wash) EC50 and IC50 > 100 mg/L).
Heavy-duty LD 100,000
(normally soiled) Preservatives must not be very toxic
Low-duty LD 55,000 to aquatic organisms (LC50 and EC50
(lightly soiled) > 1 mg/L).
Stain-removers 30,000 Thickening agents/ dissolving agents
(in-wash) must not be toxic to aquatic
Stain-removers (pre- 30,000 organisms (LC50, EC50 and IC50 >
treatment) 10 mg/L).
Bleaching agents must not be very
toxic to aquatic organisms (LC50,
31
EC50 and IC50 > 1 mg/L).
Acids must not be toxic to aquatic
organisms (LC50, EC50 and IC50 >
10 mg/L).
Biodegradability of organics
The content of organic substances in the The content of organic substances that Organic ingredients must be readily
product that are aerobically non- are aerobically non- bio-degradable in accordance with
biodegradable (aNBO) or anaerobically biodegradable(aNBO) and/or OECD 301 or an equivalent test.
non-biodegradable (anNBO) shall not anaerobically non-biodegradable
Organic ingredients must be 60 %
exceed the following limits: (anNBO) must not exceed the following
anaerobically biodegradable in
Product type aNBO limits:
accordance with ISO 11734 or an
(g/kg wash)
Product type aNBO equivalent test.
Heavy-duty LD - 1.00
(g/kg wash)
Powder Ingredients that are not fully
Heavy-duty LD 1.00
Heavy-duty LD - 0.55 biodegradable in accordance with
(normally soiled)
Liquid OECD 302 must not exceed a total
Low-duty LD 0.50 concentration of 2 % by weight.
Low-duty LD - 0.55
(lightly soiled)
Powder (additional requirement for laundry
Stain-removers (in- 0.20 detergents)
Low-duty LD - 0.30
wash)
Liquid
Stain-removers 0.10 Preservatives, thickening agents/
Stain-remover 0.10 dissolving agents, bleaching agents
(pre-treatment)
pre-treatment - and acids must be readily
powder biodegradable according to OECD 301
Stain-remover 0.10 Product type anNBO or an equivalent test.
pre-treatment - (g/kg wash)
liquid Heavy-duty LD 1.00
(normally soiled)
Low-duty LD (lightly 0.50
Product type anNBO
soiled)
(g/kg wash)
Stain-removers (in- 0.20
wash)
Powder
Stain-removers 0.10
(pre-treatment)
Liquid
Low-duty LD - 0.55
Powder
32
Low-duty LD - 0.30
Liquid
Stain-remover 0.10
pre-treatment -
powder
Stain-remover 0.10
pre-treatment -
liquid
Origin and traceability of vegetable raw materials
For fatty acids, soap and oils consisting
of ≥ 75% vegetable based materials and
which are present in the final product in
concentrations > 1.0 % (by weight).The
following should be fulfilled:
 The name and geographical origin of
the type of plant species used to
extract the vegetable raw materials
must be specified
 The detergent manufacturer must
furthermore have a written routine
for purchasing of vegetable raw
materials to ensure that it does not
come from environments with a large
need for protection for biological
and/or social reasons and must have
a written policy documenting this.
The vegetable raw materials must
not come from:
a) Protected areas or areas that are
under evaluation for protection
b) Areas with uncertain ownership
or user rights
c) Illegally harvested vegetable raw
materials
33
d) Genetically modified vegetable
raw materials/plans (enzymes and
other GMO use in closed systems
are not included)
Packaging
The weight/utility ratio (WUR) must not The weight/utility ratio of the product For primary packaging the Packaging must be made of
exceed the following values: and its packaging must not exceed the weight/utility ratio must be less than components that are easy to take
following values: or equal to: apart, and each component must
Product WUR consist of a single type of material.
type (g/kg wash) Powders: 1.2 g/kg wash Prod type WUR
Refill packaging that weighs no more
Powders 1.2 (g/kg wash) than 30 % of the weight of the
Others (liquids, tables, gels, etc.): 1.5
Others (liquids, 1.5 Powders – soft 1.50 original packaging is exempted from
g/kg wash.
gels, tablets, water this rule.
capsules) Halogenated plastic must not form part Powders – medium 2.0
of the packaging including the label. water Plastic packaging must be made from
Powders – hard 2.5 polyethylene, polypropylene (PP),
Plastic/paper/cardboard packaging Primary packaging consisting of plastic polyethylene terephthalate or an
water
containing more than 80 % recycled must be labelled according to equivalent plastic. Polyvinyl chloride
Liquids – soft 2.0
material is exempt from this Commission Decision 97/129/EC of 28 (PVC) is not permitted. Plastic
water
requirement. January 1997 or ISO 11469:200 Plastics – packaging must be marked in
Generic identification and marking of Liquids – medium 2.5
water accordance with DIN 6120 or
plastics products or similar. American SPI. It is not necessary to
Liquids – hard 3.0
water mark small parts, such as stoppers, in
this way.
All plastic packaging must be made of At least 80 % of cardboard packaging

plastics that are able to be recycled in must be manufactured from wood
the country where the product is fibre obtained from recycled raw
sold. material. If new raw material is used
for the rest of the cardboard, at least
Primary cardboard packaging shall 30 % of this must be certified by the
consist of 80 % recycled content, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). If
25 % of which must be post- the product content prevents the use
consumer material. of recycled raw materials for
packaging, it is acceptable to use
Information shall be provided to the
cardboard that is 100 % FSC-certified.
Trust on the following:
Only wholly chlorine-free bleaching
34
 The use of refillable containers methods may be used.
 Use of PVC and/or phthalates in As far as possible, the packaging must

packaging comply with REPA’s
recommendations to facilitate
50
recycling. Products that are
intended for sale to consumers must
carry instructions on how the
packaging should be sorted for
recycling in accordance with the
document REPA’s instructions. If the
packaging consists of different
materials, information must also be
given on how the different
components should be recycled.
No metal may be used in the
packaging. Exceptions to this
requirement may be allowed for
large packaging that can be recycled.
Metal may be used in the handles of
buckets that hold 15 litres or more if
the handle can easily be removed
when the packaging is recycled.
Nozzles on packaging such as pump
bottles and trigger sprays are
exempted from this requirement.
Consumer information
The following washing The label/packaging must clearly The laundry detergents shall be Instructions guiding
recommendations shall appear on the indicate the temperature at which the accompanied by instructions for the appropriate use
packaging: product has been performance tested, proper use so as to maximise product of the product to
• Wash at the lowest possible e.g. “Efficient at 40 °C” performance and minimise waste. enhance performance
50
This criterion is only applicable to Sweden, REPA now FTI, for more information see http://www.ftiab.se/
35
temperature. The following washing advices (or These instructions shall include and generate lesser
• Always wash with full load. equivalent) shall appear on the information on reuse, recycling waste (e.g. reuse/
• Dose according to soil and water packaging of laundry detergents (not and/or correct disposal of packaging. recycle and disposal
hardness; follow the dosing instructions. applicable for stain removers). The methods) should be
The applicant shall take suitable steps
• If you are allergic to house dust, always washing advices may be present either available to
to help the consumer respect the
wash bedding at 60 °C. Increase wash as text or symbols. consumers.
recommended dosage, for example
temperature to 60 °C in case of
infectious diseases.  Preferably wash with full load by making available a dosage device Product ingredients
• Using this EU Ecolabel product  Dose correctly according to soil and (for powdered or liquid products), must be clearly visible
water hardness. Overdosing does not and/or by indicating the on the product
according to the dosage instructions will
make the laundry cleaner and is recommended dosage at least in ml packaging in
contribute to the reduction of water
harmful for the environment (for powdered or liquid products). accordance with the
pollution, waste production and energy
consumption.  Reduce the temperature of your labelling criteria
A recommendation shall appear on
normal wash programmes to stated in Article 11 of
the packaging for the consumer to
safeguard the environment 648/2004/EC and the
contact their water supplier or local
Information appearing on the EU  If you are allergic to house dust, authority in order to find out the
amended version in
51 52
Ecolabel: always wash bedding at 60 °C or 907/2006/EC.
degree of hardness of their tap
The logo should be visible and legible. above water.
The use of the EU Ecolabel logo is  Run a 60 °C wash now and again with
a bleach containing detergent (white All laundry detergents must display
protected in primary EU law. The EU
wash powder detergent) and follow on the container a list of product
Ecolabel registration/license number
the machine manufacturer’s ingredients that complies with the
must appear on the product, it must be
recommendations regarding labelling requirements of Article 11 of
legible and clearly visible.
maintenance Regulation (EC) No. 648/2004 of the
The optional label with text box shall  Leave the machine open between European Parliament and of the
contain the following text: washes Council of 31 March 2004 on
Detergents, as amended by
• Reduced impact on aquatic
Regulation (EC) No 907/2006 of 20
ecosystems.
June 2006.
• Limited hazardous substances.
• Performance tested. The following or equivalent words
should be clearly displayed on the
51
Detergents Regulation 648/2004/EC available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:104:0001:0035:en:PDF
52
Amendment 907/2006/EC to Directive 648.2004 available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:168:0005:0010:en:PDF
36
packaging:
“All Laundry Detergents have an
effect on the environment. Always
use the correct dose for maximum
efficiency and minimum
environmental impact. Use the lowest
recommended temperature”
Any proposed changes/ alterations to
this wording must be submitted to
and approved by The Trust.
All labelling shall comply with the
requirements of the HSNO legislation
or the appropriate hazardous
substance legislation for the country
where the product is sold.
All packaging shall include a website
reference where a copy of the
product data sheet can be obtained.
Product claims
Claims on the packaging: Products marketed as cold water No claim or suggestion, on the
In general the claims on the packaging products should pass the performance packaging or by any other means,
shall be documented through test at the lowest indicated temperature shall be made that the product has an
performance testing (e.g. claims of where the effect of the product is stated antimicrobial action.
efficiency at low temperatures, of - but maximum at 20 °C. Reference is still
If the licence holder includes claims
removal of certain stain types, of washed at 40 °C.
relating to the product being ‘natural’
benefits for certain types or colours of
A stain remover must always pass the or ‘plant based’ the licence holder
textiles, or other claims of specific
performance requirements for any shall provide evidence to support the
properties/benefits of the product)
specific stain type for which the product claim, including but not limited to:
claims to be effective.
 the definition used by the licence
If claims are made regarding the content holder to support the ‘natural’ or
of certified raw materials (e.g. ‘plant based’ claim;
organically grown ingredients), the total  the source of all ingredients
content in weight % of these ingredients including whether they are
37
must be clearly stated on the pack. synthetic versions of the chemicals;
and
 evidence of chain of custody where
synthetic versions exist and the
ingredients are non-synthetic
versions
Fitness for use
The product shall comply with the The fitness for use shall be documented The product shall be fit for its
performance requirements as specified by use of the Nordic Ecolabelling intended use and conform as
in the EU Ecolabel laundry detergents Performance Test for laundry detergents appropriate to relevant product
performance test’s latest version. and stain removers. performance standards. Performance
of the product with respect to both
For detergents for white wash and for
cleaning ability (ability to remove
stain removers the performance of the
soil) and cleaning performance (the
products must by the recommended
total amount of soil removed per
dosage on normally soiled clothing be
wash) must be assessed.
satisfactory at 40 °C compared to the
reference detergent tested at 40 °C.
For detergents for delicates the
performance must be satisfactory at the
recommended dosage to lightly soiled.
Further information on the performance
test can be found in the criteria
documents.
Points scoring system

The points scoring system (max=8,
min=3) has the objective of (1)
promoting cold water and low-
temperature products and (2) promoting
products with very low emissions of
hazardous substances to the
environment.
Waste management
The licence applicant/ holder and
product manufacturer must have
38
effective waste management policies
and procedures and/or a waste
management programme. In addition
licence holders must report annually
to The Trust on waste management.
Energy management
The licence applicant/holder and Effective energy
product manufacturer must have management policies
effective energy management and procedures
policies and procedures and/or an and/or an energy
energy management programme. In management
addition licence holders must report program must be in
annually to The Trust on energy existence or
management. proposed.
Bio-concentration factor (BCF)

Ingredients must have a BCF of <100
according to OECD 305. If no BCF
data is available, log Kow < 3 according
to OECD 107 or 117. Exceptions may
be made if any of the following
requirements are met:
a) the ingredient must not be harmful
to aquatic organisms (LC50, EC50 and
IC50 > 100 mg/L).
b) it can be shown that the ingredient
is quickly broken down into
substances whose BCF or log Kow
satisfies the requirements.
Acids must have a bioconcentration
factor (BCF) of less than 100
according to OECD 305. If no BCF
data is available, log Kow < 3 according
to OECD 107 or 117.
39
Water content
For heavy-duty and liquid laundry
detergents water content must not
exceed 75 % by weight. For stain
removers and bleach the water
content must not exceed 81 % by
weight. For fabric softeners the water
content must not exceed 85 % by
weight.
duty detergents and medium water hardness and lightly soiled

fabric.
A.I.S.E. Charter for Sustainable Cleaning
- Packaging: Total (primary + secondary but excluding tertiary)
Beside the five national ecolabels listed above, the A.I.S.E.
packaging g/job:
Charter for Sustainable Cleaning also contains a restrained
number of criteria that are of interest for the revision of the EU
Product type WUR (g/ job)
Ecolabel:
- Limited substances: Product formulation must pass Powders & tabs ≤6.5 g
successfully Environmental Safety Check (ESC) on all
ingredients. Liquids ≤7.0 g
- Dosage and dosage instructions: The maximum dosage Fabric soften-ers ≤4 g

limits are:
Board packaging – recycled content
Product type ml/ job
Powder (and tablets) – minimum requirement of ≥ 60 % OR
Powder detergent (and tablets) ≤ 75 g /job or ≤ 115 where 100 % of the board used is certified made from fibre
sourced from sustainable forests under an endorsed certification
Liquid deter-gents ≤ 75 standard such as FSC, SFU or PEFC: no minimum.
Packaging recycled content: Liquids and fabric softeners. Primary
Fabric conditioners ≤ 35
packaging: no minimum, but any recycled plastic content is
excluded from calculation of packaging weight per job.
Based on the standard washing machine load of 4.5 kg of dry
Secondary packaging: Board ≥ 60 %.
fabric for heavy-duty detergents and 2.5 kg of dry fabric for low-
40
- Consumer information: For powder (and tablets) and liquid - Fitness for use: Evidence has to be provided (in case of
products, ability to wash at≤ 30° C indicated on pack. external verification organised by A.I.S.E.) that the product has
End user information on Cleanright and Safe Use tips must be been performance tested and reached a level acceptable to
displayed on pack. consumers consistent with claims made.
Table 6: Overview of the requirements of different ecolabels for IILDs

EU Ecolabel Industrial and institutional laundry detergents Nordic Swan Laundry detergents for professional use Environmental Choice New Zealand Commercial and
Limited substances
Fragrances: any ingredients added to the product as a Enzymes: Must be liquid of take the form of non-dusting granules. Fragrances: Fragrances must be produced and used in
fragrance shall be manufactured and handled following the accordance with the code of practice compiled by IFRA.
code of practice of the IFRA. Preservatives: may be added in liquid products if the
preservatives are not bioaccumulable. Enzymes: The enzyme production micro-organism shall
Enzymes: Enzymes must be in liquid form or dust-free be absent from the final enzyme preparation.
granulate. Enzymes must be free from micro-organism Dyes: must either be approved for use in foodstuffs or not be Enzymes must be present in liquid form or as a dust-free
remnants from manufacture. bioaccumulative. granulate.
Biocides: the product may only include biocides in order to Complexing agents, phosphonates/phosphonic acids: Biocides and preservatives: The product may only
preserve the product, and in the appropriate dosage for this Phosphonates/phosphonic acids may, in total, be present in include biocides in order to preserve the product, and in
purpose alone. This does not refer to surfactants which may quantities of no more than 0.15 g/kg of articles to be washed. the appropriate dosage for this purpose alone.
also have biocidal properties. This criterion does not apply to ingredients (e.g.
Phosphorus: The total content of phosphorus in the product is quaternary ammonium salts) added for other functions
limited to: but which may also have biocidal properties.
Light soiling: 0.50 g/kg laundry
Medium soiling:1.00 g/kg laundry Colorants: Colouring agents may be added to liquid
Heavy soiling: 1.50 g/kg laundry products only, provided they have been approved a food
additive or are not bioaccumulative.
Complexing agents: The maximum concentration of

complexing agents in the product must not exceed the
following limits:
Light soiling: 0.5 g/kg laundry (dry weight)
Medium soiling: 1.0 g/kg laundry (dry weight)
Heavy soiling: 1.5 g/kg laundry (dry weight). Citrate shall
not be included in this amount.
The product must not contain more than 0.50 g
phosphonates which are not readily (aerobically)
biodegradable per kg laundry (dry weight)
41
Heavy metals: Laundry detergents shall not be
formulated or manufactured with compounds or
substances that contain toxic metals, including arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, lead or mercury.
Palm oil and palm kernel oil: the licence applicant must
have an effective purchasing policy for all palm oil, palm
kernel oil (or derivatives) or raw materials that are
manufactured from palm kernel oil to maximise the use
of palm oil and palm kernel oil from sustainable sources.
Sodium: the total sodium load per wash shall be less

than 21 g/150 litre (0.14 g/L)
Surfactants
All surfactants must be biodegradable under aerobic All surfactants must be aerobically and anaerobically All surfactants must be readily biodegradable and
conditions. All non-ionic and cationic surfactants must also be biodegradable. anaerobically degradable.
biodegradable under anaerobic conditions.
Dosage and dosage instructions
The recommended total dosage for 1 kg of laundry according The recommended dosage for 1 kg of articles to be washed for Dosage instructions shall appear on the product
to the degree of soiling and water hardness shall be given in different levels of soiling and for different water hardness must be packages. The recommended dosages shall be specified
g/kg laundry of ml/kg laundry. All products in a multi- given in ml or g/ 1 kg laundry on the label or in a technical product for ‘normally’ and ‘heavily’ soiled textiles, and for the
component system have to be included with the worst case data sheet. It must be clear for what type of wash the dosage is ranges of water hardness appropriate to where the
dosage when assessments of the criteria are made. recommended. product is marketed.
The product name , or in case of a multi-component system, a
list of all products part of that system, together with the
recommended water hardness (soft, medium or hard) and the
intended degree of soiling shall be provided.
Hazardous substances and mixtures
The product or any part of it thereof shall not contain Products must not be classified according to the classifications Commercial and institutional cleaning products shall not
substances or mixtures meeting the classification with the listed below: be formulated or manufactured with substances (active
hazard class or categories listed below: Classification Hazard EU Risk Phrase content only) that are:
statement i. Classified as Category 1 or Category 2 under the
GHS Hazard EU Risk Phrase (CLP) European Commission priority list developed under
statement Dangerous for aquatic H400 N with R50 the Community strategy for endocrine disruptors;
H300 R28 environment H410 R50/53 R52, ii. Classified under the Hazardous Substances and New
H301 R25 H411 R53 or Organisms Act (HSNO) as: 6.6 (mutagens), 6.7
H304 R65 H412 R52/53 without N (carcinogens), 6.8 (reproductive/developmental
H310 R27 H413 toxins), 9.1B (aquatic ecotoxins).
42
H311 R24 Acute toxicity specific H330 T+ with R26, R27, Any raw ingredient that is classified as 9.1A (aquatic
H330 R23/26 target organ toxicity – H300 R28 and/or R39 ecotoxin) must be readily biodegradable and not
H331 R23 single exposure H370 potentially bioaccumulative.
H340 R46 Acute toxicity specific H301 T with R23, R24,
H341 R68 target organ toxicity – H330 R25, R39 and/or The limits by weight of substances classified 6.5
H350 R45 single and repeated H331 R48 (respiratory and contact sensitisers) shall not exceed 0.1
H350i R49 H370 %.
H351 R40 H372
H360F R60 Harmful to health H332 Xn with R20, R21,
H360D R61 H312 R48, R65 and/or
H360FD R60/61/60-61 H373 R68
H371
H360Fd R60/63
H304
H360Df R61/62
Carcinogenic properties Carc. 1A, T with R45 and/or
H361f R62
1B, 2A, 2B, R49 (Carc1 or
H361d R63
2: H350, Carc2) or Xn with
H361fd R62-63
H350i, R40 (Carc3)
H362 R64 H351
H370 R39/23/24/25/26/27/28
Skin or respiratory H317 Xi with R43 Xn with
H371 R68/20/21/22 sensitisation H334 R42
H372 R48/25/24/23 Mutagenic H340 T with R46 (Mut1 or
H373 R48/20/21/22 H341 Mut2) or Xn with
H400 R50 R68 (Mut3)
H410 R50-53 Toxic for reproduction H360FD T with R60, R61,
H411 R51-53 H361fd R64 and/or R33
H412 R52-53 H373 (Rep1 or Rep2) or
H413 R53 H362 Xn with R62, R63,
EUH059 R59 R64 and/or R33
EUH029 R29
EUH031 R31 Substances in the product must not be classified according to the
EUH032 R32 classifications in the table below:
EUH070 R39-41
H334 R42 Classification Hazard statement EU Risk Phrase
H317 R43 (CLP reg)
Carcinogenic H350 Carc with R40, R45
Derogations: the following substances or mixtures are H350i and/or R49
specifically exempted from this requirement: H351
Allergenic H334 Xn R42 or Xi R43
43
Sub-stance /mixture GHS Hazard EU Risk H317
statement Phrase Mutagenic H340 Mut with R46 and/or
Surfactants (in H341 R68
concentration < 25 % in H400 R50 Toxic for H360F Repr with R60, R61,
the product) reproduction H360D R62, R63 and/or R64
Biocides used for H331 R23 H361f
preservation purposes H334 R42 H361d
H317 R43 H362
H400 R50
Enzymes H334 R42
H317 R43
H400 R50
Bleach catalysts H400 R50
NTA as in impurity in
H351 R40
MGDA and GLDA
Toxicity to aquatic environments
The critical dilution volume of the product must not exceed The CDVchronic and CDVacute values must not exceed the following
the following limits (CDVchronic): limits:
Soft water (0-6 °dH) CDVchronic (L/kg laundry) L/kg laundry Level of soiling
Product type/ Light Medium Heavy Light Medium Heavy
Degree of soiling CDVchronic 140,000 200,000 300,000
Powder 30,000 40,000 50,000 CDVacute 70,000 100,000 150,000
Liquid 50,000 60,000 70,000
Multi-component- 50,000 70,000 90,000
system (MCS)
Medium water (7-13 °dH) CDVchronic (L/kg laundry)

Product type/ Light Mediu Heavy
Degree of soiling m
Powder 40,000 60,000 80,000
Liquid 60,000 75,000 90,000
MCS 60,000 80,000 100,00
0
Hard water (>14 °dH) CDVchronic (l/kg laundry)

Product type/ Light Mediu Heavy
44
Degree of soiling m
Powder 50,000 75,000 90,000
Liquid 75,000 90,000 120,00
0
MCS 75,000 100,00 120,00
0 0
Biodegradability of organics
The content of organic substances in the product that are The total quantity of substances that that are aerobically non-
aerobically non-biodegradable (aNBO) or anaerobically non- biodegradable (aNBO) and/or anaerobically non-biodegradable
biodegradable (anNBO) shall not exceed the following limits: (anNBO) must not exceed the following limits:
aNBO: g/kg laundry Level of soiling

Soft water (0-6 °dH) aNBO (g/kg laundry) Light Medium Heavy
Product type/ Light Mediu Heavy aNBO 0.50 0.85 1.50
Degree of soiling m anNBO 0.50 0.85 1.50
Powder 0.70 1.10 1.40
Liquid 0.50 0.60 0.70
Multi-component system 1.25 1.75 2.50
(MCS)
Medium water (7-13 °dH) aNBO (g/kg laundry)

Product type/ Light Medium Heavy
Degree of soiling
Powder 1.10 1.40 1.75
Liquid 0.60 0.70 0.90
MCS 1.75 2.50 3.75
Hard water (>14 °dH) aNBO (g/kg laundry)

Degree of soiling
Powder 1.40 1.75 2.20
Liquid 0.70 0.90 1.20
MCS 2.50 3.75 4.80
anNBO:
Soft water (0-6 °dH) anNBO (g/kg laundry)
45
Degree of soiling
Powder 0.70 1.10 1.40
Liquid 0.50 0.60 0.70
MCS 1.25 1.75 2.50
Medium water (7-13 °dH) anNBO (g/kg laundry)

Degree of soiling
Powder 1.10 1.40 1.75
Liquid 0.60 0.70 0.90
MCS 1.75 2.50 3.75
Hard water (>14 °dH) anNBO (g/kg laundry)

Degree of soiling
Powder 1.40 1.75 2.20
Liquid 0.70 0.90 1.20
MCS 2.50 3.75 4.80
Packaging
The weight/utility ratio (WUR) must not exceed the following Plastic material must be labelled in accordance with DIN 6120, All plastic packaging must be made of plastics that are
values: Part 2 or equivalent. able to be recycled in the country where the product is
PVC or other halogenated plastics must not be incorporated in sold.
Product type/ WUR (g/kg laundry) either the packaging or the labelling Primary packaging must not be impregnated, labelled,
water hardness Soft Medium Hard coated or otherwise treated in a manner which would
Powders 1.5 2.0 2.5 prevent recycling.
Liquids 2.0 2.5 3.0 Primary cardboard packaging shall consist of 80 %
recycled content, 25 % of which must be post-consumer
Plastic/paper/cardboard packaging containing more than 80 % material.
recycled material or more than 80 % plastic from renewable The primary packaging shall have a WUR less than or
origin is exempt from this requirement. equal to:
Only phthalates that at the time of application have been risk
assessed and have not been classified according to criterion Product type/ WUR (g/kg laundry)
4(b) may be used in any plastic packaging. To allow for water hardness Soft Medium Hard
identification of different parts for recycling, the primary Powders 1.5 2.0 2.5
packaging must be market in accordance with DIN 6120, Part 2 Liquids 2.0 2.5 3.0
or the equivalent. Caps and pumps are exempted from this Information shall be provided to the Trust on the use of
requirement. refillable containers, PVC and/or phthalates used in the
46
packaging.
Washing performance
The primary laundering effects of the detergent, such as dirt The primary laundering effects of the detergent such as dirt The product must be fit for its intended use and
and stain removal, must be documented by the removal and stain removal capacity must be documented by the conform, as appropriate, to relevant product
producer/applicant with the aid of artificially soiled test manufacturer/applicant with the aid of artificially soiled test performance standards. Performance of the product
clothes which are washed in the process. The test may be clothes which are washed in the process. with respect to both cleaning ability (ability to remove
conducted by an external or internal laboratory fulfilling the The test must be conducted by a laboratory fulfilling the soil) and cleaning performance (the total amount of soil
requirements in Appendix II(a). The test must be conducted requirements in annex 4. The test must be conducted with soft removed per dish wash) must be assessed.
with the recommended dosage and at the corresponding water (0-6d°H). The measurements must be performed on
water hardness and the degree of soiling at the lowest unlaundered and laundered test clothes. Evaluation of the test
recommend wash temperature. The measurements must be results shall be made by the laboratory and it shall be clearly
performed on unlaundered and laundered test clothes. The stated in the report.
laboratory’s evaluation of the test results shall be clearly The measurements of the secondary effects such as bleaching
stated in the report. effect, bleaching factor, ash content, greying and fluidity increase
The measurements of secondary effects such as bleaching, shall be made with multi wash test clothes and analysed according
bleaching/damage factor, ash content, greying and fluidity to ISO 4312.
increase can be made with multi wash test clothes and
analysed according to ISO 4312.
Automatic dosing systems
The existing criteria state that multi-component systems shall Customer visits to customers who use automatic dosing systems
be offered to the customer together with an automatic and must be incorporated as a normal routine at
controlled dosing system. This must incorporate customer manufacturers/suppliers. Customer visits must be performed
visits which: ensure correct dosage; are performed at during the term of the licence in accordance with the suppliers’
customers’ premises; take place at least once a year during the routines and in accordance with agreements with the customer in
license period; as a minimum must include calibration of question. Customer visits can also be made by a third party.
dosage equipment; can be performed by a third party.
User information
Under the existing criteria, the following washing The detergent must be accompanied by instructions for
recommendations shall appear on the packaging: proper use so as to maximise product performance and
 Wash at the lowest possible temperature. minimise waste. These instructions shall include
 Always wash with full load. information on reuse, recycling and/or correct disposal
 Dose according to soil and water hardness; follow the dosing of packaging.
instructions. The label, or an accompanying technical product data
 If you are allergic to house dust, always wash bedding at 60 sheet, must include details of the recommended dosage
°C. Increase wash temperature to 60 °C in case of infectious (in ml or g) for one kg of laundry to be washed for
diseases. different levels of soiling and for different water
 Using this EU Ecolabel product according to the dosage hardness.
The following or equivalent words should be clearly
47
instructions will contribute to the reduction of water displayed on the packaging:
pollution, waste production and energy consumption. “All detergents have an effect on the environment.
Always use the correct dose for maximum efficiency and
minimum environmental impact.”
Any proposed changes/ alterations to this wording must

be submitted to and approved by The Trust.
Claims
Claims on the packaging: No claim or suggestion, on the packaging or by any other
In general the claims on the packaging shall be documented means, shall be made that the product has an
through performance testing (e.g. claims of efficiency at low antimicrobial action.
temperatures, of removal of certain stain types, of benefits for If the licence holder includes claims relating to the
certain types or colours of textiles, or other claims of specific product being ‘natural’ or ‘plant based’ the licence
properties/benefits of the product). holder shall provide evidence to support the claim,
including but not limited to:
 the definition used by the licence holder to support the
‘natural’ or ‘plant based’ claim;
 the source of all ingredients including whether they are
synthetic versions of the chemicals; and
 evidence of chain of custody where synthetic versions
exist and the ingredients are non-synthetic versions.
Waste management
The licence applicant/holder and product manufacturer
must have effective waste management policies and
procedures and/or a waste management programme. In
addition licence holders must report annually to The
Trust on waste management.
Energy management
The licence applicant/holder and product manufacturer
must have effective energy management policies and
procedures and/or an energy management programme.
In addition licence holders must report annually to The
Trust on energy management.
Table 7: Comparison of excluded substances

Substance EU Ecolabel Nordic Swan Environmental Choice New Zealand Singapore Green Label
48
LD IILD LD Professional LD LD Commercial and LD
Institutional LD
Separate criterion Separate criterion Separate criterion on
Phosphates X X on phosphorus on phosphorus X phosphorus compounds
compounds compounds
APEO and ADP derivatives X X X X X
Ethylenediaminetetracetic acid X
X X X X X X
(EDTA)
Nitro-musks and polycyclic musks X X X X X X
Reactive chlorine compounds X X X
Chlorine-based bleach X X
Linear alkylbenzene sulphonate X
diallyl dimethyl ammonium chloride
X
(DADMAC)
Perfluorinated and polyfluorinated
X
alkylated compounds (PFAS)
Boric acid and borates X
Derogations
Optical brighteners X X X X
apply
Derogations Derogations
Nitrilo tri-acetic acid (NTA) X X X
apply apply
Special Special
Special exemptions
Fragrances exemptions exemptions X
apply
apply apply
Triclosan X
Persistent, bio-accumulable and
toxic (PBT) substances – X X
Annex XIII of REACH
Very persistent and very bio-
accumulable (vPvB) – Annex XIII or X X
REACH
Substances on the EU’s list of 118
substances documented to cause X X X X
endocrine disruption
Halogenated flame retardants X
Nanoparticles compromising metal,
X
carbon or fluorine compounds
49
Substance EU Ecolabel Nordic Swan Environmental Choice New Zealand Singapore Green Label
LD IILD LD Professional LD LD Commercial and LD
Institutional LD
Quaternary ammonium salts that
X X
are not readily biodegradable
Heavy metals (As, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg) X X
Formaldehyde
Benzophenone UV adsorbers
Opacifiers X
Perborates X
50
2.6 The need for separate criteria for LD and IILD
2.6.1 Stakeholder feedback

In the initial stage of the study the potential for merging LD and IILD criteria was
analysed. Nearly 80 % of respondents to the stakeholder questionnaire thought that they
should remain as two separate sets of criteria. The following reasons for keeping the two
separate were received as feedback from stakeholders:
 They are used in different ways and as a consequence need different performance
tests.
 The products contain different ingredients and are two completely different
approaches to washing textiles.
 It would be very difficult and confusing to merge the criteria.
 There are major differences in regulation, product dosage, formula, applications,
conditions, washing procedure and device characteristics.
However, three of the respondents suggested that the criteria should be merged as, in
their opinion, LD and IILD are actually the same products and have the same purpose
and, instead, pre-wash detergents should have separate criteria.
A review of other national ecolabelling schemes has revealed that their criteria are
separate for domestic/ household and industrial/professional laundry detergents (Section
2.5). For instance, the New Zealand Ecolabelling Trust quotes the following in its criteria
document for commercial and institutional laundry detergents: “Commercial and
institutional laundry products are likely to have tougher performance expectations than
household products. Due to the performance expectations required of professional
laundry products, it is appropriate to have different environmental criteria than for
household products in order to ensure that the products can perform as required.” The
Nordic Swan label also has separate criteria for ‘laundry detergents and stain removers’
and ‘laundry detergents for professional use’. In general LD and IILD are only merged in
criteria documents when they are treated as wider product groups - for example,
detergents or chemical products as a whole - which is the approach taken be by the
Swedish Good Environmental Choice Label.
2.6.2 Differences between LD and IILD products

In order to form a balanced argument for and against merging LD and IILD criteria, it is
important to fully understand the differences in the products which are covered by these
categories and how they are used. IILD only account for around 4 % of the total laundry
detergents market. In terms of market value, this is equivalent to €642 million (in
2012)53. Compared to household products they are used in a wide range of locations
including hotels, restaurants, food production and processing, contract cleaners,
professional laundries, hospitals and nursing homes.
The products and services provided by the IILD market cater for specialist cleaning and
hygiene needs. Not only is the customer base vastly different but so are the needs
required from the products, compared to the market for domestic laundry products. In
contrast to the household sector, often IILD users do not simply purchase a detergent
product; rather they buy a full service whereby the formulations are specific to their
laundry needs. For IILD users, more care and attention is given to the dosage rates, and
53
Euromonitor International, cited on A.I.S.E website http://www.aise.eu/our-industry/market-and-economic-data.aspx
51
often automatic dosing systems are used. This not only cuts down on product wastage
and therefore cost but also impacts on the environmental performance of textile washing.
In contrast, users of household detergents are more likely to over-dose with laundry
detergent. As a consequence, more stringent user information and dosage requirements
are needed for the Ecolabel criteria for LD compared to IILD.
To further characterise the differences between LD and IILD, the typical users, wash
performance requirements and washing processes and equipment are outlined below.
2.6.2.1 Typical users and required wash performance

Typically, the IILD market is divided into the following segments 54:
 large commercial laundries and textile leasing companies
 hospital laundries
 large on-premises laundries
 small on-premises laundries.
These classifications cover a wide range of industries and institutions including: hospitals,
nursing homes, schools, hotels, prisons, restaurants, contract cleaners, health clubs, food
production and processing and other industries which use textiles. These industries and
institutions are likely to have specific requirements in terms of wash performance (e.g.
spotless white linens for hotels) and types of soiling (e.g. mineral oil from the
engineering industry).
Typical types of soiling and wash performance requirements of users of IILD are54:
 Specific hygiene requirements such as disinfection.
 Maintenance of whiteness, of particular importance for linens used in the
hospitality industry.
 A minimum of ash (detergent and salt residue) left on the fibre.
 Minimal shrinkage and deformation of textiles.
 Fresh and ‘clean’ smell.
 Removal of dirt from engineering industry (e.g. mineral oil and heavy metals).
 Removal of soiling from hospital goods (e.g. blood, faeces, food and pus).
 Removal of soiling from kitchen and food factory wash-goods.
 Minimum colour fading or dye transfer.
 Optimal performance in calenders55 and folding machines.
 Minimum mechanical and chemical damage.
 Optimal soil and stain removal.
Typical stains encountered for domestic and household laundry include:
 food stains such as mustard, chocolate, frying fat, baby food, tomato sauce
 drink stains such as tea, coffee, red wine, fruit juice
 grass
 mud
 blood
 motor oil
 make-up.
54
Industrial and Institutional: Environmental dossier on professional laundry, A.I.S.E., October 2000
55
Calender: a machine used for pressing and ironing textiles used in industrial laundry operations
52
2.6.2.2 Differences in product formulation
Due to the confidentiality of manufacturer product formulations, limited information has
been found regarding the key differences in product formulation between laundry
products intended for household and commercial use. In general IILDs are more
concentrated and highly alkaline compared to their household equivalents. Alkaline
substances are used to improve the performance of detergents; commonly used alkalis
include silicates and sodium hydroxide. Many of the same substances are used in IILDs
and LDs but in varying concentrations. The use of optical brighteners is discouraged in
household laundry detergents, by the existing ecolabels, for instance Nordic Swan and EU
Ecolabel. However, reasons why they are required in professional laundry detergents
include:56
 Improved degree of whiteness, leading to a longer life span – this is especially
important for hotel linen.
 Demand by some institutions for a certain level of whiteness before certifying
laundries.
 New textiles which already have optical brighteners embedded in them may
require a wash process with optical brighteners to maintain their original
whiteness level.
Most large industrial laundries have central water softening equipment, reducing the
need for builders57 in the detergent formulation. Thus, IILDs may contain substantially
lower amounts of builders compared to household equivalents. Some laundries may also
have wastewater treatment facilities which minimise the release of wastewater products.
Due to better sorting, equipment and dosage optimisation systems, professional
laundries use detergents more efficiently than households; they use an estimated
80-90 % less detergent per kg of washing.58 Often modular systems are employed for
professional laundry detergents, where the detergent system consists of an alkali
booster, a sequestrant builder, a surfactant blend, an enzymatic additive and a per-oxy-
bleach, mixed to achieve the optimal wash performance for a specific task.
2.6.2.3 Differences in washing processes and equipment
In general, professional laundering takes place at higher temperatures and uses more
efficient washing machines than domestic laundering.59 The washing machine used will
depend on the type of industry or institution and the wash load volume. Washer
extractors of various sizes, washer dryers and continuous batch tunnel machines are all
used.
The differences in wash load volume, wash programme duration and wash temperature
for different types of washing machine are summarised in Table 8.
60
Table 8: Summary of wash processes by washing machine type
Type of appliance Main customer segment Wash load Duration of Typical temp of
volume typical wash wash programme
programme
Household Household 6 kg 120 min 40 °C
washing machine
Semi-professional Coin & card laundry and 6 kg 35-55 min 40 °C
56
Ecolabel Criteria for Laundry Detergents for Professional Use – Technical report, version 3. Ecolabelling Denmark, 2011
57
The function of builders in laundry detergents is to bind calcium in the water and in the soil on the clothing. Examples of builders include
zeolite, citrate, polycarboxylates, silicates and carbonates.
58
Environmental assessment of laundry detergents, European Textiles Services Association, 2013; from http://www.eco-
forum.dk/detergents/index.htm
59
Nordic Ecolabelling of Laundry detergents for professional use, proposal for consultation, version 3, Nordic Ecolabelling, June 2013
60
Preparatory Studies for Eco-design Requirements of Energy-using Products: Lot24: Professional Washing Machines, Dryers and
Dishwashers, Oeko Institute and BIO Intelligence Service, May 2011
53
washer extractor apartment household laundry
Professional Coin & card laundry and <15 kg 35-55 min 40 °C
washer extractor apartment household laundry
Professional Hospitality laundry 15-40 kg 50 min 60 °C
washer extractor
Professional Commercial industrial laundry >40 kg 30 min 60 °C
washer extractor
Professional Hospitality laundry 6 kg 50-70 min 60 °C
washer dryer
Professional Healthcare hospital laundry 30 kg 45 min >60 °C
barrier washer
Washing tunnel Commercial industrial laundry 1,000-2,000 30 min Pre-rinse 40 °C,
machine kg per hour main wash 70-80 °C,
rinse zone 40 °C
2.6.3 Conclusions
Compared to household users, professional users have different requirements and often
higher expectations of laundry detergents. The evidence presented above suggests that
the washing processes employed are different for professional and household laundry.
Almost 80 % of stakeholders were in agreement with the proposal for the LD and IILD
criteria to remain as two separate criteria. This proposal is in line with the separate
criteria for LD and IILD undertaken by, for example Nordic Swan and New Zealand’s
Environmental Choice.
2.7 Summary of the findings

Very few formal definitions or scope documents for laundry detergents (both domestic
and industrial) or related products have been developed. However, the few which have
been developed (Nordic Swan, Environmental Choice) define the product groups
separately. Based on the evidence gathered in this report (cf. Section 2.6), the EU
Ecolabel should keep the criteria for LD and IILD separate. The stakeholder survey and
review of other ecolabels and voluntary agreements for laundry detergents have been
taken into account when considering the proposed scope and definitions which, for the LD
and IILD product groups, are as follows:
 For LD, we propose that the product group definition shall remain largely the same.
However, the inclusion of fabric softeners and a wider range of stain removers
should be considered as it was viewed favourably by the stakeholders. Further LCA
analysis is proposed to be used to support the inclusion of additional products.
 For IILD, we propose that the product scope shall remain the same and a definition
of multi-component systems should be added for clarity.
Laundry detergents: The product group ‘Laundry Detergents’ shall comprise:
laundry detergents, fabric softeners and stain removers whether in powder, liquid or
any other form which are marketed and used for the washing or textiles principally in
household machines but not excluding their use in laundrettes and common
laundries.
54
Industrial and Institutional laundry detergents: The product group ‘Industrial
and Institutional Laundry Detergents’ shall comprise: laundry detergent products
performed by professional users in the industrial and institutional sector.
Included in this product group are multi-component-systems constituting of more
than one component used to build up a complete detergent or a laundering program
for automatic dosing system. Multi-component systems may incorporate a number of
products including fabric softeners, stain removers and rinsing agents.
This product group shall not comprise products for obtaining textile attributes such
as water-repellent, waterproof or fire-proof, etc. Furthermore, the product group
shall not comprise products that are dosed by carriers such as sheets, cloths or other
materials, as well as washing auxiliaries used without subsequent washing, such as
stain removers for carpets and furniture upholstery.
2.8 Recommendations for revision of existing criteria from the

stakeholders' survey
In the following section, the initial recommendations for revision of the current criteria -
based on feedback received from the stakeholder survey - are presented. The issues
presented have been identified following stakeholder consultation and, where applicable,
from reviews of other ecolabelling schemes for laundry detergents. An initial discussion
on the feasibility and motivations behind each recommendation is also provided.
This examination process will be used to help direct the revision of the criteria and to
highlight areas where further investigation and stakeholder input are required. These
changes have been suggested by stakeholders, and further assessment may be required.
This will be undertaken during the next stage of the revision process and presented in
the technical report. In the technical report the proposals for criteria revision will be
assessed and verified by the results of the technical analysis and/or another applicable
method.
2.8.1 Comparison between LD, IILD and GPP criteria

The characteristics covered by the three different criteria documents - LD, IILD and
Green Public Procurement (GPP) (core and comprehensive criteria) - are summarised in
Table 9. The EU Ecolabel product category for LD has the widest set of criteria. The most
significant difference for the LD product category is the point criterion, describing a series
of other environmental attributes for which a minimum number of points must be met in
order for the product to qualify for the award of an Ecolabel.
Table 9: Comparison of LD, IILD and GPP criteria
Criterion description LD IILD GPP (core) GPP
(comprehensive)
Dosage X X X X
Aquatic toxicity (CDV) X X X
Biodegradability of organics X X
Excluded or limited substances X X X X
Washing performance X X X
Points X
Packaging X X X X
Consumer/user information X X X X
Info on the EU Ecolabel X
55
Criterion description LD IILD GPP (core) GPP
(comprehensive)
Automatic dosing systems X
For consistency between the product categories, further harmonisation should be

considered within each individual criterion. For instance, where the criterion for dosage
for IILD is specified by water hardness, the same should be true for LD. Several of the
stakeholders suggested that, where possible, the list of excluded or limited substances
should be harmonised between the criteria. This will be assessed on a case-by-case basis
during the review process. It has also been noted that the criteria for LD and IILD use
different definitions of water hardness: for the sake of simplification these should be
harmonised where possible.
2.8.2 Assessment and verification of measurement thresholds for

constituents
In this instance the measurement threshold is defined as the concentration of ingredients
in the product for which there is a requirement for documentation of compliance with the
ecological criteria. During the previous LD criteria revision, the measurement thresholds
imposed on ingredient concentration for ecological requirements were reviewed.61 In
the 2003 criteria, the measurement threshold imposed on ingredient concentration for
ecological requirements was set at ≥ 0.1 % by weight of the preparation; this was
changed to ≥ 0.01 % weight of the preparation for all ingoing substances in 2011.
Moreover, in the current criteria, compliance is required for preservatives, colouring
agents and fragrances regardless of their concentration.
As part of the questionnaire, stakeholders were asked for their views on this threshold
and to comment on whether or not they thought it should remain at 0.01 % or change.
The opinion of the stakeholders was split on this matter, with just under 50 % of the
respondents suggesting a reversion to 0.1 % and just over 50 % of the respondents
calling for the thresholds to remain at 0.01 %. The stakeholders gave a variety of
opinions for and against the 0.01 % measurement threshold, such as:
In favour of 0.1 % requirement:
 "Should be 0.1 % unless toxicity of the ingredient requires a lower limit".
 "These limits are also used by REACH and CLP".
 "0.1 % is enough for general ingredients and lower limits should be set for
substances that have special toxicity scale or limits".
In favour of 0.01 % requirement:
 "Remain at 0.01 % because impurities can be present in the product up to
100ppm".
 "In the criteria for all purpose cleaners all the substances, even if the concentration
is lower than 0.01 %, should be taken into account for the CDV calculation. This
has to be changed for laundry detergents too".
 "The threshold should be 0.01 % except for biocides, fragrances and colorants
where it should be stricter.
61
Revision of Ecolabel Criteria for Laundry Detergents: Background Report, Ecolabelling Denmark, 2009.
56
To uphold the environmental credentials of the EU Ecolabel, it is proposed that the
threshold should remain at 0.01 %. No issues have been raised by the stakeholders with
regard to the technical feasibility of this requirement. However, there is an argument for
a variable threshold, whereby stricter limits are applied when necessary. Employing a
variable threshold would further complicate the criteria and application process, which
may deter and hinder applicants. Moreover, other national ecolabelling schemes use the
0.01 % threshold and it would be detrimental for the EU Ecolabel to appear less strict on
ecological criteria. At this stage we recommend that the measurement threshold imposed
on ingredient concentrations for ecological requirements is not changed.
2.8.3 Criteria for LD product category

2.8.3.1 Criterion 1: Dosage requirements
Current criteria:
The recommended maximum dosage amounts in the current criteria are:
Product type Dosage, powder/tablet Dosage, liquid/gel

Heavy-duty laundry detergent, colour-safe detergent 17.0 g/kg wash 17.0 ml/kg wash
Low-duty detergent 17.0 g/kg wash 17.0 ml/kg wash
Stain remover (pre-treatment only) 2.7 g/kg wash 2.7 ml/kg wash
Dosage corresponds to grams or millimetres of product used per kilogram wash. Heavy-duty detergents are defined as detergents used for
ordinary washing of white and coloured textiles at any temperature. Low-duty detergents are defined as detergents promoting special
fabric care, e.g. delicate fabrics such as wool and silk or for delicate colours.
Proposed changes from Further information from feedback

stakeholder feedback
1) For Nordic Swan the Three respondents out of 17 responses did not consider that the dosage
maximum dosage is criterion is strict enough. It was commented that the dosage requirements could
14.0 g/kg wash; the be lowered to 14 g/kg (as per the Nordic Swan).
criteria could be The dosage requirements criteria for the Nordic Swan ecolabel appear to be
lowered to be in line stricter than the current EU Ecolabel criteria. The maximum dosage limits for the
62
with the Nordic Swan Nordic Swan are shown below . For both heavy-duty and low-duty LD the
headline figure for maximum dosage is 14.0 g/kg wash, compared to 17.0 g/kg
wash for the EU Ecolabel. However, the value for the Nordic Swan corresponds
to soft water. In addition, the Nordic Swan criteria state that for middle-hard
and hard water the maximum dosage must not exceed 130 % and 160 % of the
recommended dosage for soft water respectively. This would imply a maximum
dosage of 18.2 g/kg wash for middle-hard water and 22.4 g/kg wash for hard
water. The current EU Ecolabel criteria are for a water hardness of 2.5 mmol of
CaCO3/l, which corresponds to medium water hardness.
Thus, when water hardness level is taken into account, it shows that the current
EU Ecolabel criteria are stricter than the Nordic Swan criteria. However, this is
not obvious from the criteria documents. For comparison the dosage limits of
the A.I.S.E. Charter for Sustainable Cleaning are of similar magnitude. For
instance, for powder detergents the maximum dosage is 75 g/job (for a 4.5 kg
load) for medium water hardness, which corresponds to 16.7 g/kg wash.
62
Maximum dosage criterion for Nordic Swan
Product type Water hardness Dosage
Heavy-duty laundry detergent (normally soiled) Soft 14.0 g/kg wash
Low-duty laundry detergent Soft 14.0 g/kg
Stain-removers (pre-treatment) All 2.7 g/kg
57
Instead of changing the dosage requirements, further clarification in the criteria
documents is required. This could be achieved by simplifying the wording or
including a table of water hardness.
2) Criteria could be One respondent pointed out that liquids and hydro-soluble liquids are different
stricter for liquids and products to powder detergents and have different requirements. Stricter dosage
hydro-soluble capsules requirements could be proposed for these products types, to keep pace with the
current trend for product compaction. The following limits have been suggested
by one of the EU Ecolabel competent bodies: 10 ml/kg wash for liquids and
7 ml/kg wash for capsules. None of the other ecolabels examined in this report
have specific dosage limits for hydro-soluble capsules. Potentially different
dosage requirements could also be implemented for concentrated liquids.
Further investigation and stakeholder input is required.
3) Dosage requirements The criteria for maximum dosage should take into account water hardness as
should be dependent the amount of product required will depend on the level of water hardness
on water hardness which varies significantly by country and region. Clarification is first required
over what level of water hardness is implied by the current criteria; at present it
is stated as “for a water hardness of 2.5 mmol CaCO3/l”, however, it would be
simpler to state soft/medium/hard water. The A.I.S.E. requirements state that
dosage limits must be set according to the level of water hardness.
This criterion should be revised so that different levels of water hardness are
taken into consideration. For the maximum dosage criteria it will be simpler to
set the criteria at a specified level of water hardness, for example medium hard
water. The dosage information on the packaging should also be described
according to water hardness, and this should be addressed in the criteria for
consumer information.
2.8.3.2 Criterion 2: Toxicity to aquatic organisms: Critical Dilution Volume (CDV)

Current criteria:
The critical dilution volume of the product must not exceed the following limits (CDV chronic):

Heavy-duty laundry detergent, colour-safe detergent 35,000 l/kg wash
Low-duty detergent 20,000 l/kg wash
Stain remover (pre-treatment only) 3,500 l/kg wash

1) CDV limits need to be The method of calculating the CDV limits should use the latest version of the
recalculated according DID list, which has recently been enlarged and updated. The DID list is regularly
to the 2014 Detergent updated and includes as many detergent ingredients as possible. When
Ingredient Database ingredients are not on the DID list, it is more difficult for manufacturers to
63
list (DID list) validate the data which they have received from their suppliers.
Following an examination of the new DID list the CDV limits will be revised
accordingly; this will form part of the technical report. This will be done in
parallel to the analysis of CDV values of EU Ecolabel products (to be obtained
from competent bodies).
2) Consider taking an Two of the stakeholders commented that CDV takes a purely hazard based
environmental risk approach and uses the sum of these hazards. It would be more logical to use an
64
approach environmental risk based approach, such as that employed by REACH where a
63
http://joutsenmerkki.fi/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/DID-list-Final-report-english.pdf
64
For further information on REACH see http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/chemicals/reach/index_en.htm
58
risk assessment of the consumer’s / environment’s exposure is required, taking
65
into account the way the chemicals (and products) are actually used.
As little information was provided on this approach, further investigation and
stakeholder input are required
3) Consider different CDV Fewer than 40% of the respondents consider that different CDV levels should be
levels for different set for different product types/forms. It was pointed out that the release of
product types/forms active ingredients is different and ingredients are different for each form or
product.
The CDV limits for the current criteria do not depend on the form of the product
(e.g. the limit for liquids and powders is the same). This may not be the most
realistic approach; for example, water soluble films contribute significantly to
CDV levels and therefore should have stricter limits. The IILD criteria set CDV
limits by product type and form as well as by water hardness. Further
harmonisation can be achieved by taking the same approach with LD. Other
ecolabels examined in this report, when considering aquatic toxicity, do not
employ CDV limits set by product form.
To assess this requirement it may be necessary to acquire anonymised product
formulations from existing licence holders via CBs. In order to propose new
values for the revised EU Ecolabel criteria competent bodies and other
stakeholders will be contacted and asked for information on CDV values of
EU Ecolabel laundry detergents. The results of this investigation will be
presented in the technical report.
66
4) Consider using USEtox USEtox is a model which can be used to calculate characterisation factors for
for assessing toxicity to human and ecotoxicity impact categories for life cycle assessment. The French
aquatic environment environmental labelling standard, under development by ADEME-AFNOR, has
67
chosen to employ USEtox instead of CDV. Studies have been conducted to
68 69
compare the environmental scores from USEtox and CDV. They have found
that the scores obtained from both for the same detergent may give different
ingredient rankings. However, the general conclusion from the studies is that
both methods are relevant for calculating product environmental impact scores
related to their hazard.
Switching from CDV to USEtox for assessing the environmental scores of
detergent products for the EU Ecolabel would be far from trivial. For instance, it
will not be possible to calculate the USEtox of a detergent using the DID list,
instead a USEtox database is required.
The criterion on toxicity to the aquatic environment is very important for laundry
detergents as they are released into water during use and after use, any changes
to this criterion require careful consideration and thorough investigation.
2.8.3.3 Criterion 3: Biodegradability of organics

Current criteria:
The content of organic substances in the product that are aerobically non-biodegradable (not readily
biodegradable aNBO) or anaerobically non-biodegradable (anNBO) shall not exceed the following limits:
65
Position of the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) on the Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, The
Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and The Committee of the Regions. Public procurement for a better environment,
Brussels, August 2013. From http://www.cefic.org/Documents/PolicyCentre/CEFIC-POSITION_on_GPP_final.pdf
66
USEtox DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-008-0038-4
67
General Principles for an Environmental Communication on Mass Market Products, Methodology for the Environmental Impacts
Assessment of Household Heavy Duty Laundry Detergents, Ademe, 2012
68
Comparing chemical environmental scores using USEtox and CDV from the European Ecolabel, E.G. Saouter, C. Perazzolo, L.D. Steiner,
Int.J.Life Cycle Assess., p795-802, 2011
69
Ecotoxicity impact assessment of laundry products: a comparison of USEtox and critical dilution volume approaches, Van Hoof, G.,
Schowanek, D., Franceschini, H., Munoz, I., Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., p803-818, 2011.
59
For aerobically non-biodegradable organics (aNBO):
Product type aNBO, powder aNBO, liquid
Heavy-duty laundry detergent, colour-safe detergent 1.0 g/kg wash 0.55 g/kg wash
Low-duty detergent 0.55 g/kg wash 0.30 g/kg wash
Stain remover (pre-treatment only) 0.10 g/kg wash 0.10 g/kg wash
For anaerobically non-biodegradable organics (anNBO):

Product type anNBO, powder anNBO, liquid
Heavy-duty laundry detergent, colour-safe detergent 1.3 g/kg wash 0.70 g/kg wash
Stain remover (pre-treatment only) 0.10 g/kg wash 0.10 g/kg wash

1) Criteria should be less Around 20 % of the stakeholders have commented that the current criteria for
strict for anaerobic anaerobic biodegradability of organics are too strict. The (non-surfactant)
biodegradability of organic aNBO or anNBO substances found in laundry detergents and stain
organics removers are: polycarboxylates, carboxymethylcellulose, silicone, poly-4-
vinylpyridine-n-oxide/polyvinylpyrrolidone-iodine, phosphonates, polymers,
fragrances and colorants. Organic substances which are readily biodegradable
are removed quickly from the environment. Conversely, substances which are
not biodegradable can accumulate in the environment and potentially cause
harm. Limiting the amount of non-biodegradable substances ensures that
EU Ecolabel products contribute minimally to accumulation of organic
61
substances in wastewater sludge.
As no suggestions were given for what a more suitable limit would be, further
investigation and stakeholder input is required if this criterion is to be revised. If
possible this will include an analysis of anNBO levels of EU Ecolabel laundry
detergents, information on which is to be collected from the CBs.
2) Biodegradability of Opinions were split on this matter. Ecolabel criteria for other product groups,
surfactants should be including IILD, have a requirement for all surfactants to be biodegradable. Such
consistent with other a requirement could also be applied to the LD category. In addition, the Nordic
Ecolabel criteria Swan and Environmental Choice (New Zealand) criteria state that “all
surfactants must be aerobically and anaerobically biodegradable”. According to
the Detergents Regulation, ultimate aerobic biodegradability of surfactants is
70
already required for products sold on the European market. However, this
Regulation does not define requirements for anaerobic biodegradability.
Further discussion is required on whether or not the criteria should state that all
surfactants must be readily aerobically and anaerobically biodegradable. For
further information, and to strengthen the scientific argument, on degradation
of surfactants the work of SCHER will be drawn upon, in addition to stakeholder
feedback. This investigation will be presented in the technical report.
2.8.3.4 Criterion 4: Excluded of limited substances and mixtures

Current criteria:
Under the existing criteria, the following ingredients must not be included in the product:
 phosphates
 EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid)
 nitro-musks and polycyclic musks.
According to Article 6(6) of Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 on the EU Ecolabel, the product or any component of it
70
Guidelines on the implementation of the Detergents Regulation v2, A.I.S.E., June 2013.
60
shall not contain substances meeting criteria for classification with the hazard statements or risk phrases
specified in the criteria document.
Derogations and exemptions apply for the following substances:

 surfactants (in concentrations <25 % in the product)(for H400 and H410)
 fragrances
 biocides used for preservation
 enzymes
 bleach catalysts
 NTA as in impurity in methylglycin di-acetic acid (MGDA) and glutamic acid di-acetic acid (GLDA)
 Optical brighteners (only for heavy duty domestic laundry detergents).

1) Harmonise with list for Harmonisation would allow for synergies between the two product groups,
IILD (as far as possible) however, there are some substances which will be acceptable in IILD and not LD
and vice versa. The Commission Statement following the development of the
71
IILD criteria called for closer alignment between LD and IILD.
2) Add derogation for Five of the stakeholders requested that a derogation should be added for
surfactants with H412 surfactants classified under H412 as almost all ethoxylated alcohols, commonly
72
classification used surfactants, are now classified under H412. Stakeholders from trade
associations, manufacturers and competent bodies all raised this issue.
Preventing their use makes the formulation stage problematic.
73
An amendment to the Commission Decision (2011/263) , included a derogation
for surfactants classified under H412. In order to ensure that, this derogation is
necessary, given that substances classified with H412 are harmful to aquatic life
with long-lasting effects, an assessment of its validity will be included in the
technical report.
3) Restrict substances Stakeholders have suggested that the use of these substances in the ingredients
considered persistent, of the product should be restricted, but further discussion on the best approach
bio-accumulable and for excluding such substances is needed. The Nordic Swan has a larger list of
toxic (PBT), very excluded substances, but EU Ecolabel also excludes a large number of
75
persistent and very substances by default through Art 6.6 of the Ecolabel Regulation. Overall,
bio-accumulable APEOs (alkylphenol ethoxylates), APDs (alkylphenol derivatives) and linear
(vPvB) and/or those alkylbenzene sulphonates are excluded by the Nordic Swan but not the
having endocrine EU Ecolabel. A comparison of the substances excluded by the criteria of
74
disrupting properties different ecolabels is provided in Table 7.
Further research is required on each substance for which an exclusion is
proposed, with the exception of those already banned by Article 6.6. This will be
presented in the technical report.
71
Summary of the meeting of the Regulatory Committee established under Article 16 of Regulation (EC)66/2010 of November 2009 of the
European Parliament and of the Council on the EU Ecolabel. Brussels, 29 June 2012.
72
Derogation for surfactants with H412 classification has been introduced through a posterior amendment. The comment is kept because
it was the stakeholder feedback.
73
Commission Decision 2014/313/EU, available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014D0313&from=EN
74
These chemicals are already restricted though the Hazardous Chemical substances criterion. The text is kept as it is feedback from the
stakeholders.
75
Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of The European Parliament and of The Council 0f 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel. Available from:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:027:0001:0019:en:PDF
61
4) Exclude phosphonates One of the stakeholders from industry suggested that phosphonates should be
from EU Ecolabel excluded from both LD and IILD products.
laundry detergents Phosphonates are chelating agents and limescale inhibitors which are used as
alternatives to phosphates in laundry detergents. Phosphonates are not readily
biodegradable and concerns have been raised over their use in laundry
detergents. Phosphonates do not release phosphorus to aquatic systems as
readily as phosphates do as they are only photo-degradable and so release
phosphorus to aquatic systems under certain conditions only. According to the
European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (UEAPME),
the use of phosphonates is fundamental to laundry detergents to achieve good
76
washing performance and therefore their use should not be reduced.
The HERA report on phosphonates concluded that the use of the phosphonates
aminotris (methylene phosphonic acid, ATMP), 1-hydroxy-ethylidene
diphosphonic acid (HEDP) and diethylene-triamine-penta-methylene-
phosphonic-acid (DTPMP) in household laundry and cleaning detergents is safe
77
and does not cause concern with regard to consumer use.
Other national ecolabels take a different approach to phosphorus and, instead
of exclusions, limits are set for the total content of phosphorus in the product.
Given all evidence gathered, total exclusion for phosphonates would seem
inappropriate. A more considered approach would be to set a maximum limit for
phosphorus substances in the product formulation. A criterion on the maximum
limit of phosphorus will be proposed for consideration.
5) Additional derogation Stakeholders requested that a derogation should be added for peracetic acid
for peracetic acid classified as H400. The reasoning provided by industry stakeholders is that
(classified H400) bleaching agents such as peracetic acid are necessary for both domestic and I&I
laundry detergent formulation.
However, substances classified with H400 are very toxic with long-lasting
effects. Further work is required to establish whether or not such substances
are essential to the formulation of laundry detergents and whether or not
suitable alternatives exist.
Further investigation into the use of bleaching agents and peracetic acid
classified with H400 will be presented in the technical report.
6) Exclude specific An exclusion of specific nanomaterials was not suggested by stakeholders during
nanomaterials of the survey but instead the review of national ecolabels found that the Nordic
concern Swan has banned nanoparticles compromising metal, carbon or fluorine
compounds from professional laundry detergents. Some nanomaterials, for
example nanosilver, are already used in laundry detergents and their use is
forecast to rise. Nanomaterials represent a significant problem with regard to
testing as current available analytical test methods require modification in order
to deal with nanoparticles.
Further investigation is required; this will include a literature search on specific
nanomaterials used in laundry detergents and their environmental impacts.
2.8.3.5 Criterion 5: Packaging requirements

Current criteria:
For laundry products, the weight/utility ratio (WUR) must not exceed the following values:
Product type WUR

Powders 1.2 g/kg wash
Others (e.g. liquids, gels, tablets, capsules) 1.5 g/kg wash
76
UEAPME’s opinion on the revision of Eco-label criteria for laundry and dishwashing detergents, August 2008. Available from
http://www.ueapme.com/docs/pos_papers/2008/0808_pp_ecolabel_laundry_and_dishwashing.pdf
77
HERA Human & Environmental Risk Assessment on ingredients of European household cleaning products: Phosphonates, 2009
62
Plastic/paper/cardboard packaging containing more than 80 % recycled material is exempt from this requirement.

1) Criteria which further Four of the stakeholders (out of the 15 responses) agreed that additional criteria
promote the use of should be set to further promote the use of recycled materials in packaging. The
recycled materials in motivation for using recycled materials is that the environmental impact of
packaging are packaging is further reduced, as long as no market distortions are created.
required In comparison to other environmental impacts associated with laundry detergents,
the impacts caused by packaging are negligible. The use of recycled materials is
already encouraged in the existing criteria. There is little motivation to add further
requirements on the use of recycled materials.
2) Encourage ease of The recyclability of packaging is important and should be carefully considered
disassembly of when setting the criteria for packaging. Three stakeholders agreed that there
packaging should be restrictions on combinations of materials used for packaging, for
instance to encourage ease of disassembly for recycling. Stakeholders commented
that ‘non-compatible materials are the major barrier to improve the recyclability
of packaging’; ‘encourage ease of disassembly for recycling’; and ‘materials that
are not recycled and cannot be separated from the primary packaging must not
be used’. By adding a requirement for ease of disassembly, recycling can be
facilitated.
To facilitate effective recycling a criterion for disassembly of primary packaging
should be included. A requirement for this will be proposed in the technical report.
3) Promote use of The current criteria do not promote the use of sustainably sourced wood fibres,
sustainably sourced only the use of recycled cardboard and paper. One stakeholder commented that
wood fibres ‘sustainably sourced wood fibres should be regarded as an alternative to recycled
paper/board’ as, for example, A.I.S.E. Charter for Sustainable Cleaning and
Sweden’s Good Environmental Choice do.
A criterion can be proposed for board and paper packaging to ensure that the
virgin material comes from sustainably managed forestry. A requirement for
sustainably sourced wood fibres will be drafted and presented in the technical
report.
4) To avoid over-dosing, The LCA study (Section 4) shows that incorrect dosing of detergent products has a
the primary significant effect on the overall environmental impact. Therefore, it is crucial that
packaging should be the product is correctly dosed. To ensure that the product is correctly dosed, the
designed in order to primary packaging should be designed in such a way to make the dosing easier.
make correct dosing The new criteria for rinse off cosmetics have included a criterion on the design of
easy primary packaging.
The feasibility, advantages and disadvantages of this approach need to be further
assessed, and this will be presented in the technical report.
2.8.3.6 Criterion 6: Washing performance (fitness for use)

Current criteria:
The product shall comply with the performance requirements as specified in the EU Ecolabel laundry
detergents performance test’s latest version which can be found here:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/products-groups-and-criteria.html
The following feedback was given by stakeholders regarding the washing performance
test:
 “Performance requirements are too easy to fulfil.”
 “Each chosen stain must have interest about the laundry performance. Some
stains don’t have significant results with the laundry detergent; therefore they
don’t have significant results.”
 “With the IEC A reference detergent, there are no optical brighteners in the
formulation stated in the commission decision, but in reality some manufacturers
use optical brighteners in their IEC A reference detergent.”
63
 “Please update the reference to the latest A.I.S.E. protocol.”
 “Must the performance be checked on two different levels of water hardness?”
 “Dye transfer test for concentrated liquid CSD is unattainable and should be
reviewed. PVI-VI is not soluble in concentrated liquid CSD. So the benchmark has
to be with a soluble PVP.”
If revision of this criterion is required then further stakeholder input will be needed.
2.8.3.7 Criterion 7: Points
Current criteria:
The points scoring system (max=8, min=3) has the objective of 1) promoting cold water and low-temperature
products and 2) promoting products with very low emissions of hazardous substances to the environment. The
points available for heavy-duty and low-duty laundry detergents are:
For heavy-duty laundry detergents:

Criteria Description Points
Climate Coldwater product (washing performance documents at ≤20 °C 2P
profile Low-temperature product (washing performance documented at >20 °C to <30 °C) 1P
Maximum Max dosage ≤14 g/kg wash (powder/tablet) or ≤ 14 ml/kg wash (liquid/gel) 2P
dosage Max dosage ≤16 g/kg wash (powder/tablet) or ≤ 16 ml/kg wash (liquid/gel) 1P
CDV CDVchronic <25,000 l/kg wash 2P
CDVchronic between 25,000 to 30,000 l/kg wash 1P
aNBO aNBO ≤75 % of limit value 1P
anNBO anNBO ≤75 % of limit value 1P
For low-duty laundry detergents:

Climate Coldwater product (washing performance documented at ≤20 °C) 2P
profile Low-temperature product (washing performance documented at >20 °C to <30 °C) 1P
Maximum Max dosage ≤14 g/kg wash (powder/tablet) or ≤ 14 ml/kg wash (liquid/gel) 2P
dosage Max dosage ≤16 g/kg wash (powder/tablet) or ≤ 16 ml/kg wash (liquid/gel) 1P
CDV CDVchronic <15,000 l/kg wash 2P
CDVchronic between 15,000 to 18,000 l/kg wash 1P
aNBO aNBO ≤75 % of limit value 1P
anNBO anNBO ≤75 % of limit value 1P

1) Review points criterion Two stakeholders commented that the points system should be removed as it
only adds complexity. Other comments added that there was no distinction
between whether a product has been awarded 3 or 6 points, and points could
be more easily obtained on aspects other than low temperature washing.
Further discussion is required on the necessity of and the reasoning behind the
points criterion.
The points scoring system was introduced during the previous revision process
with the aim of promoting products which perform well at low temperatures.
Overall, stakeholders did think that the points criteria was effective for
promoting cold water and low-temperature products, with 11 respondents
(mostly from industry) agreeing to this statement.
Further stakeholder input would be beneficial in determining the necessity of this
criterion. As LCA studies have shown wash temperature to have the largest
environmental impact, criteria for promoting products which perform well at
low-temperatures are essential. However, feedback from stakeholders has
revealed that the points criterion may not be the best strategy for this. The
efficacy of the points criterion requires further assessment, this will be addressed
in the technical report.
64
2.8.3.8 Criterion 8: Consumer information
Current criteria:
Dosage instructions
Under the existing criteria, dosage instructions shall be specified for ‘normally’ and ‘heavily’ soiled textiles as
well as various water hardness ranges relevant to the countries concerned. The difference between the dosage
recommendations for the lowest water hardness range for normally soiled textiles and the highest water range
for heavily soiled textiles may not differ by more than a factor of 2.
Information on the packaging

Under the existing criteria, the following washing recommendations shall appear on the packaging:
 Wash at the lowest possible temperature.
 Always wash with full load.
 Dose according to soil and water hardness, follow the dosing instructions.
 If you are allergic to house dust, always wash bedding at 60 °C. Increase wash temperature to 60 °C in
case of infectious diseases.
 Using this EU Ecolabel product according to the dosage instructions will contribute to the reduction of
water pollution, waste production and energy consumption.
There is an additional requirement for stain removers: the removal of stains for which no performance test has
been conducted, shall not be claimed on the product.
Claims on the packaging

The current criteria state that any claims on the packaging shall be documented through either performance
testing or other relevant documentation (e.g. claims of efficiency at low temperatures).

1) Further Overdosing is a common problem with laundry detergents; information on the
recommendations on label can be used to make consumers aware of this issue. A statement such as
correct dosage “Do not overdose” could be added to washing recommendations appearing on
the packaging bringing it in line with other labels.
Dosage instructions must be specified under existing criteria, but further
consumer awareness could be raised be adding an additional phrase on the
importance of correct dosage.
2) Refer to A.I.S.E. The campaign aims to raise awareness of the benefits of low temperature
campaign ‘I Prefer 30’ washing. Similarly, the EU Ecolabel tries to do better, also being inspired by AISE
work on low temperature washing.
EU Ecolabel should not promote separate campaigns; the existing criteria
already require that ‘washing at the lowest possible temperature’ must appear
on the packaging.
2.8.3.9 Criterion 9: Information appearing on the EU Ecolabel

Current criteria:
There is an optional requirement for a text box containing the following text:
 Reduced impact on aquatic ecosystems
 Limited hazardous substances
 Performance tested
There have been no suggested changes to this criterion.
65
2.8.4 Criteria for IILD product category
2.8.4.1 Criterion 1: Product and dosage information
Current criteria:
The recommended total dosage for 1 kg of laundry according to the degree of soiling and water hardness shall
be given in g/kg laundry or ml/kg laundry. For multi-component systems all products have to be included with
the worst-case dosage for assessments of the criteria.

1) Further requirements To remain consistent with the criteria for LD, dosage requirements by level of
depending on level of water hardness should be considered. The existing criteria require that the
water hardness degree of soiling and water hardness shall be given. A review of other ecolabels
has shown that dosage limits are not employed and a similar approach to the
EU Ecolabel is taken.
Further discussion with stakeholders is required on product and dosage
information for IILD as the level of feedback obtained from stakeholders during
the questionnaire was low. This will be addressed in the technical report.
2.8.4.2 Criterion 2: Toxicity to aquatic organisms: Critical Dilution Volume (CDV)

Current criteria:
The critical dilution volume of the product must not exceed the following limits (CDV chronic):
Soft water (0-6 °dH) CDVchronic (L/kg laundry)

Product type/Degree of soiling Light Medium Heavy
Powder 30,000 40,000 50,000
Liquid 50,000 60,000 70,000
Multi-component-system 50,000 70,000 90,000

Powder 40,000 60,000 80,000
Liquid 60,000 75,000 90,000
Hard water (>14 °dH) CDVchronic (L/kg laundry)

Powder 50,000 75,000 90,000
Liquid 75,000 90,000 120,000
The full formula for calculating the CDV value is given in the criteria document
Biocides, colouring agents and fragrances present in the product must also be included in the CDV calculation
even if the concentration is lower than 0.01 % (100 ppm). Because of degradation in the wash process,
separate rules apply to the following substances:
1. Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) – not to be included in the calculation of CDV.
2. Peracetic acid – to be included in the calculation as acetic acid.

1) CDV limits need to be See section on LD.
recalculated according
to the 2014 DID list
2) Water hardness should The current criteria for LD and IILD use different units for describing water
be explained in a more hardness, and this should be harmonised where possible.
international way, for A further investigation into the units used for describing water hardness will be
66
example in mmol/l provided in the technical report. A clarification will be drafted and presented in
the technical report.
2.8.4.3 Criterion 3: Biodegradability

Current criteria:
Under the current criteria, all surfactants must be biodegradable under aerobic conditions. All non-ionic and
cationic surfactants must also be biodegradable under anaerobic conditions.
The content of organic substances in the product that are aerobically non-biodegradable (not readily
biodegradable aNBO) and/or anaerobically non-biodegradable (anNBO) shall not exceed the following limits:
For aerobically non-biodegradable organic substances:

Soft water (0-6 °dH) aNBO (g/kg laundry)
Powder 0.70 1.10 1.40
Liquid 0.50 0.60 0.70

Powder 1.10 1.40 1.75
Liquid 0.60 0.70 0.90

Powder 1.40 1.75 2.20
Liquid 0.70 0.90 1.20
For anaerobically non-biodegradable organic substances:

Powder 0.70 1.10 1.40
Liquid 0.50 0.60 0.70

Powder 1.10 1.40 1.75
Liquid 0.60 0.70 0.90

Powder 1.40 1.75 2.20
Liquid 0.70 0.90 1.20

1) Criteria should be Most stakeholders agreed with the level of strictness for multi-component
more strict for multi- products, although one respondent called for stricter limits. Strict requirements
component and on the amount of non-biodegradable organics in EU Ecolabel detergents would
powder products minimise the accumulation of non-biodegradable organics in wastewater sludge
67
and contribute to a reduced overall environmental impact of these products.
As only one stakeholder responded that the criteria should be stricter, it is
proposed to keep the current valid criterion.
2.8.4.4 Criterion 4: Excluded or limited substances and mixtures

Current criteria:
 phosphates
 APEO (alkyl phenol ethoxylates) and ADP (alkylphenols and derivatives thereof)
 EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid)
 nitro-musk or polycyclic musk.
According to Article 6(6) of Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 on the EU Ecolabel, the product or any component of it
shall not contain substances meeting criteria for classification with the hazard statements or risk phrases
specified in the criteria document.
Derogations and exemptions apply for the following substances:

 surfactants (in concentrations <20 % in the product)
 biocides used for preservation
 enzymes
 bleach catalysts
 NTA as in impurity in MGDA and GLDA
 fragrances
 optical brighteners (only for heavy duty domestic laundry detergents).

1) The same exemptions Where possible the criteria for the two product groups should be harmonised.
should exist for LD and However, there are some substances such as fragrances and optical brighteners
IILD which should be allowed in IILD products.
Further input and discussion with stakeholders is required on this topic.
2) Add derogation for See section on LD for further details
surfactants with H412
classification
3) Restrict substances See section on LD for further details
considered PBT, vPvB
and/or those having
endocrine disrupting
properties
4) Exclude phosphonates See section on LD for further details
from EU Ecolabel
laundry detergents
5) Additional derogation See section on LD for further details
for peracetic acid
(classified H400)
6) Exclude specific See section on LD for further details
nanomaterials of
concern
2.8.4.5 Criterion 5: Packaging requirements

Current criteria:
The weight/utility ratio (WUR) must not exceed the following values:
WUR (g/kg laundry)

Product type/water hardness
Soft water Medium water Hard water
68
Powders 1.5 2.0 2.5
Liquids 2.0 2.5 3.0
Plastic/paper/cardboard packaging containing more than 80 % recycled material or more than 80 % plastic from renewable origin is exempt
from this requirement.
Only phthalates that at the time of application have been risk assessed and have not been classified according
to criterion 4(b) may be used in any plastic packaging. To allow for identification of different parts for recycling,
the primary packaging must be market in accordance with DIN 6120, Part 2 or the equivalent. Caps and pumps
are exempted from this requirement.

See proposed changes for A similar approach to encourage recycling and use of recycled materials should
LD criteria (Section 2.8.3.5). be taken for IILD. However, dosage requirements are different for IILD products
and this should be taken into account when setting the packaging requirements.
As automatic dosing systems are commonly used by I&I users, it does not make
sense to encourage the use of packaging which has been designed to make
dosing easier.
Additional investigation is needed on the packaging requirements of IILD. This
will be presented in the technical report.
2.8.4.6 Criterion 6: Washing performance (fitness for use)

Current criteria:
The primary laundering effects of the detergent, such as dirt and stain removal, must be documented by the
producer/applicant with the aid of artificially soiled test clothes which are washed in the process. The test may
be conducted by an external or internal laboratory fulfilling the requirements in Appendix II(a). The test must
be conducted with the recommended dosage and at the corresponding water hardness and the degree of
soiling at the lowest recommend wash temperature. The measurements must be performed on unlaundered
and laundered test clothes. The laboratory’s evaluation of the test results shall be clearly stated in the report.
The measurements of secondary effects such as bleaching, bleaching/damage factor, ash content, greying and
fluidity increase can be made with multi wash test clothes and analysed according to standard ISO 4312.
Examples of what may be used as wash-test clothes include the following:

 WFK-PCMs-55 for industrial laundering processes, consisting of 13 different small dirt patches (WFK-
Cleaning Technology Institute, Germany).
 EMPA 102, consisting of 15 different fresh spots (Swiss EMPA-Test materials).
 Wash clothes of Danish Technology Institute for industrial washing processes or equivalent.
As an alternative to the above laboratory test, a user test may be used to document efficiency. The user test
should then meet the requirements stated in Appendix II(b) of the Commission Decision (2012/721/EU).
For both laboratory test and user test the following apply:
The test product must be tested against a reference product. The reference product may be a well-established
product on the market or – in the case of a user test – the product normally used by the user. The test product
must show efficiency equal to or better than the reference product
Most respondents agreed with the current criterion. However, it was commented that the
‘fitness for use’ test is hardly applicable to products for the I&I market because of the
wide range of washing parameters in Europe (water hardness, types of soil, customer
habits, and different types of machines).
The following comments were received from stakeholders:
 “How many wash cycles can be investigated? The required test material for
measuring the washing performance is very different and can lead to different
results.”
69
 “It is very difficult and expensive to prove efficacy for the nine levels of water
hardness and soils in external or internal tests.”
 “The criterion on fitness for use is hardly applicable on the I&I market because of
the wide range of washing parameters in Europe: water hardness, type of soils,
customer habits, and different types of machine. This has to be fully described
and organised.”
 “In the consumer test the user has to answer a question on how satisfied he is
with customer visiting arrangements. But how can they do this if it is a new
product and the applicant starts with this?”
2.8.4.7 Criterion 7: Automatic dosing systems

Current criteria:
With regard to automatic dosing systems, the existing criteria state that multi-component systems shall be
offered to the customer together with an automatic and controlled dosing system. This must incorporate
customer visits which: ensure correct dosage; are performed at customers premises; take place at least once a
year during the license period; as a minimum must include calibration of dosage equipment; can be performed
by a third party.
2.8.4.8 Criterion 8: User information – information appearing on the EU Ecolabel

Current criteria:
 Wash at the lowest possible temperature.
 Always wash with full load.
 Dose according to soil and water hardness; follow the dosing instructions.
Claims on the packaging:

In general the claims on the packaging shall be documented through performance testing (e.g. claims of
efficiency at low temperatures, of removal of certain stain types, of benefits for certain types or colours of
textiles, or other claims of specific properties/benefits of the product)
Information appearing on the EU Ecolabel:

The logo should be visible and legible. The use of the EU Ecolabel logo is protected in primary EU law. The
EU Ecolabel registration/license number must appear on the product, it must be legible and clearly visible.
The optional label with text box shall contain the following text:
 Reduced impact on aquatic ecosystems.
 Limited hazardous substances.
 Performance tested.
2.8.5 Additional hot spots

As part of the survey, stakeholders were asked whether they thought further criteria
should be developed to cover issues which are not already covered or because of recent
developments which affect the environmental performance of laundry detergents.
The following suggestions were made:
 Promote the use of surfactants from vegetable origin.
 Promote the use of formulas without allergens.
70
 Provide further guidance on the use of optical brighteners.
 Introduce a criterion on the use of sustainably sourced ingredients.
 Promote the use of products containing a certain % of renewable carbon in
formulations (bioproducts).
The impact of these suggestions for new criteria should be further investigated before
deciding whether or not they are suitable for inclusion in the EU Ecolabel.
The review of alternative ecolabels and voluntary schemes for laundry detergents found
that the following issues which are not currently covered by the EU Ecolabel:
 Different approaches to limiting phosphonates and phosphates. Nordic Swan has
limits on the total amounts of phosphorus in the product. New Zealand
Environmental Choice has states that the product must not contain more than
0.15 g/kg laundry of phosphonates.
 Requirement that all surfactants must be readily aerobically and anaerobically
biodegradable. This is the approach taken by Nordic Swan and New Zealand
Environmental Choice for LD.
 Ingredients from palm oil derivatives must be from sustainable palm oil sources.
This is a requirement in Sweden’s Good Environmental Choice and New Zealand
Environmental Choice.
 The Nordic Swan Ecolabel for laundry detergents and stain removers has a
criterion for ‘origin and traceability of vegetable raw materials’, which is described
in the box below.
Origin and traceability of vegetable raw materials
This requirement includes fatty acids, soap and oils consisting of ≥75 % vegetable based materials and which
are present in the final product in concentrations >1.0 % (by weight).
The following should be fulfilled:
1) The name and geographical origin of the type of plant species used to extract the vegetable raw
materials must be specified.
2) The detergent manufacturer must furthermore have a written routine for purchasing of vegetable raw
materials to ensure that it does not come from environments with a large need for protection for
biological and/or social reasons and must have a written policy documenting this. The vegetable raw
materials must not come from:
 Protected areas of areas that are under evaluation for protection.
 Areas with uncertain ownership or user rights.
 Illegally harvested vegetable raw materials.
 Genetically modified vegetable raw materials/plants (enzymes and other GMO used in closed
systems are not included).
At this point the environmental benefits of such criteria are unclear but, as many
surfactants are derived from palm oil and palm kernel oil, a requirement for the
sustainability of these ingredients should be considered. The market analysis (see
Section 3.5.1.1) conducted in this report has shown that the use of plant-derived
chemicals in cleaning products including laundry detergents is set to increase as many
chemicals companies have pledged to increase their use.
2.8.6 Summary of suggested criteria changes to be further

examined
Following the review of stakeholder feedback and alternative ecolabels and voluntary
agreements, suggested changes for the existing criteria have been collected. A summary
of the possible amendments and further actions to be taken is given in Table 10 and
Table 11, for LD and IILD respectively.
71
Table 10: Summary of suggested criteria changes for household laundry detergents
Criterion Suggested Change Further Action
Dosage Clarification on water hardness Draft a clarification for the water hardness level at
requirements level for maximum dosage limits which this requirement is assessed.
Set dosage limits for Further investigation and stakeholder input is required
concentrated detergents in order to determine sensible limits for concentrated
detergents.
Toxicity to Recalculate the CDV limits Examination of new DID list and revision of CDV limits
aquatic according to new DID list accordingly.
organisms CDV limits for different product Further input is required to propose new values.
types/forms
USEtox instead of CDV Further investigation is ongoing. Input from CBs and
stakeholders required.
Biodegradability Requirement for all surfactants Further information on scientific argument needs to be
of organics to be readily biodegradable and gathered. Results for LCA will also be taken into
anaerobically biodegradable. account.
Criteria for anNBO should be less Further investigation and stakeholder input is required.
strict If possible an analysis of aNBO and anNBO values of
EU Ecolabel products will be conducted.
Excluded or Harmonise with IILD excluded The lists of excluded or limited substances for LD and
limited substance list IILD will be updated in parallel.
substances Consider derogations for Further assessment is required into the uses of these
surfactants with H412 and substances in detergents and their environmental
78
peracetic acid with H400 effects.
Exclude specific nanomaterials of Further investigation on the use of specific
concern nanomaterials and their environmental relevance in
laundry detergents is required.
Consider excluding phosphonates Further scientific evidence is required on the
or limit amount of phosphorus in environmental impacts of using phosphonates in
formulations laundry detergents.
Packaging Encourage disassembly and Aligning disassembly and design for recycling with other
requirements design for recycling existing EU Ecolabel criteria.
Promote use of sustainably Further evidence is needed to assess a requirement on
sourced wood fibres the percentage of virgin wood fibres used in packaging
to be from sustainable sources.
Points Remove points criterion and try Efficacy of points criterion needs further assessment.
to substitute it with another Stakeholder input is required.
criterion on effectiveness of the
product at low temperature
Consumer Additional phrase on importance Prepare proposals for wording to include statement on
information of correct dosage dosing.
Additional Sustainable sourcing of palm oil Further information to assess the relevance of a
criteria derivatives criterion for sustainable sourcing of palm oil derivatives
is needed.
Table 11: Summary of suggested criteria changes for industrial and institutional laundry detergents
Criterion Suggested Change Further Action
Product and Further requirements depending Proposal of new requirements and further discussion
dosage inf. on level of water hardness with stakeholders is required.
Toxicity to Update CDV limits Examination of new DID list and revision of CDV limits
aquatic accordingly. If possible an analysis of CDV values from
78
See previous comments
72
organisms EU Ecolabel products will be conducted.
USEtox instead of CDV Further investigation is ongoing. Input from CBs and
stakeholders required.
Biodegradability No suggested changes
of organics
Excluded or Harmonise with LD excluded list The lists of excluded or limited substances for DD and
limited IIDD will be updated in parallel.
substances Consider derogations for See LD for further information
surfactants with H412 and
peracetic acid with H400
Exclude nanomaterials See LD for further information
Consider excluding phosphonates See LD for further information
or limit amount of phosphorus in
formulations
Packaging Encourage disassembly and See LD for further information
requirements design for recycling
Promote use of sustainably See LD for further information
sourced wood fibres
Additional Sustainable sourcing of palm oil See LD for further information
criteria derivatives
73
3. MARKET ANALYSIS
3.1 Introduction
In order to characterise the relevant European market for the product group under study,
a market analysis has been conducted. The objective of the market analysis is to identify
significant changes in the market for laundry detergents since the last revision of the EU
Ecolabel criteria and investigate whether any such changes need to be reflected in the
criteria so that the 10-20 % best environmentally performing products will be selected in
accordance with Annex 1 of the EU Ecolabel Regulation.
The research in this section consists of a desktop study using a variety of available
literature and statistical databases such as Datamonitor, Mintel and Euromonitor data
and reports. The market analysis covers the period 2010-14 and includes a market
forecast to 2015-16, data permitting.
Data and information have also been collated on market structure, public procurement,
innovation, supply of raw materials and environmental labelling.
3.1.1 Economic indicators

Analysis of PRODCOM data categories compared with the current EU Ecolabel criteria
definition and scope indicates that the classifications are irreconcilable. The PRODCOM
‘cleaning product’ categories are not broken down in a way that could be useful for
analysis of current EU Ecolabel ‘laundry detergent’ criteria (Table 12).
Furthermore, the composition of the various ‘cleaning product’ categories is not clearly
outlined, and it is therefore not possible to break these down to the category of ‘laundry
detergent’ in order to provide data which are wholly applicable to the requirements of EU
Ecolabel (see Table 13).
EUROSTAT data will therefore be used to provide cumulative data to analyse the overall
laundry detergent market in Europe, broken down by Member State. This analysis will
include all laundry detergent types as well as other detergent and cleaning products
included in the PRODCOM category outlined in the above table Although this will not
allow for specific analysis of laundry detergents that fit within EU Ecolabel criteria, it will
nevertheless allow for a comprehensive analysis of the European laundry detergent
market.
Table 12: PRODCOM cleaning product categories, code and description
Code(s) Description
20.41.20.20 Anionic surface-active agents (excluding soap)
20.41.20.30 Cationic surface-active agents (excluding soap)
20.41.20.50 Non-ionic surface-active agents (excluding soap)
20.41.20.90 Organic surface-active agents (excluding soap, anionic, cationic, non-ionic)
20.41.31.20 Soap and organic surface-active products in bars, etc., n.e.c.
20.41.31.50 Soap in the form of flakes, wafers, granules or powders
20.41.31.80 Soap in forms excluding bars, cakes or moulded shapes, paper, wadding, felt and non-wovens
impregnated or coated with soap/detergent, flakes, granules or powders
20.41.32.40 Surface-active preparations, whether or not containing soap, p.r.s. (excluding those for use as
soap)
20.41.32.50 Washing preparations and cleaning preparations, with or without soap, p.r.s. including auxiliary
washing preparations excluding those for use as soap, surface-active preparations
20.41.32.60 Surface-active preparations, whether or not containing soap, n.p.r.s. (excluding those for use as
soap)
20.41.32.70 Washing preparations and cleaning preparations, with or without soap, n.p.r.s. including
auxiliary washing preparations excluding those for use as soap, surface-active preparations
74
Source: Eurostat PRODCOM
Table 13: Comparison of the categorisation criteria for PRODCOM categories (cleaning product-type) and
EU Ecolabel for laundry detergents
PRODCOM categories (cleaning product-type) EU Ecolabel for laundry detergents product
classification (application)
 Anionic surface-active agents (excluding soap)  This product group includes laundry detergents
 Cationic surface-active agents (excluding soap) and pre-treatment stain removers whether in
 Non-ionic surface-active agents (excluding soap) powder, liquid or any other form which are
 Organic surface-active agents (excluding soap, marketed and used for the washing of textiles
anionic, cationic, non-ionic) principally in household machines but not
 Soap and organic surface-active products in bars, excluding their use in launderettes and common
etc., n.e.c. laundries.
 Soap in the form of flakes, wafers, granules or  Pre-treatment stain removers include stain
powders removers used for direct spot treatment of
 Soap in forms excluding bars, cakes or moulded textiles (before washing in the machine) but do
shapes, paper, wadding, felt and non-wovens not include stain removers dosed in the washing
impregnated or coated with soap/detergent, machine and stain removers dedicated to other
flakes, granules or powders uses besides pre-treatment.
 Surface-active preparations, whether or not  This product group shall not comprise products
containing soap, p.r.s. (excluding those for use as that are dosed by carriers such as sheets, cloths
soap) or other materials nor washing auxiliaries used
 Washing preparations and cleaning preparations, without subsequent washing, such as stain
with or without soap, p.r.s. including auxiliary removers for carpets and furniture upholstery.
washing preparations excluding those for use as
soap, surface-active preparations
 Surface-active preparations, whether or not
containing soap, n.p.r.s. (excluding those for use
as soap)
 Washing preparations and cleaning preparations,
with or without soap, n.p.r.s. including auxiliary
washing preparations excluding those for use as
soap, surface-active preparations
3.1.1.1 Trade and production data, detergents market

The table below provides the PRODCOM production data (value and volume) for
detergents in 2013. The total value of EU-28 detergent production in 2013 is €17 billion
with 16 million tonnes produced.
 Germany has the highest production value (€4 billion) and the second highest
production volume (3.01 million tonnes),
 Italy has the highest production volume (3.04 million tonnes) and the second
highest value (€3 billion).
Note, countries marked with an asterisk (*) exclude some data which is anonymous,
figures may therefore be higher than indicated in Table 14.
Table 14: Production of manufactured detergent products, EU-28, value and tonnes, 2013
Country Value (€000s) Sold volume (t)
Austria* 98,581 94,169
Belgium* 494,614 536,875
Bulgaria* 51,232 65,347
Cyprus 0 0
Czech Republic* 77,513 102,036
Denmark 204,735 174,200
Estonia 13,560 40,615
Finland 43,652 30,232
75
Country Value (€000s) Sold volume (t)
France* 1,300,489 1,701,172
Germany* 4,164,537 3,010,155
Greece* 108,892 84,428
Hungary* 213,368 212,220
Ireland* 15,338 18,657
Italy 2,738,689 3,038,504
Latvia* 0 0
Lithuania 7,338 10,451
Luxemburg 0 0
Malta 0 0
Poland* 800,855 862,263
Portugal* 163,083 242,051
Romania* 150,122 229,815
Slovakia* 6,104 6,811
Slovenia* 6,357 5,503
Spain 2,020,008 2,341,911
Sweden* 52,148 31,463
The Netherlands* 711,337 307,391
UK 1,856,748 486,743
Croatia 97,529 104,690
Value EU 27 17,099,313 16,090,515
Total EU 28 17,196,842 16,195,204
* Estimates only – excludes some data which is anonymous. ‘Value EU27’ includes all data.
Source: PRODCOM
In the same way that PRODCOM data is not reconcilable with current EU Ecolabel
definitions for laundry detergents, COMEXT data (international trade data) also consists
of different categories which do not clearly match. Table 15 shows the COMEXT codes
and description for categories which include detergents. It can also be seen that these do
not directly relate to the PRODCOM categories indicated above. Even so, this data can be
used to give an overall indication of both intra and extra- EU trade for detergent
products.79
Table 15: COMEXT detergent code and description
Product Code Description
34012090 Soap in paste form "soft soap" or in aqueous solution "liquid soap"
34012010 Soap in the form of flakes, granules or powders
34011100 Soap and organic surface-active products and preparations, in the form of bars, cakes,
moulded pieces or shapes, and paper, wadding, felt and nonwovens, impregnated, coated or
covered with soap or detergent, for toilet use, incl. medicated products
34011900 Soap and organic surface-active products and preparations, in the form of bars, cakes,
moulded pieces or shapes, and paper, wadding, felt and nonwovens, impregnated, coated or
covered with soap or detergent (excl. those for toilet use, incl. medicated products)
Table 16 shows the value and volume of intra-EU trade of detergents for 2013. Overall,
this totals:
 an import value of €1,090 million
 an export value of €1,150 million
 imports of 623,793 tonnes
 exports of 690,659 tonnes.
79
Intra-EU trade refers to the trade between the Member States of the European Union, while extra-EU trade refers to the trade between
Member States and partner countries that are not members of the European Union.
76
Table 17 shows the value and volume of extra-EU trade of detergents for 2013. Overall,
this totals:
 an import value of €302 million
 an export value of €487 million
 imports of 215,796 tonnes
 exports of 219,224 tonnes.
Table 16: Intra-EU trade of detergents, import and exports, 2013

Intra EU trade Import Export
Country Value (€million) Quantity (100kg) Value (€million) Quantity (100kg)
Austria* 43 194,848 8 17,343
Belgium* 71 348,454 65 440,996
Bulgaria* 9 42,852 4 29,439
Croatia 8 47,416 0 692
Cyprus 3 14,960 0 633
Czech Republic* 32 178,434 26 146,934
Denmark 21 139,862 16 79,277
Estonia 4 14,542 1 2,248
Finland 21 80,538 1 2,107
France* 167 966,219 66 274,158
Germany* 133 758,634 304 1,899,952
Greece* 17 94,548 9 49,206
Hungary* 28 168,663 10 43,066
Ireland* 54 211,946 8 24,810
Italy 49 299,228 205 1,377,243
Latvia* 5 23,092 1 3,753
Lithuania 6 29,207 2 8,094
Luxemburg 7 23,359 1 4,391
Malta 2 9,415 0 0
The Netherlands* 72 420,593 77 362,389
Poland* 56 385,558 120 805,672
Portugal* 49 382,657 9 41,269
Romania* 24 158,425 3 12,126
Slovakia* 13 83,864 4 27,713
Slovenia* 10 49,120 4 14,808
Spain 52 323,535 47 340,615
Sweden* 33 195,601 24 132,164
UK 100 592,369 136 765,500
Total EU 28 1,090 6,237,939 1,150 6,906,598
* Estimates only – excludes some data which is anonymous.
Source: COMEXT trade data. See Annex III for original data
Table 17: Extra-EU trade of detergents, import and exports, 2013

Extra EU trade Import Export
Austria* 6 25,106 2 6,326
Belgium* 22 157,013 7 20,365
Bulgaria* 10 100,764 4 29,543
Croatia 2 15,546 2 8,804
Cyprus 1 3,805 0 126
Czech Republic* 9 66,150 6 30,143
Denmark 4 22,912 11 42,636
Estonia 0 1,835 0 858
Finland 0 1,166 1 3,434
France* 32 276,851 52 153,958
77
Extra EU trade Import Export
Germany* 44 350,637 117 587,966
Greece* 2 17,530 2 12,174
Hungary* 2 13,344 3 17,159
Ireland* 0 2,457 0 118
Italy 13 113,920 37 189,006
Latvia* 1 5,787 3 10,013
Lithuania 1 6,756 5 26,754
Luxemburg 0 1 0 1
Malta 0 2,141 0 768
The Netherlands* 29 186,073 44 178,489
Poland* 19 141,489 30 140,824
Portugal* 2 19,172 12 97,462
Romania* 9 73,520 3 11,029
Slovakia* 2 11,646 0 1,766
Slovenia* 1 3,913 2 11,956
Spain 12 82,408 19 108,681
Sweden* 5 33,695 20 75,432
UK 73 422,331 104 426,456
Total EU 28 302 2,157,968 487 2,192,247
* Estimates only – excludes some data which is anonymous.
Source: COMEXT trade data. See Annex III for original data
3.1.2 Global market overview, textile washing products80

According to a 2010 Datamonitor study81, the Western European market for textile
washing products grew at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR)82 of 1.6 % between
2005 and 2009. It was projected to continue growing until the end of 2014, with a CAGR
of 1.4 % for 2009-14. The Eastern European market for textile washing products grew at
a CAGR of 2.8 % between 2005 and 2009, and was projected to continue growing until
the end of 2014, with a CAGR of 2.6 % for 2009-14. As a whole, the EU-28 market for
textile washing products grew by a CAGR of 2.2 % between 2005 and 2009, and was
projected to grow by 2 % between 2009 and 2014.
Whilst the EU-28 market for textile washing products has seen low, steady growth for the
2005-09 period, and was expected to continue on this low, steady growth trajectory until
the end of 2014, the global household detergents market was expected to grow by 3.4 %
per annum between 2014 and 2017. Current and future global growth rates can be partly
explained by a large increase in consumer demand for household detergents in the Asia-
Pacific region, with growth being predominantly underpinned by China, whose market for
household detergents is projected to grow by 6 % per annum between 2014 and 2017.83
High growth emerging markets, such as Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC), have also
seen large investments from laundry detergent manufacturers in recent years. 84
80
Includes: laundry detergents (powder, liquid and tablets), stain removers and additives, fabric conditioners, laundry bleach and carpet
cleaners.
81
Datamonitor Consumer, Household Products Market in Western Europe to 2014 - Market Databook, 24 January 2011 and Datamonitor
Consumer, Household Products Market in Eastern Europe to 2014 - Market Databook, November 2010.
82
CAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate - average growth rate over a period of several years, taking into account the effect of annual
compounding.
83
Chemical Week, Soaps and Detergents: Consumers Remain Cautious, 17 January 2014,
http://www.chemweek.com/sections/cover_story/Soaps-and-detergents-Consumers-remain-cautious_58079.html
84
e.g. in 2012, Procter & Gamble (a multinational detergents manufacturer) announced that it planned to add around 20 manufacturing
plants between 2010 and 2015 in countries such as Brazil and China. Source: P&G to Build Huge Plant in China, Zacks Equity Research, 19
March 2012, http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/71529/P&G+to+Build+Huge+Plant+in+China
78
However, as the BRIC countries’ growth rates start to decelerate from recent peaks,
detergent manufacturers are expected to see longer-term growth rates stabilise in these
markets.83
In mature markets, such as Western Europe, Japan and North America, higher quality,
cost-effective laundry detergent products (including more environmentally-friendly
detergents) are in greatest demand. 85 Laundry detergent consumption in these countries
is linked to standard of living and lower quality laundry detergents see higher demand in
areas with lower quality of life. The state of the laundry detergent market in these areas
generally correlates positively with the health of the economy.
Currently, consumer incomes within the EU-28, which provide much of the impetus
behind consumer laundry detergent sales in the EU, are stagnating. In some Member
States, average consumer income has declined, both in absolute and in real terms. 86
This explains the current low to stagnant growth rate in laundry detergent sales across
the EU.
Other drivers affecting the EU laundry detergents market include a broad range of
factors: while general economic drivers such as gross domestic product (GDP) growth
and changes in consumer income have an important impact on the market, there are
other factors such as general changes in consumer habits and preferences to consider.85
An example may be consumers switching towards buying more cost-effective or more
environmentally-friendly laundry products, in place of traditional laundry detergents.
These changes in consumer habit and consumer demand will also have a direct effect on
the type of laundry detergent products that are produced and sold within the EU (both by
multinational companies, and by smaller, private-label companies).
3.2 Market structure

3.2.1 Product overview
The laundry detergent products on the European market can be broadly categorised into
four different products:
1. Powder detergents.
2. Liquid detergents.
3. Detergent tablets (powder or liquid/gels).
4. Other detergents (such as hand wash or fine fabric detergents).
There are also a number of laundry products used in conjunction with these detergents,
including:
1. Fabric conditioner.
2. Fabric freshener.
3. Stain removers and other additives.
Figure 1 below shows the value and volume of these products in Western Europe. By
value, laundry detergents represent 69 % of the total market for laundry care in Western
Europe with other laundry products accounting for the remaining 31 %. Of the laundry
detergents, powder detergents are the most popular (38 % of the market by value),
85
Key Note Ltd - Household Detergents and Cleaners – Market Definition - 2012
86
According to Eurostat, ‘Real adjusted gross disposable income of households per capita’ has remained stagnant across the EU-28 in
recent years, and had even declined in Greece, Spain and Cyprus. Source: Eurostat :
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&language=en&pcode=tec00113
79
followed by liquid detergents (23 % by value). Detergent tablets make up a relatively
small proportion of the market in comparison (5 % by value) with other detergents
accounting for 3 % of the total market for laundry care products.
Other laundry care products include fabric conditioner (18 % of the market by value),
stain removers and other additives (11 % by value) and fabric fresheners (1 % by
value).
Figure 1: Value and volume of Western Europe laundry care products, 2012
3.2.2 Market segmentation

The laundry detergents market can be broken down into two main segments: household
laundry and I&I laundry detergents:
HOUSEHOLD laundry care products include: I&I laundry care products include:
 laundry detergents (in powder or liquid)  pH-adjustment
 fabric conditioner and fresheners  water hardness regulators
 laundry aids including stain removers  bleach additives
 on-premise laundry detergents  disinfectant detergents/additives for hygienic
 fully formulated detergents laundry (hospital, food industry
 powder/liquid detergents  fabric softeners
 pre-wash additives  starch finishing
 boosters  ironing aid
 fragrance rinse
The value of the total laundry care market across Europe in 2012 (EU-27 + CH + NO)
was €14.4 billion. Of this, household laundry care represents 96 % or €13.8 billion. Table
18 shows how this is broken down by product. Of the household products, liquid and
powder detergents represent the products with the highest market value, followed by
laundry aids and fabric conditioners.
Table 18: Market value of laundry care, 2012 (EU-27 + CH + NO)
Type of laundry care € million % of total laundry care market value
Household:
Powder detergents € 3,548 25 %
Liquid detergents € 4,054 28 %
Unit doses € 946 7%
80
Type of laundry care € million % of total laundry care market value
Fabric conditioners € 2,284 16 %
Laundry aids & others € 2,923 20 %
Total household € 13,755 96 %
Total I&I € 642 4%
Total laundry care market value € 14,397
Source: Euromonitor International, cited on A.I.S.E website http://www.aise.eu/our-industry/market-and-economic-data.aspx
In comparison to household laundry products, the value of the I&I market is a relatively
small, €642 million (4 % of the total market), as shown in Figure 2 below.
Source: Euromonitor International, cited on A.I.S.E website http://www.aise.eu/our-industry/market-and-economic-data.aspx

Figure 2: Market value and % share of laundry care market, household and I&I, 2012
3.2.2.1 All laundry care products, by category, EU-2887

Figure 3 shows the retail value of the laundry care market by product category in five
different European countries. Assuming the total retail value of the EU-28 market in 2013
is an estimated €13.3 billion88, these five countries represent approximately 50 % of this
market.
Sales of total laundry care products, by value, are highest in the UK. By product type,
laundry detergent sales and fabric softener sales are also highest in the UK, compared to
the other countries analysed. Italy has the highest sales of laundry aid products.
This information has been further broken down in Figure 4, which shows the percentage
split of laundry care sales in each country. Fabric softener represents the greatest
proportion of laundry care sales in Poland (22 %), followed by the UK (20%). Laundry
aids, however, are comparatively more popular in Italy (18 % of total laundry care sales)
and Germany (15% of laundry care sales).
87
N.B. Data on the total value of the laundry market are not readily available, but throughout this analysis the most recent figure for
market size has been used; a 2013 figure of €13,203 million. This figure includes the EU-28 minus Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta, for which
there is no data. This figure is also assumed to include the total laundry care market, both household and I&I products.
88
Passport data, Market Sizes (2008-2018) N.B. this excludes Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta as no data is available.
81
Source: Euromonitor, summarised from 2013 Passport reports for Laundry Care in: Denmark, Italy, Germany, UK, Poland
Figure 3: Sales of laundry care products by category, value (€m) 2012
Figure 4: Split of laundry care products by category, ( %) 2012
3.2.2.2 Laundry detergents by category, EU-28

Alongside the variety of laundry aids and fabric softeners on sale across Europe, there is
also a variety of types of laundry detergents available. Figure 5 shows the sales of
laundry detergents by type (tablets, liquid and powder detergents) across the same five
European countries. Figure 6 shows this as a percentage of sales in each country. To
summarise:
 Powder detergents represent a high (if not the highest) proportion of sales, by
value, in each of the countries analysed. Poland in particular has the highest sales
value of powder detergents, representing 92% of the sales value of all detergents.
Italy is the exception to this: across all detergent types, sales value of powder
detergents in Italy only represents 27% of total sales and the highest proportion
(60%) is represented by liquid detergents. Liquid detergents are also popular (in
terms of sales value) across the European countries analysed. Italy and Germany
in particular favour liquid detergents (60% of the total detergent sales value in
Italy and 52% in Germany). In Poland, however, liquid detergents only represent
7% of the total detergent sales value.
82
 Detergent tablets show a variable sales value across the five countries analysed.
Notably, there are no sales of detergent tablets in Denmark. In Poland, detergent
tablets represent only 0.4% of the total sales value of all detergents and in
Germany only 2%. Italy and the UK do, however, show a higher sales value for
this product type with detergent tables representing 13% of the total sales value
in Italy and 22% in the UK.
Figure 5: Sales of laundry detergents by category, value (€m) 2012
Figure 6: Split of laundry detergents by category, (%) 2012
3.2.2.3 Split of concentrated and standard products, EU-28, 2012

The laundry detergent market can also be characterised by standard and concentrated
products, each of which can be either liquid or powder. Italy and France are the only two
countries where sales of standard detergents outweigh sales of concentrated products.
Poland has the highest percentage of concentrated detergent sales (95 %), followed by
the UK and Germany (91 % and 90 %, respectively). Sales of concentrated detergents
make up 73 % of detergent sales in Denmark, but only 46 % in France and 26 % in Italy
(see Figure 7).
(Further analysis of detergents by concentrated and standard formulation can be found in
Section 3.4.2.)
83
Figure 7: Split of laundry detergents, standard vs concentrated, (%) 2012
3.2.3 Manufacturers and market shares

The laundry market across Europe (as with the detergents and cleaning market in
general) is heavily dominated by a few well-known and globally recognised organisations
and brands (see Table 19). The top five organisations in the European market for laundry
care have 69 % of the market share. In this market there are also an estimated 120
other organisation operating, each with less than 1 % of the market. Procter & Gamble
(P&G) has the largest market share (26 %).
Table 19: Largest organisations in laundry care market, % breakdown by retail value, Europe*, 2013
Manufacturers name % share of Eastern Europe laundry care market, by retail value
Procter & Gamble Co 26 %
Henkel AG & Co KGaA 19 %
Unilever Group 14 %
Reckitt Benckiser Plc 8%
Colgate-Palmolive Co 2%
Other organisations (est. 120 in total) 17%
Private labels 14 %
* Includes EU-28 excluding Malta, Luxembourg and Cyprus as no data is available
Source: Euromonitor International, Data used in Passport report, Brand share by global brand name (2013)
There is a high presence of big private labels manufacturers (14 % of market share);
these typically produce products for retail chains and supermarkets under their own
brand names. Supermarkets, which sell most laundry care products in Western Europe,
are able to control the amount of product on shelves and often price promotions in store,
and are therefore an important part of the supply chain for laundry detergent
manufacturers (see Table 20).
Table 20: Laundry care products, value by distribution channel (€m), Western Europe, 2009
Channel €m* %
Supermarket 8,941 63
Independent retailers 2,939 21
Pharmacies 843 6
Convenience stores 763 5
Cash & Carry 106 1
Department stores 43 0.3
Others 591 4
Total 14,226 100 %
84
* Converted from US Dollars ($) at a rate of €0.74 to the Dollar (conversion rate as of 11/06/14)
Source: Datamonitor (2011) Household products market in Western Europe
The laundry care market is dominated by a small number of large manufacturers and has
changed little over the past five years. For example, between 2008 and 2013, P&G has
consistently held the greatest share of the retail market with between 25 % and 26 % of
the market.
Table 21 shows the breakdown of each of the largest organisations, by common brands.
The largest brand is Tide/Ariel (owned by P&G) which represents 11 % of the total retail
market for laundry care across Europe. The next largest brands are Dash/Daz (P&G) and
Persil (Henkel AG) both with 5 % of the market. This shows that not only are a small
number of organisations dominating the market, but a very small number of brands
within these organisations hold the greatest market share.
Table 21: Common brand name laundry care products, Europe, 2013
Procter & Gamble Co Henkel AG Unilever Group Reckitt Benckiser Plc
% of the EU retail market 26 % 18 % 14 % 8%
Common brands Name share* Name share* Name share* Name share*
Tide/Ariel 11 % Persil 5% Skip 3% Vanish 3%
Dash/Daz 5% Dixan 3% Persil 3% Calgon 2%
Lenor 4% Vernel 1% Comfort 2% Sole 1%
Bold 2% Le Chat 1% Surf 2% 2%
Fairy 1% Omo 1%
Others 4% Others 8% Others 3% Others
Source: Euromonitor International, Data used in Passport report, Brand share by global brand name (2013)
* figure rounded to the nearest 1 %
3.2.4 Structure of supply chain

3.2.4.1 Raw materials
Any market is sensitive to changes in availability, and the impact this can have on price,
of the raw materials used in products. The laundry detergent market relies on a number
of ingredients, including:
 surfactants
 builders
 biocides/preservatives
 bleaches
 optical brighteners
 fragrances
 dyes
 enzymes
 solvents.
See Annex II for further details on each ingredient.
The market for laundry detergent ingredients is in a mature stage, with most
opportunities for growth in the development of ‘green’ or ‘natural’ chemicals and
multifunctional products. There is also scope for market expansion in Eastern Europe.
There are 40-50 companies in the home and fabric care speciality ingredient market 89,
with the dominant players mainly being specialty surfactants companies. However, the
89
This includes: fabric washing and care; hard surface cleaners; car interior and upholstery cleaners; furniture, shoe and leather polishes;
and dishwashing products.
85
market is also characterised by an increasing degree of consolidation, altering the
number of competing organisations.
Table 22 shows the percentage revenues for each of the key ingredients in the home and
fabric care speciality ingredients market. In 2009 the largest market share in terms of
revenue was speciality surfactants with 34.4 % of the market, followed by fabric
enhancing chemicals (23.2 %), functional polymers (22.6 %) and rheology modifiers
(14.1 %). Active ingredients - comprising disinfectants, bactericides and preservatives -
held the smallest market share amongst the speciality chemicals with only 6.1 % of the
market.90
Table 22: Home and fabric care speciality ingredients market: % of revenues by chemical type, Europe, 2009
Speciality Functional polymers Fabric enhancing Active ingredients Rheology
surfactants chemicals modifiers
33.9 % 22.6 % 23.2 % 6.1 % 14.1 %
Source: Adapted from Frost & Sullivan (2009) Strategic analysis of the home and fabric care speciality ingredients market in Europe
The specialist chemical market for home and fabric care is facing a number of challenges
over the next decade which may alter current business practises. Table 23 ranks the top
eight challenges which the industry is expected to face, along with an indication of the
impact that this may have on organisations. According to the literature, the top challenge
('volatility in oil prices') relates directly to the manufacture of raw materials. This is
something which many organisations are now adapting to, and has helped to drive the
increasing innovation and research in the use of plant-based chemicals. The use of ‘green
chemicals’ is also a trend driven which had been driven supported by consumers who are
focusing on the use of more natural products.
Table 23: Impact of industry challenges on European home and fabric care speciality ingredients market
Rank Challenge Expected impact
5-7 years
1 Volatility in crude oil prices affects the costs across the supply chain High
2 REACH creates scepticism in the home and fabric care speciality chemicals market High
3 The trend for ultra-concentrates lowers substantially the amount of carriers and High
other chemicals used
4 The super-buyers exert pressure backwards in the supply chain High
5 Consolidation in the industry alters the market dynamics High
6 Product switching due to price shortens the life cycle of products High
7 Increase in multifunctional products that cater for more than one ‘job’ Medium
8 Increase in the use of natural proteins as fabric enhancers Medium
Source: Adapted from Frost & Sullivan (2009) Strategic analysis of the home and fabric care speciality ingredients market in Europe
Note: this table was produced in 2009
A number of other chemical manufacturers have adapted their offers as a result of these
trends, in particular the increased demand for plant-based chemicals and shift toward
liquid based detergents:
 Dow Chemical has reported that it has had to adapt to meet the needs of its
customers who are launching detergent capsules, the use of which has led to a
number of technical challenges for chemical providers. One example of this is Dow
offering dispersant polymers in granulated and spray-dried forms, as those sold as
water-based solutions are not compatible with the water-soluble films used in
detergent ‘pods‘. The company reports that, in general, those ingredients that
90
Frost & Sullivan (2009) Strategic analysis of the home and fabric care speciality ingredients market in Europe.
86
provide multiple benefits are in high demand, as these can be used widely by
manufacturers of single-dose detergents91.
 The Arkema Group has also recognised the challenge of responding to
environmental concerns, and the shift away from the use of non-renewable fossil
fuels, by focusing on innovations in plant chemistry and specifically developing raw
materials of plant origin. To emphasise this, the Arkema Renewable label is
awarded to those products from the company which are made from raw materials
of renewable origin (over 20 % non-fossil based carbon). These products currently
account for an estimated 12 % of Arkema's sales, with a predicted rise to 15 % by
2016.92
 BASF is also showing its commitment to reducing the use of fossil fuels as raw
materials and is using renewable materials where possible. The organisation
estimates that of total chemical production, approximately 10 % currently, uses
renewable raw materials.93
As an output of these commitments we should expect to see a wider range of detergent
products with ingredients derived from plant-based sources appearing on the market in
the near future.
3.3 Production and sales

3.3.1 EU-28 sales
Source: Adapted from Passport data, Market Sizes (2008-2018)

Figure 8: Retail value (€m) of laundry care market, Europe (EU-28), 2013
91
Chemical & Engineering news (2012) Selling detergents one load at a time. Available at: http://cen.acs.org/articles/90/i4/Selling-
Detergents-One-Load-Time.html [Accessed 7 April 2014]
92
Arkema, Products made from renewable raw materials. Available at: http://www.arkema.com/en/innovation/responses-to-global-
trends/renewable-raw-materials/ [Accessed 7 April 2014]
93
BASF, Renewable raw materials. Available at: http://www.basf.com/group/corporate/en/sustainability/dialogue/in-dialogue-with-
politics/renewable-raw-materials/index [Accessed 7 April 2014]
87
Figure 8 shows the retail value of the laundry care market in Europe, by country. The
total retail value of the EU-28 market in 2013 is an estimated €13 billion94.
As shown in Figure 8, there are five countries with a retail value over €1 billion
(combined, these account for 70 % of the market, or €9.3 billion). These countries
include the United Kingdom (16 %), France (16 %), Germany (15 %), Italy (14 %) and
Spain (9 %). The remainder of the market accounts for just 29 %, or €3.9 billion
3.3.2 Market trends and projections

Figure 9 outlines the current trends and projections for laundry care products (by retail
value, average across EU) to 2018. Continuing with the current trends in the EU-28
market, average retail value is expected to increase to €590 million by 2018 – this
equates to a total market value across Europe of €14.7 billion.
A clear dip can be seen in 2009, as a result of the European financial crisis – the past few
years have, however, seen an increase in retail values which now exceed 2008 values.

Figure 9: Market trends, actual and projected retail value (€m), Europe (EU-28 average), 2008-18
Within Europe, five countries account for a large percentage of the total market size, and
so changes to retail values in these countries will have a large impact on overall
European trends. Figure 10 shows the trends for these countries.
94
N.B. this excludes Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta as no data is available.
88
Figure 10: Actual and projected retail value (€m) for countries with top 5 market share (% share, by retail
value) across Europe, 2008-18
Overall, each country shows an upward trend in terms of retail value for laundry care
products. The UK - currently the largest market for detergents - is expected to see the
steepest increase, reflecting the importance for manufacturers to continue trying to
develop brand loyalty in this mature market.
3.4 Market trends

3.4.1 Washing machine ownership
The use of automatic laundry detergents is driven by the possession of household
washing machines. 92% of households in Europe have a washing machine, in 19
countries the possession rate is 90 % or over (Figure 11).
Sweden (79 %) and Denmark (81 %) have the lowest known washing machine
possession rates due to the way laundry is typically carried out in the region. In
apartment buildings, student residences, etc. there are typically communal laundry
rooms available for use by residents which limits the need for household washing
machines. There may be scope for an increase in ownership in other countries with below
EU-average ownership rate. As shown in Figure 12, possession of washing machines
across Europe is continuing to increase.
However, many countries are nearing (or may have already reached) saturation in terms
of washing machine ownership. In countries such as Spain, Austria and the Czech
Republic, possession of washing machines is 99 % and so laundry detergent sales will not
be driven by an increase in washing machine purchases, In these countries, product
innovation and understanding market sensitivities (e.g. price) and trends (e.g.
sustainability) will be important for organisations in gaining market share.
89
Source: Euromonitor International, Data used in Passport report, Possession rates (2013)
Figure 11: Washing machine possession rates (%), EU-28, 2013 by country
Source: Euromonitor International, Data used in Passport report, Possession rates (2013)
Figure 12: Washing machine possession rates (%) EU-28 Average, by year (2008-13)
3.4.2 Trade-offs in the laundry detergent market – product trends

Figure 13 shows the average sales of laundry detergents by category (powder, liquid and
tablet detergents) in Europe between 2007 and 2012. This average has been calculated
from the sales of five European countries from different regions (UK - Northern Europe,
Italy – Southern Europe, Germany – Central Europe, Poland – Eastern Europe and
Denmark – Scandinavia), which combined account for an estimated 50 % of the total
market for laundry detergents by retail value.95 An average across these countries is
assumed to be representative of Europe. A decrease in sales of powder detergents (17 %
decrease 2007-12, CAGR -8.46 %) has been offset by an increase in liquid detergent
sales (47 % increase 2007-12, CAGR 6.61 %). Detergent tablet sales overall remain
significantly lower than sales of powder or liquid detergents across Europe and they have
also been more volatile. Nevertheless they have seen a slight (2 %) increase 2007-12
(CAGR 0.35 %).
95
These 5 countries account for a combined retail value of €6,669 million = 50 % of the total retail value of €13,203 (see Figure 8).
90
* EU Average calculated from data from Denmark, Italy, Germany, UK, Poland
Figure 13: Sales of laundry detergent by category, EU average*, 2007-12
Although trends can be seen in overall detergent categories (i.e. liquid, powder and
tablet), it is important to understand sales of different product types within each
category. The figures below outline the sales split between standard and concentrated
products for both powder and liquid detergents.
Source: Euromonitor, summarised from 2013 Passport reports for Laundry Care in: Denmark, Italy, Germany, UK, Poland.
Figure 14: Sales of powder laundry detergent by category, EU average*, 2007-12
For powder detergents:

 Sales of standard powder detergents have decreased by €190 million between
2007 and 2012, a decrease of 61 % or a CAGR of -14.43 %.
 Sales of concentrated powder detergents increased by €118 million between 2007
and 2012, an increase of 111 % or a CAGR of 13.28 %. The majority of this
increase has been seen between 2011 and 2012 where sales increased by over
50% in this one year period. This is also reflected in a significant decrease in
sales of standard powder detergents between 2010 and 2012.
91
Figure 15: Sales of liquid laundry detergent by category, EU average*, 2007-12
For liquid detergents:
 Sales of standard liquid detergents decreased by € 42 million between 2007 and
2012, a decrease of 20 % or a CAGR of -3.58 %.
 Sales of concentrated liquid detergents increased by €183 million between 2007
and 2012, an increase of 228 % or a CAGR of 21.94 %.
Both the powder and liquid detergents categories have shown a similar trend in product
sales. Sales of concentrated products have shown a steady increase with sales of
standard detergents subsequently falling. This shows a direct trade-off between product
types and also highlights the increasing popularity of concentrated products (see Section
3.5.1 for more information).
Alongside liquid and powder detergents, the availability of laundry detergent tablets is
also increasing across Europe. As with the other laundry detergent categories, there is a
clear trade-off between product types: an increase in sales of liquid tablets (193 %
increase 2007-2012, CAGR 20.09 %) is mirrored by a decrease in sales of compacted
powder tablets (59 % decrease 2007-2012, CAGR -13.58 %).
Figure 16: Sales of tablet laundry detergent by category, EU average*, 2007-12
Trends in the laundry detergent market can therefore be summarised as:
 A significant overall increase in liquid detergents (+47 % 2007-2012, CAGR
6.61 %).
 An overall decrease in the use of powder detergents (-17 % 2007-2012, CAGR -
8.46 %).
92
 An increase in the use of concentrated products, most significantly concentrated
liquid detergent (228 % increase in sales of concentrated liquid detergents 2007-
2012, CAGR 21.94 %).
 An increase in liquid tablet detergents (193 % increase 2007-2012, CAGR
20.09 %).
3.4.3 Sales trends

In the laundry care market, consumers are typically very price sensitive. In the UK (the
country with the largest share of the market, 17 % of the total retail value across
Europe) consumers will typically switch between brands (albeit between the small
number of well established brands) depending on price or promotional offers,
demonstrating very low levels of brand loyalty. In Europe these price promotions are
common. It is estimated that about 80 % of all laundry detergents are sold on offer as
loss leaders in supermarkets.96 The UK is also categorised by the increasing use of
detergent tablets, specifically liquid tablets which are often more expensive per wash
than alternative detergent types.
In Europe, the long term trend in the laundry detergent market is a move towards
concentrated liquid (including gel) detergents both in liquid and tablet form. However,
this trend is highly sensitive to price – in 2011 there was an increase in powder detergent
use in Europe as consumers went for lower priced options.
Many of the recent developments and innovations in the detergent market have centred
on the production of laundry tablets (also marketed as ‘pods’) and unit dose products
(see Section 3.5.1 for more detail). The convenience factor is a significant driver for the
sales of laundry tablets, which provide an easy way to dose detergents. Sales of liquid
tablets in particular have seen significant growth since 2007 (with a CAGR of 20.09%)
but still make up a very minor part of the market. As shown in Figure 6 (Page 83), this
trend appears to be driven by a select few European countries – primarily Italy and the
UK – where take-up of these laundry tablets has grown significantly since 2007.
3.4.4 Labelling
Table 24 provides an estimate of the number of EU Ecolabel LD products manufactured
and sold in Europe. The first column (country) indicates the country which awarded the
EU Ecolabel to various manufacturers and products; this is also the country in which the
product is manufactured. 24 manufacturers have been awarded the EU Ecolabel for a
total of 180 products.
Table 24: EU Ecolabel consumer LD products manufactured and sold, by country (EU-28)
Country No. of manu- No. of Countries where products are sold (Europe only)
facturers products
awarded the awarded the
EU Ecolabel EU Ecolabel
Belgium 2 44 Belgium, France, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, UK
Denmark 4 24 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia,
Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain,
Sweden, UK
Spain 3 6 Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland,
France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
96
Frost & Sullivan (2009) Strategic analysis of the home and fabric care speciality ingredients market in Europe.
93
Country No. of manu- No. of Countries where products are sold (Europe only)
facturers products
awarded the awarded the
EU Ecolabel EU Ecolabel
Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, UK
France 9 63 France
Italy 2 30 Italy
Netherlands 3 11 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, UK
Sweden 1 2 Sweden
TOTAL 24 180
Source: EU Ecolabel E-Cat (last viewed on 26/02/2014) - http://ec.europa.eu/ecat/
Availability of these products across Europe is varied – 63 EU Ecolabel products are both
manufactured and sold in France suggesting high availability. However, only 7 of 28
European countries manufacture any products which have been awarded the EU Ecolabel
and all other countries rely on import of EU Ecolabel products. Table 25 indicates how
many EU Ecolabel products are available in each EU country. Again, France has the
highest number of products available (106), followed by Italy (40).
Table 25: EU Ecolabel consumer LD products on the EU-28 market
EU Member State No. of EU Ecolabel consumer EU Member State No. of EU Ecolabel consumer
laundry detergent products on laundry detergent products on
the market the market
Austria 3 Italy 40
Belgium 10 Latvia 3
Bulgaria 2 Lithuania 3
Croatia 3 Luxembourg 2
Cyprus 1 Malta 2
Czech Republic 3 Netherlands 15
Denmark 21 Poland 3
Estonia 2 Portugal 8
Finland 3 Romania 3
France 106 Slovakia 3
Germany 9 Slovenia 3
Greece 2 Spain 13
Hungary 3 Sweden 5
Ireland 3 United Kingdom 7
There are significantly fewer EU Ecolabel IILDs on the EU market. As shown in Table 26,
only one manufacturer in Spain has been awarded the EU Ecolabel for this product
category, for a total of three products. The respective criteria are in force since 2012.
Table 26: EU Ecolabel IILD manufactured and sold, by country (EU-28)
Country No. of manufacturers No. of products awarded Countries where products
awarded the EU Ecolabel the EU Ecolabel are sold (Europe only)
Spain 1 3 France, Portugal, Spain
TOTAL 1 3
Across Europe, these products are available in France, Portugal and Spain only, with all
three products available on each market. It is important to note, however, that some
laundry detergents used for I&I purposes may have been awarded the EU Ecolabel under
the ‘consumer laundry detergent’ category. Therefore, although there is a limited number
94
of EU Ecolabel IILD, this does not mean there is a limited supply of, or demand for,
EU Ecolabel products for I&I purposes.
In addition to the EU Ecolabel, which operates across the EU-28, the Nordic Council has a
Nordic Swan ecolabel that is also used on laundry detergents which are produced and
marketed in its five Member States, i.e. Sweden, Denmark, Finland (also EU Member
States), Norway and Iceland (EEA States) (see Table 27).
Table 27: Nordic Swan consumer laundry detergent products & stain removers on the EU-28 market
Nordic No. of Nordic Swan- No. of No. of Nordic Swan- No. of
Swan labelled consumer manufacturers/ labelled stain manufacturers/
Country laundry detergent brands removers on market brands
products on market
Denmark 238 49 30 7
Norway 40 6 13 1
Sweden 88 7 18 1
97
Finland N/A N/A N/A N/A
Iceland N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 366 61
Source: Danish Ecolabelling website/product catalogue98, Norwegian Ecolabelling website/product catalogue99, Swedish Ecolabelling
website/product catalogue100 - last viewed on 26/02/2014
For many small Scandinavian producers of laundry detergents (private labels), it may be
that the local market is more vital than the European market, and so the Nordic Swan
label may be more familiar and accepted by producers and consumers alike. This may
result in a lack of incentive for smaller producers to acquire both a regional label (Nordic
Swan) and an EU Ecolabel.
Even though Nordic Swan products are more prevalent there is, nonetheless, a high
uptake for EU Ecolabel LD products. The rate of producer uptake of the EU Ecolabel is
particularly high in France (106 products), with quite a good uptake in Italy (31
products), Denmark (21 products), the Netherlands (15 products) and Spain (13
products). However, the number of Nordic Swan labelled I&I, or “professional laundry
detergents”, is significantly higher than the number of EU Ecolabel I&I LD products
(Table 28).
Table 28: Number of Nordic Swan I&I laundry detergent products on the EU-28 market
Country No. of Nordic Swan-labelled IILD products on market No. of manufacturers/brands
Denmark 360 46
Norway 35 11
Sweden 16 2
97
Finland N/A N/A
Iceland N/A N/A
Total 411
Source: Danish Ecolabelling website/product catalogue, Norwegian Ecolabelling website/product catalogue99, Swedish Ecolabelling
website/product catalogue - last viewed on 26/02/2014
A number of labels are also used elsewhere in the world, including the ‘Green Seal’ (USA)
labels for “laundry care products for household use” and “laundry care products for
industrial and institutional use”, as well as the ‘Environmental Choice’ (New Zealand)
labels for “laundry detergents” and “commercial and institutional laundry detergents.”
97
Data not available on relevant websites (Ecolabelling Finland and Ecolabelling Iceland)
98
http://www.ecolabel.dk/da/produkter/rengoering-og-vask/midler-til-husholdning
99
http://www.svanemerket.no/produkter/producttype/?m1=300005&m2=310053&pt=299109#prodList
100
http://www.svanen.se/en/Buy-Svanenmarkt/Ecolabelled_products/?categoryID=347&p=5
95
3.5 Product and process innovation
3.5.1 Sustainability trends
Innovation for sustainability is a concept that has gained significant ground with the
detergents industry. A recent report on consumer and innovation trends in laundry care
noted that manufacturers are continually increasing their efforts to provide greener
solutions and are developing more formulas and packages based on sustainable
ingredients.101 Figure 17 shows the rapid increase in laundry products launched with
environmentally friendly or fair trade claims between 2009 and 2011.
Source: Datamonitor, Consumer and innovation trends

Figure 17: Laundry products (SKUs) launched with environmentally friendly or fair trade claims, Europe
The key sustainability trends for laundry detergent product innovation include:
 the increased use of plant-based or ‘green’ ingredients,
 an increase in availability of compacted or concentrated versions of products,
 a focus on minimising packaging,
 the introduction of reusable bottles,
 an increase in the availability of unit dose products.
Each of these trends is outlined in more detail below.
3.5.1.1 Plant-based ‘green’ ingredients

A focus on sustainability of cleaning products has led to a number of manufacturers
substituting commonly used chemicals for plant-based ingredients. P&G, for example,
has set a goal to replace 25 % of petroleum-based raw materials with sustainably
sourced renewable materials for all products and packaging by 2020 102, alongside the
101
Consumer and Innovation Trends in Laundry Care, Datamonitor Consumer, December 2012
102
P&G, Working to reduce environmental impacts. Available at:
http://www.pg.com/en_US/sustainability/environmental_sustainability/renewable_resources/renewable_resources.shtml
96
eradication of phosphate use in its leading detergent brands.103 Henkel also states that it
uses natural materials where possible in laundry detergents – specifically, using a
mixture of different surfactants, many of which are based on renewable raw materials.
Henkel states that the proportion of renewable raw materials in surfactants for detergent
is currently about 30 %.104
This trend can also be seen by the emergence of new laundry detergent manufacturers,
such as Ecover, that only produce plant-based cleaners under a ‘green laundry’ brand.
3.5.1.2 Compacted and concentrated version of products

The availability of concentrated detergent products in Europe has increased dramatically
over the past five years, driven by an increase in sales (see Figure 18). This is a trend
which is expected to continue, especially for concentrated liquid detergents which have
seen the most significant increase.
This increase is mainly due to on-going developments of ultra-concentrated laundry
detergents (in liquid and powder formats) made by key market players such as P&G.
These new products are pushing standard detergent formats off the market. Overall,
even concentrated powder detergents are likely to see sales being eroded by consumers
switching from powder to concentrated liquid detergents.
Concentrated detergents reduce the impact on the environment in a number of ways,
compared to standard detergents:
 Detergent for the same number of washes can be concentrated into a smaller
bottle, reducing packaging sizes.
 In turn, this minimises the amount of space needed to transport detergents and
so reduces transport related impacts.
 The amount of water used per dose of detergent is greatly reduced.
* Average taken from Denmark, Italy, Germany, UK, Poland – represent 51 % of the market
Figure 18: Sales of laundry detergents (concentrated vs standard), €m, EU average* 2007-12
Consumers are increasingly becoming aware of the environmental benefits of
concentrated products and are paying more attention to information about the number of
103
GreenBiz (2014) P&G is washing phosphate out of tide. Available at: http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/01/28/pg-aims-remove-
phosphates-leading-detergent-brands
104
Henkel sustainability report; responsible use of raw materials. Available at: http://sustainabilityreport2012.henkel.com/sustainability-
stewardship/raw-materials.html?print=1
97
washes being offered per package. Manufacturers of concentrated products are
increasingly providing information on packaging to outline environmental and potential
cost saving benefit to consumers.
In France (the second biggest market in Europe by retail value) the move to
concentrated detergents has been boosted by recommendation from AFISE, the main
French trade association for household care. AFISE has encouraged a move from 3 litre
bottles to 2 litre bottles for laundry detergents, which has been followed by most of the
key players in the market.105 Many manufacturers have taken this further by offering
double concentrated formats instead of standard concentrated products. The increase in
these ‘super-concentrated’ products can be seen across Europe.
However, the move towards more concentrated products needs to be accompanied by a
greater amount of information on packaging aimed at consumers. Without proper
information, consumers continue to dose as with non-concentrated products and
therefore overdose these concentrated detergents. For example, a 2 litre bottle of
concentrated detergent may provide the same number of ‘washes’ as a 3 litre bottle, but
consumers are measuring out the same amount regardless of bottle size. Manufacturers
are benefiting from this added value as a result of over-dosing.105
3.5.1.3 Minimisation of product packaging

The increase in concentrated products has led to a direct decrease in the amount of
product packaging required. However, there is also a drive in the market to reduce
packaging for non-concentrated products, with many of the large manufacturers
advertising packaging innovations which have this effect. P&G for example, claims to
have “reduced our packaging approximately 4.5 % per consumer use…While we are
currently on track to meet our 20 % reduction goal for 2020”.106
3.5.1.4 Reusable bottles

Although not yet a widespread trend, a number of laundry detergent manufacturers have
begun to sell products across Europe in refillable packaging. The US brand Method is, in
particular, taking this approach in order to minimise the amount of laundry packaging
disposed of by consumers107. Across Europe, the Ecover brand also produces refills for
their laundry detergents108
In addition, using refillable packs may present an opportunity to secure brand loyalty to a
greater extent than is currently possible in such a price sensitive market109. Once a
consumer invests in an initial product they may be more likely to buy refills of the same
brand.
3.5.1.5 Unit dose products

Unit dose products are a relatively new innovation in the laundry care market and act as
a direct replacement for the more traditional liquid and powder laundry detergents.
These products consist of ‘pods’ or packets which contain a pre-measured unit dose of
laundry detergent. Liquid ‘pod’ detergents in particular are advertised as a sustainable
105
Passport (2013) Laundry care in France
106
P&G (2013) Sustainability report. Available at: http://www.pg.com/de_DE/downloads/PG_2013_Sustainability_Report.pdf
107
Information available at: http://methodhome.com/shop/method-laundry-detergent-refill-85-loads/
108
Information available at: http://www.ecoverdirect.com/products/non-bio-laundry-liquid-15l-bag-in-
box/eliquidbagbox15l.aspx?productid=eliquidbagbox15l
109
Mintel (2012) Laundry Detergents and Fabric Conditioners - UK
98
innovation in the laundry market. These consist of a liquid detergent in a water-soluble
and (typically) biodegradable film capsule. This prevents the user from over-dosing the
laundry detergent, a common problem with liquid or powder detergents. Interestingly,
this innovation is thought to have had a negative effect on the laundry market as a
whole. Consumers using too much detergent with every laundry load results in greater
sales and unit dose products prevent this. Indeed, a high uptake of unit dose detergents
is thought to potentially lead to reduced LD purchases.110,111
3.6 Consumer trends

3.6.1 Product fragrance
As the laundry care market is well developed across Europe, innovations in laundry
products are most often driven by consumer demand for enhanced experience in using
these products. As well as the efficacy of the product (e.g. ensuring that white clothes
remain white), the product’s fragrance has become an important factor for consumers. In
fact, 51 % of consumers worldwide state that the fragrance of a laundry care product has
high or very high influence over their product choice, while only 42 % state that product
efficacy has an equal influence.112 As a direct result of this, more brands are introducing
new fragrances to the market, often accompanied with ‘long-lasting’ fragrance
technologies. The demand for new fragrances is especially strong in the UK (the largest
market in Europe for laundry care products) and a number of large manufacturers have
launched products with new fragrances, such as Unilever’s Exhilarations range which
includes fragrances such as ‘bluebell and bergamot’, ‘peach and poppy’, and ‘strawberry
and lily’.113
This had led to an increasing amount of product research being carried out into the
preferred fragrances for laundry care products across Europe. This includes the strength
of fragrance – for example: in most Nordic countries a slight scent is preferable; in the
UK a strong, lasting fragrance is preferred by consumers.114
3.6.2 Sustainable cleaning products

Sustainability is growing in importance for consumers of cleaning products, including
laundry products. Worldwide, over two-thirds of consumers place significant importance
on reducing unnecessary packaging and almost two-thirds also place an emphasis on
other environmentally friendly aspects of packaging such as recyclability and
reusability.115
A recent A.I.S.E. consumer study (2011) suggests that, across Europe, 72 % of
consumers look for advice and commitments on sustainability when buying detergents 116
– showing the importance for manufacturers to consider the environmental impacts of
110
The Wall Street Journal (2013) Is Innovation Killing the Soap Business, Published April 3, 2013. Available at:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323916304578400521297972496
111
HAPPI (2013) Where’s the Bounce? Published January 21, 2012. Available at: http://www.happi.com/issues/2013-
01/view_features/wheres-the-bounce/
112
Datamonitor (2012) Consumer and Innovation Trends in Laundry Care. available at:
http://www.datamonitor.com/store/Product/consumer_and_innovation_trends_in_laundry_care?productid=CM00198-019
113
Passport (2012) Laundry Care, UK available at: http://www.euromonitor.com/laundry-care-in-the-united-kingdom/report
114
Henkel (2011) The world of fragrances; how washing and cleaning can affect the senses. Available at: http://www.henkel.com/henkel-
headlines/news-2011-20111024-the-world-of-fragrances-34010.htm
115
Consumer and Innovation Trends in Laundry Care, Datamonitor Consumer, December 2012
116
A.I.S.E. (2013) The Case for the “A.I.S.E Low Temperature Washing” Initiative: Substantiation Dossier June 2013 available at:
http://www.iprefer30.eu/component/attachments/attachments?task=download&id=244
99
their products. Consideration of sustainability is essentially becoming one way of
differentiating laundry care products in an increasingly competitive market. There is little
evidence to suggest, however, that price does not remain the most significant factor at
the time of purchase.
Importantly, the drive towards a more sustainable cleaning product includes all aspects
of a laundry care product, not just the chemical make-up of the detergent. A.I.S.E. has
been particularly active in promoting sustainable design of cleaning products, including
laundry detergents. In 2010, the organisation added product assessment to its on-going
Charter for Sustainable Cleaning, allowing Advanced Sustainability Profiles (ASPs) to be
awarded to products which meet set sustainability criteria. These criteria have been
defined based on a life cycle analysis, and for laundry products include product
formulation, packaging weight per job, packaging recycled content and provision of end
user information on pack (to include tips for safe use and an indication of the ability to
wash at 30 °C).117
Source: A.I.S.E. (2013) Activity and sustainability report

Figure 19: Units of laundry care products sold with A.I.S.E. ASP profiles in Europe, 2012
The data in Figure 19 above have been developed by A.I.S.E based on data from four
companies that share the majority of the laundry care market. It shows that, overall, 688
million units of ASP products were sold in 2012, which represents on average 30 % of all
laundry products sold across the EU.117
3.6.3 Low temperature washing

A recent area of focus for laundry detergent producers has been the offer of products
that clean laundry effectively at lower temperatures and shorter washing cycles, saving
the consumer energy and money.
Across Europe, this information is disseminated to consumers through a number of
initiatives including:
 I Prefer 30. This consumer-facing campaign is led by the European detergent
industry, headed by A.I.S.E. and including with national associations in five
European countries (Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy and UK). The aim of this
campaign is to drive down the average wash temperature of domestic laundry
washing through raising consumer awareness of the benefits of washing laundry
at 30 °C.
117
A.I.S.E. (2013) Activity and sustainability report available at: http://www.aise.eu/documents/document/aise_asr_2012_2013.pdf
100
 Advertising from major brands, and information on packaging to encourage lower
temperature washing where appropriate. For example P&G, the largest laundry
detergent supplier in Europe, has recently launched a number of communication
programs aimed at ‘washing at 30°’. In addition, all versions of Ariel, the leading
laundry detergent in Europe, now carry a ‘30°C’ icon to encourage consumers to
wash in cold water.118 P&G estimates that its cold-water washing
campaigns (including 'Ariel Turn To 30°C') have helped reduce 58,000 tonnes of
CO2 emissions by educating consumers to save energy.119
3.7 Conclusions of the market analysis

The aim of the market analysis is to identify any significant changes in the market for
laundry detergents since the last revision or the development (for IILD) and further to
understand whether any such changes need to be reflected in the criteria.
 An analysis of the Eurostat databases PRODCOM and COMTEXT showed that
neither of the ‘cleaning product’ categories are broken down in a way that could
be useful for analysis of laundry detergents. As a consequence it was not possible
to use data directly from Eurostat in this study.
 In 2013, the retail value of the EU market for laundry detergents was an
estimated €13,203million.120 Of this, an estimated 4 % (or €528 million)
represents the I&I market, with the remaining 96 % (or €12,675 million)
representing domestic laundry detergent use.
 Overall in Europe liquid laundry detergents have the largest share of the
household laundry detergent market (28 %), closely followed by powder laundry
detergents (25 %). Unit doses represent an estimated 7 % of the market, with
the remainder consisting of fabric conditioners, laundry aids and others.121
 Sales of these different types of laundry detergents vary by country. In Poland,
the UK and Denmark sales value of powder detergents is higher than liquid or
detergent tablets (92 %, 44 % and 52 % of the sales value of all detergents
respectively). In Italy and Germany sales values of liquid detergents are higher in
comparison to powder or detergent tablets (representing 60 % of the total
detergent sales value in Italy and 52 % in Germany). The sale of detergent
tablets is very varied across countries. Sales values in Denmark and Poland
represent less than 0.1 % of all detergent sales, but represent 13 % in Italy and
22 % in the UK.
 The laundry detergent market across Europe is heavily dominated by a few well-
known and globally recognised organisations and brands such as Procter &
Gamble, Henkel and Unilever.
 The rates of washing machine ownership vary throughout Europe, from 79 % in
Sweden to 99 % in Austria and Spain. This does have an impact on the types of
laundry detergent used (i.e. those without washing machines will be more likely to
use hand-washing detergents for laundry), although other factors will also
influence the consumption of laundry detergents (including preferences for
118
P&G (2013) Sustainability report. Available at: http://www.pg.com/de_DE/downloads/PG_2013_Sustainability_Report.pdf
119
Ariel Sustainable Commitment. Available at: https://www.ariel.co.uk/AboutAriel/Ariel_Sustainable_Commitment.aspx
120
N.B. Data on the total value of the laundry market are not readily available, but throughout this analysis the most recent figure for
market size has been used; a 2013 figure of €13,203 million. This figure includes the EU-28 minus Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta, for which
there is no data. This figure is also assumed to include the total laundry care market, both household and I&I products.
121
Euromonitor International, cited on A.I.S.E website http://www.aise.eu/our-industry/market-and-economic-data.aspx
101
detergents (e.g. a preference for liquid or powder detergents), and the approach
to dosing of detergents).
 Within Europe, France and the Nordic countries have the highest penetration of
ecolabelled laundry products (Nordic Swan and EU Ecolabel).
 Sustainability is growing in importance for consumers of laundry detergents, with
an increase in concentrated/compacted products, use of plant-based ingredients,
minimisation of packaging, the introduction of reuseable bottles and an increase in
the availability of unit dose products. Another market trend - closely linked to
sustainability – is the development and widespread marketing of laundry
detergents which clean at lower temperatures, saving the consumer energy when
using a washing machine.
102
4. TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
A technical analysis of the environmental performance of laundry detergents has been

carried out and is presented in this chapter. The main objective of this analysis is to
identify the environmental hot spots across the whole of the life cycle for laundry
detergents.
This analysis incorporates:
 an overview of technological aspects – production and ingredients
 a review of existing LCA studies
 investigation into I&I laundry, auxiliaries and laundry alternatives
 a review of non-LCA impacts
 a bespoke LCA analysis
 a sensitivity analysis.
4.1 Technological aspects

4.1.1 Supply chain for laundry detergent production
An overview of the supply chain for home and fabric care products, including laundry
detergents, is shown in Figure 20. Manufacturers of laundry detergents
(formulators/blenders) such as Procter & Gamble, Unilever and Henkel acquire
ingredients such as surfactants from speciality manufacturers and then blend these to
produce laundry detergents. Within Europe there are around 40-50 companies active in
the market for home and fabric care speciality ingredients.122 Further information on
laundry detergent ingredients can be found later in this section.
Figure 20: Supply chain for home and fabric care products
The raw materials used for the production of detergent ingredients are obtained either
from oleochemical or petrochemical sources. Oleochemical raw materials are derived
from plants and animal fats, including coconut oil, tallow, palm kernel oil and palm oil.
122
Strategic Analysis of the Home and Fabric Care Speciality Ingredients Markets in Europe, Frost & Sullivan, July 2009.
103
These raw materials are often referred to as ‘renewable’ raw materials. Petrochemical
raw materials are derived from crude oil or natural gas, these materials are often termed
‘synthetic’. According to the American Cleaning Institute, there is no inherent
environmental advantage to using surfactants from one source or the other and there are
environmental trade-offs associated with both oleochemical and petrochemical
sources.123 This will be discussed in further detail in the technical background report.
Companies active in the European market for detergent speciality ingredients include
Clariant, Rhodia, Solvay, Rohm & Hass, Cognis, Croda, Dow Corning, Elementis, Alco
Chemical and BASF. Within the home and fabric care ingredients sector, speciality
surfactants hold the largest market share in Europe.100
4.1.2 Description of the production processes

The first step of laundry detergent production is to select the ingredients. This is done
according to several criteria which will typically include: cost, sustainability, human
health, environmental safety and performance. Detergent manufacturers use different
approaches to ensure that their products have the least impact on the environment and
human health. One example of such an approach is the Greenlist™ process developed by
SC Johnson, which scores ingredients by their impact on the environment and human
health.124 Using this process, a final product score is obtained that takes into
consideration the environmental classifications of both chemical and packaging
constituents.125
The manufacturing process employed for laundry detergent products in general consists
of mixing and pumping the ingredients into mixing vessels. The exact process employed
will depend on the manufacturer and the format of the final product. Different processes
will be employed for liquids, gels and powders.
- Powder detergents are produced by spray drying, agglomeration, dry mixing or
combinations of these methods.126 During the spray drying process, liquid and powder
ingredients are combined to form a slurry which is then pumped through a tower and
sprayed under high pressure to form small droplets. A current of hot air is used to dry
the droplets and form hollow granules. Following a screening process to ensure granules
are of the correct size, temperature sensitive ingredients such as enzymes are added. An
agglomeration process consists of blending dry and liquid ingredients in the presence of a
liquid binder. This process leads to higher density powders. For the production of
powders, processes are required for densification, to ensure that the final product has the
desired bulk density.
- Liquid detergents are produced either in a batch process or a continuous process. A
batch process is the simplest as ingredients are introduced to an agitated tank and
additional mixing or heating can be provided through a recirculation loop. 127 In
comparison, continuous processes are more sophisticated and better suited to large-scale
operations. In a continuous process both dry and liquid ingredients are added and then
blended using in-line mixers. In the production of liquid laundry detergents, solubilisers
are used to help the detergent and water blend together.
123
Sustainability resources from the American Cleaning Institute, available from:
http://www.cleaninginstitute.org/sustainability/some_facts_about_4.aspx
124
For more information http://www.scjohnson.com/en/commitment/focus-on/greener-products/greenlist.aspx
125
S.C. Johnson’s Greenlist Program for raw material selection: pushing the sustainability frontier, presentation by Dr Pat Guiney, S.C.
Johnson & Son Inc. at Minnesota Green Chemistry Conference, January 2012. Available from:
http://www.greenchemistrymn.org/sites/greenchemistrymn.org/files/presentations/Pat%20Guiney.pdf
126
Soaps & Detergents: Manufacturing, American Cleaning Institute. Available from:
http://www.cleaninginstitute.org/clean_living/soaps__detergents_manufacturing.aspx
127
Handbook of Detergents, Part F: Production, Surfactant Science Series Volume 142, Uri Zoller and Paul Sosis, CRC Press, 2009.
104
The final stage in the manufacturing process for all laundry detergents is packaging.
Liquid and gel laundry detergents are typically packed in bottles, whereas powders are
packaged in boxes. During the selection process for packaging materials, product
compatibility, product stability, cost, safety, solid waste impact, ease of use and shelf
appeal are all taken into consideration.
4.1.3 Laundry detergents ingredients

Laundry detergents for both household and professional use are complex formulations,
often containing 25 or more different ingredients that can be categorised as: surfactants,
builders, bleaching agents and auxiliary agents. Information on detergent ingredients can
be found in Annex II.
Surfactants are the most important group of ingredients, present in all types of
detergents. They take care of full moistening of the surface, removal of soil and stains,
and keep the soil in the aqueous solution. In general, both adsorption and cleaning
performance increases with increasing hydrocarbon chain length.128 Most laundry
detergents use a combination of different surfactants in order to achieve optimum levels
of performance. Examples of surfactants commonly used in laundry detergents include
alkyl ether sulphates, alkyl sulphates, alcohol ethoxylates, alkyl polyglycosides and alkyl
phenol ethoxylates.
The function of builders is to support detergent action and soften water, i.e. eliminating
calcium and magnesium ions, which arise from the water and from soil. They account for
20 % or more of the product formulation. Both inorganic and organic builders are used in
laundry detergents. Inorganic builders include phosphates, carbonate compounds and
silicates; examples of organic builders include polycarboxylates, ether polycarboxylates,
fatty acids and salts of polyacetic acids.
Bleaches are used to remove coloured stains, such as coffee or wine. In the past,
chlorine bleaches were used but, since these affect the fabric, oxygen bleaches such as
sodium perborate and sodium percarbonate are used nowadays. They function properly
at a temperature of at least 60°C, so a bleach activator such as
tetraacetylethylenediamine (TAED), is required to guarantee proper functionality at
40°C.129
Auxiliary agents are used in small quantities only, each with its own specific purpose. For
instance: enzymes are used to remove stubborn proteinaceous stains; soil re-deposition
agents are used to prevent soil return to the fibres; foam regulators are used to give the
desired foam characteristics; corrosion inhibitors are used to prevent corrosion of the
machine components that are made of metals or alloys; fluorescent whitening agents are
used to prevent a slight yellowish tinge on properly washed and bleached white laundry;
dye transfer inhibitors are used to impede re-adsorption or re-deposition of detached
dyestuff on other textiles; dyes are used to give the desired colour; and fragrances are
used to give a distinctive odour.
4.2 LCA review

Before performing an LCA analysis on the environmental performance of laundry
detergents, a detailed LCA screening of publicly available studies has been carried out.
128
Ullmann’s encyclopedia of industrial chemistry. 2012. Laundry Detergents, 2. Ingredients and Products
129
The function of builders is to support detergent action and soften water, i.e., eliminating calcium and magnesium ions, which arise from
the water and from soil.
105
This screening has enabled the main environmental hotspots for this product group to be
identified, and the need to perform additional studies to be evaluated. The results of this
review will aid the revision of the EU Ecolabel criteria for the LD and IILD product groups,
since they allow for the identification of the environmental hot spots and their
alternatives in terms of criteria and restrictions.
4.2.1 Selection criteria

Relevant LCA studies were identified in the literature and critically reviewed for the
robustness of their results. The criteria considered for this assessment were:
 Subject of the studies: This refers to the representative features of the product
group, sub-categories, technologies or specifications.
 Functional unit: The functional unit refers to a quantified performance of a
product system for use as a reference unit in LCA studies.
 Time-related coverage of data: This refers to the year the inventory data of
the analysis is based on; studies should ideally be less than four years old.
 Comprehensiveness and robustness: This refers to the environmental impacts
considered in the study. Impact categories should be comprehensive, ideally
reflecting the European Commission’s Product Environmental Footprint (PEF)
methodology or other recognized LCA methodologies and scientifically robust
when considered against the evaluation provided in the JRC’s ILCD Handbook.
Studies should also be cradle-to-grave.
 Reliability: This refers to the information and the data quality provided by the
authors. Studies should ideally be subject to an external critical review.
The different studies' compliance with the ISO standards for life cycle assessment (ISO
14040 and 14044) was considered as well as the information provided regarding:
 Cut-off criteria: According to the ISO 14040/44:2006 and the ILCD Handbook,
cut-off criteria should be documented in an LCA study. The reasons for assuming
cut-offs should be stated and their effects on results should be estimated.
 Allocation: Allocation rules should be documented in the description of the
studies.
 Data quality requirements and data sources: Data quality level and sources of
primary and secondary data should be documented, e.g. information on the
geographical and technological representativeness of the selected LCA studies.
 Assumptions: Information and documentation of the important assumptions is
crucial to ensure the transparency and reproducibility of the results. Therefore,
information about the assumptions made whilst modelling should be provided.
4.2.2 Selection of reports

An overview of the available LCA and environmental risk assessment studies is shown in
Table 29. Of them, the following studies were selected for a more detailed revision: EPA
Victoria and City West Water (2010) 130, The Sustainability Consortium (2011)131, and
130
LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water’s Residential Customers: Life Cycle Assessment – Final Technical Report, EPA Victoria
and City West Water, May 2010
131
Product Category Life Cycle Assessment (PCLCA) Laundry Detergent: Sustainability Measurement and Reporting System pilot project, The
Sustainability Consortium, 2011
106
Nielsen et al. (2013)132. Even though the study by The Sustainability Consortium (2011)
focussed on only three impact categories, it was selected for further revision because of
the limited availability of studies and because this study was well documented. Table 30
lists the studies which were disregarded for further analysis and the reasons for their
non-inclusion.
132
Compact detergents in China – a step towards more sustainable laundry a Life Cycle Assessment of four typical Chinese detergents,
Nielsen A.M., Li H., Zhang H., 2013
107
Table 29: Overview of studies on laundry detergents
Source Saouter et al. 2001 Saouter et al. 2002 Van Hoof et al. 2003 Eberle et al. 2007 Henkel AG & CO, A.I.S.E., 2010 EPA Victoria and City The Sustainability Nielsen et al. 2013
2008 West Water, 2010 Consortium, 2011
The effect of compact The effect of compact Comparative Life- LCA study and Case study Persil Charter for The life cycle Product Category Compact detergents
formulations on the formulations on the Cycle Assessment of environmental megapearls Sustainable Cleaning assessment of LCA (PCLCA) in China – a step
environmental profile environmental profile Laundry Detergent benefits for low – ASPs for Liquid clothes washing laundry detergent: towards more
of northern European of northern European Formulations in the temperature Laundry Detergents options for city west sustainability sustainable laundry
Title
granular laundry granular laundry UK disinfection process Substantiation water’s residential measurement and a Life Cycle
detergents. Part I: detergents. Part II: life in commercial Dossier customers reporting system Assessment of four
environmental risk cycle assessment laundry pilot project typical Chinese
assessment detergents
Regular (1988) and Regular (1988) and The environmental This study aims to Powder laundry Liquid laundry Top loader powder Powder and liquid To study the
compact granular compact granular profiles of five compare the detergent. Gain detergents. Get an concentrate. laundry environmental
(1992, 1998) (1992, 1998) different laundry energy further knowledge understanding of Quantify the level of detergents: worst- impacts of two
laundry detergents laundry detergents detergents on the UK requirements and and deeper insight the environmental water consumption, case market-typical typical compaction
were compared on the were compared on the market in 2001 are potential on the carbon impacts of the other environmental product. cases where two
basis of two distinct, basis of two distinct, analysed using LCA. environmental footprint of our various stages of a impacts, and the Identify hotspots Chinese detergents
complementary complementary Products analysed impacts associated detergents. liquid detergent’s environmental and characterize – one powder and
approaches: approaches: are: regular powder with three different Furthermore, the life cycle. benefits of changes the uncertainty one liquid – are
Environmental Risk Environmental Risk (RP), compact commercial laundry objective was to in key variables inherent in the life replaced with a
Subject of the study and goal
Assessment and Assessment and powder (CP), powder processes for create transparency within the life cycle cycle assessment. compacted version.
Life-Cycle Assessment. Life-Cycle Assessment. tablet (PT), compact washing of the greenhouse of clothes washing
liquid (CL) and liquid microbiologically gas (GHG) and drying;
unit-dose system contaminated emissions along the understand the
(LT). hospital and care value chain and to dependent
home laundry. find potential relationships
leverages for between each of the
process key variables;
optimizations and understand the
product optimum time within
improvement. the life of a washing
machine at which to
replace it; and
prioritize strategies
and actions for
communicating the
preferred approaches
to clothes washing
and drying.
Risk assessment LCA LCA LCA Carbon footprint + LCA LCA LCA LCA
Study type
LCA
108
Not applicable. To 1 kg of finished product One wash 1 kg washed One wash load One wash cycle: 1 kg of dry clothes Washing and One wash in an
make a fair hygiene laundry (results are standard washing drying one load of average Chinese
Functional Unit
comparison, we expressed for loads machine loads are regularly soiled washing machine (~
assumed that each of 2.5 kg, 3.9 kg (i.e. 4,5 kg dry fabric for laundry 2.5 kilograms of
product accounted for average load), and heavy-duty clothes)
100 % of the market. 5.0 kg of clothes) detergents and
2,5 kg dry fabric for
low-duty detergents
Aquatic compartment Cradle to grave Cradle to grave Based on available Cradle to grave Cradle to grave Cradle to grave Cradle to grave Cradle to grave
data, the system
boundaries include
System boundaries
detergent
manufacturing, the
professional wash
process, waste
water treatment,
but excluding the
laundry finishing
process.
1988-1998 1988-1998 Most detergent 2000-2004, Not specified Data collection for Data collection Reference year Data from EcoInvent
Time related
ingredient data For some processes relevant LCA between August 2010 (2010)
coverage
originate from the data were older, i.e. parameters in 2008 2009 and February
period 1990 –1995 1995-1996 and 2009 2010
Not specified Peer-reviewed by the LCI database has This study is based Carbon footprint No information on ISO 14040 and ISO 14044:2006. Peer reviewed in
Reliability (data quality, external
Ecobilan PwC group, in been reviewed by on a screening Life calculations based data quality of ISO 14044 Cross- Limitations and accordance with ISO
accordance with ISO PwC Cycle Assessment on PAS 2050. ISO (existing) LCA. The check of data in assumptions are 14040
(LCA) prepared in 14040 and 14044 ASPs and the SimaPro, uncertainty transparently
critical review?)
2002 by Öko- were considered as substantiation analysis of raw data, reported.

Institut (Germany), the basic dossier were subject LCA experts (UNSW)
which was carried methodological to consultation with peer reviewed both
out following the framework. Some Charter member the LCA process and
requirements of the methodological companies and the Final Technical
ISO 14040 series conditions had to other interested Report
standards. be adapted, as they parties (industry/
are loosely external
formulated. stakeholders)
109
Risk assessment for the 1. Acidification, 1. Acidification, 1. Energy resource 1. Global warming, 1. Primary energy, 1. Water use, 1. Global 1. Global warming;
aquatic compartment 2. Aquatic toxicity, 2. Eutrophication, consumption, 2. Eutrophication, 2. Water 2. Energy use, warming 2. Acute aquatic
3. Eutrophication, 3. Climate change, 2. Water resource 3. Human toxicity, consumption, 3. Global warming, potential, toxicity;
4. Greenhouse gases, 4. Ozone depletion, consumption, 4. Summer smog, 3. Total solid waste 4. eutrophication, 2. Water use, 3. Chronic aquatic
5. Human toxicity, 5. Photochemical 3. Climate change, 5. Biological oxygen 5. Fossil fuels 3. Fossil depletion toxicity;
6. Ozone layer ozone creation, 4. Eutrophication, demand, depletion, 4. Acidification;
depleting 6. Aquatic toxicity, 5. Acidification 6. Resource 6. Minerals 5. Nutrient
substances, 7. Human toxicity potential, depletion depletion, enrichment;
7. Smog formation 6. Aquatic eco- 7. Land use 6. Energy
Impact assessment
toxicity consumption;
potential, 7. Agricultural land
7. Photochemical use
oxidant
formation
8. Ozone depletion
potential
Table 30: Reasons for excluding available studies

Study Reason for disregarding
133,
Saouter et al. (2001) Outdated
134
Saouter et al. (2002) Outdated
135
Van Hoof et al. (2003) Outdated
136
Eberle et al. (2007) Outdated
137
Henkel AG & CO (2008) No specification of the time related coverage
138
A.I.S.E. (2010) Impact assessment model unknown; few impact categories considered
133
The effects of compact formulations on the environmental profile of North European granular laundry detergents. Part I: Risk Assessment, Saouter E., Van Hoof G., Pittinger C.A., Feijtel T.C.J., International Journal
of Life Cycle Assessment, 2001
134
The effects of compact formulations on the environmental profile of North European granular laundry detergents. Part II: Life Cycle Assessment, Saouter E., Van Hoof G., Feijtel T.C.J., and Owens J.W., International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2002
135
Comparative Life-Cycle Assessment of Laundry Detergent Formulations in the UK Part I: Environmental fingerprint of five detergent formulations in 2001, Van Hoof G., Schowanek D., Feijtel T.C.J., Tenside Surf. Det.,
2003
136
LCA study and environmental benefits for low temperature disinfection process in commercial laundry, Eberle U., Dewaele J., Schowanel D., International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2007
137
Case study Persil megaperls by Henkel AG & CO. KGAA. Case Study undertaken within the PCF Pilot Project Germany. 2008
138
A.I.S.E Charter for Sustainable Cleaning – ASPs for Liquid Laundry Detergents Substantiation Dossier, A.I.S.E, 2010
110
4.2.3 Detailed revision of selected reports
Table 31 presents an overview of the functional unit, system boundaries, data sources,
cut-off criteria, allocation rules applied, and geographical scale of the selected studies.
Table 32 presents an overview of the comprehensiveness based on the PEF methodology.
Table 31: Cut-off criteria, allocation and geographical scale of the selected studies
EPA Victoria and City West The Sustainability Consortium, Nielsen et al. 2013
Water, 2010 2011
Washing 1 kg of dry clothes Washing and drying one load of Washing one load in an average
Functional
regularly soiled laundry Chinese washing machine (~ 2.5 kg of

clothes)
unit
Cradle to grave Cradle to grave Cradle to grave

boundaries
System
Data collection from previous Modified version of the Ecoinvent Members of the Chinese Cleaning
139
LCA reports, government database version 2.2 Industry Association: use of energy
databases, and data embedded and ingredients in detergent
in the SimaPro databases, a.o. manufacture, packaging of detergent,
from the Australian LCA transport of main ingredients to the
Database 2009 and Ecoinvent 2.0 detergent manufacturer and transport
(covering predominantly of detergents from the manufacturer
Switzerland and Western- to the supermarkets. Ecoinvent
Data sources
Europe). database version 2.2: production of

detergent ingredients, energy supply,
packaging materials and transport.
Chinese Life Cycle Database: sensitivity
data.
Significance cut off value of 1 %. Some small flows were omitted Preservatives and perfumes which
when no data was available. These make up to 0.5 % of the formulation
Cut-off criteria
were assumed to contribute less have been excluded due to lack of

than 1 % at the scale of individual reliable data and because they are
life cycle phases. used in insignificant amounts. All other
cut-offs in the process tree are based
on the cut-offs in Ecoinvent (2010).
No allocation issues in waste For production, no chemical specific Not specified.
treatment. The recycling of allocation is specifically needed. For
machines is assigned a credit for consumer transport, mass allocation
Allocation
the avoided production. is applied. Volume allocation is

applied for burdens occurring during
distribution centre or retail store
storage.
Focus on Australia, but also The study is focused on the USA as China
Geographic
generic data (see data sources). geographical scenario. Due to the

lack of production data specific to
al scale
the USA, the chemical production

data is primarily of European scope.
139
Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods. Hischier, R., Weidema, B., Althaus, H.J., Bauer, C., Doka, G., Dones, R.,
Frischknecht, R., Hellweg, S., Humbert, S., Jungbluth, N., Köllner, T., Loerincik, Y., Margni, M., and Nemecek, T. (2010). Final report
ecoinvent v2.2 No. 3. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, CH. Retrieved 01.20.2011, from
http://www.ecoinvent.org/documentation/reports/
111
Table 32: Evaluation of comprehensiveness based on the PEF methodology
EF impact EF impact EF impact Source EPA Victoria The Nielsen et al.
category assessment category and City West Sustainability 2013
method indicators Water, 2010 Consortium,
2011
1
Climate Bern model - kg CO2 Inter- + + +
Change Global Warming equivalent governmental
Potentials (GWP) Panel on
over a 100 year Climate
time horizon Change, 2007
Ozone EDIP model based kg CFC-11 WMO, 1999 0 0 0
Depletion on the ODPs of equivalent
the World
Meteorological
Organization
(WMO)
Ecotoxicity USEtox model CTUe Rosenbaum et 0 0 -
for aquatic (Comparative al., 2008 Acute aquatic
fresh water Toxic Unit for toxicity CDVacute
3
ecosystems) (m )
Chronic aquatic
toxicity
3
CDVchronic (m )
Human USEtox model CTUe Rosenbaum et 0 0 0
Toxicity - (Comparative al., 2008
cancer Toxic Unit for
effects humans)
Human USEtox model CTUe Rosenbaum et 0 0 0
Toxicity – (Comparative al., 2008
non-cancer Toxic Unit for
effects humans)
Particulate RiskPoll model kg PM2.5 Humbert, 2009 0 0 0
Matter/ equivalent
Respiratory
Inorganics
235
Ionising Human Health kg U Dreicer et al., 0 0 0
Radiation – effect model equivalent (to 1995
human air)
health effects
Photo- LOTOS-EUROS kg NMVOC Van Zelm et al., 0 0 0
chemical model equivalent 2008 as applied
Ozone in ReCiPe
Formation
2
Acidification Accumulated mol H+ eq Seppälä et al., 0 0 -
Exceedance 2006; Posch et (mg SO2
model al., 2008 quivalent)
Eutrophic- Accumulated mol N eq Seppälä et 0 0 0
ation – Exceedance al.,2006; Posch
terrestrial model et al., 2009
2
Eutrophic- EUTREND model fresh water: Struijs et al., - 0 -
2
ation – kg P equivalent 2009 as (Heijungs 1992, (mg PO4 -
aquatic marine: kg N implemented in kg of PO4 eq.) equivalent)
equivalent ReCiPe
3
Resource Swiss Ecoscarcity m water use Frischknecht et - - 0
Depletion – model related to local al., 2008 (total volume of (Ecoinvent
water scarcity of water extracted datasets, water
3
water from natural depletion (m )
resources (KL)) but no
degradative use
and depletion
potential)
112
EF impact EF impact EF impact Source EPA Victoria The Nielsen et al.
category assessment category and City West Sustainability 2013
method indicators Water, 2010 Consortium,
2011
Resource CML2002 model kg antimony van Oers et al., - - 0
Depletion – (Sb) equivalent 2002 (Eco-indicator (ReCiPe, kg oil
mineral fossil 99 method, eq. based on
egalitarian their heat
version based content)
on Chapman &
Roberts (1983),
MJ surplus
energy
required)
2
Land Trans- Soil Organic Kg (deficit) Milà i Canals et - 0 -
2
formation Matter (SOM) al., 2007 (m occupiable Agricultural
2
model land used) land use (cm ·a)
2
Energy Not applied Decrease in - 0 -
consumption energy (energy use in (energy use in
available MJ Low Heat KJ Low Heat
Value (LHV)) Value (LHV))
The number of environmental impact categories that are 6 3 6
investigated within the studies
The number of impact categories that are the same as PEF but don’t 5 2 5
use the same methodology
The number of impact categories compliant with the PEF 1 1 1
methodology, i.e. use the same methodology
+ = compliant with the requirements of the PEF methodology
- = not compliant with the requirements of the PEF methodology
0 = not taken into account
1. Although a 100 year time horizon is not explicitly mentioned, we assume that GWP100 is investigated
2. Characterisation model not explicitly mentioned
4.3 LCA review: results

4.3.1 Results of the selected studies
The studies reviewed in this section are cradle-to-grave studies and consider a range of
different laundry detergents, including liquid and powder formats and in concentrated,
tablets, unidose, etc. forms. The studies do not cover pre-treatment products, hand-wash
detergents and 2-in-1 products. The functional unit in the selected studies is generally
one wash cycle, although the assumed capacity of the standard washing machine loads
vary from study to study. With regards to the definition of the reference flow, the dosage
is mainly based on recommended information provided by the manufacturer.
4.3.1.1 Results from EPA Victoria and City West Water, 2010
EPA Victoria and City West (2010)140 performed an LCA on clothes washing options for
City West Water’s residential customers. The study considered the following impacts:
water use, energy use, global warming, eutrophication, fossil fuel depletion, mineral
depletion and land use. The results showed that the use phase had the highest overall
impacts and contributed to impacts on water use (92 %), energy use (60 %), global
warming potential (73 %) and fossil fuel depletion (62 %). Ingredients sourcing had the
140
113
highest impact on land use (87 %) because a number of ingredients are agriculturally-
derived products. This life cycle stage also had an impact on mineral depletion (64 %)
due to the extraction of chemical ingredients. The highest impact on eutrophication
(94 %) came from the wastewater treatment and it was attributed to the phosphorus
content of the detergent output from the washing machine.
Wash temperature scenarios ranging from 20 °C to 90 °C were investigated.
Eutrophication, water use, land use and mineral depletion were relatively independent of
the wash temperature whereas other impacts showed around 1.5 % to 2.5 % increase
per °C rise. It was shown that reducing wash temperature by around 10 °C from
maximally 90 °C to minimally 20 °C could result in a decrease in global warming
potential of up to 18 %, a decrease in energy use of up to 22 % and a decrease in fossil
fuel depletion of 28 %.
4.3.1.2 Results from the study by the Sustainability Consortium, 2011

The Sustainability Consortium (2011)141 study examined the environmental impacts of
powder and liquid laundry detergents. The assessment was based on a market-typical
worst-case scenario and included the following indicators: global warming potential,
water use and fossil depletion. The use phase dominated the environmental impacts,
followed by raw materials extraction and processing. Impacts in the use phase were
driven by the energy needed to dry the laundry and to heat the water.
Production, packaging, distribution and retail, and end of life had lower overall impacts
when compared to the use phase. Impacts from packaging were mainly driven by the use
of high density polyethylene bottles, whereas impacts from distribution and retail were
primarily due to transport. Within the end of life phase, most of the impacts were
connected to the wastewater treatment.
4.3.1.3 Results from a study by Nielsen et al., 2013

Nielsen et al. (2013)142 compared four Chinese laundry detergents: a standard powder
detergent with a dosage of 50 grams and 16.5 % surfactant, a compact powder
detergent with a dosage of 25 grams and 19.5 % surfactant, a standard liquid detergent
with a dosage of 40 grams and 19 % surfactant, and a compact liquid detergent with a
dosage of 20 grams and 30 % surfactant. Compacted detergents offered environmental
benefits on all investigated impact categories: global warming potential, acidification,
nutrient enrichment, energy use, land use, acute and chronic aquatic toxicity (see Table
33 for more details). Just one scenario showed that detergent compaction may lead to
environmental disadvantages and that occurs if consumers do not reduce dosage and
keep using the same amount of detergent per wash.143 The findings of Nielsen et al. are
in agreement with results from other geographical regions (including Europe).
141
142
143
Findings from a pan-European consumer survey on sustainability and washing habits, A.I.S.E., 2014, from
http://www.aise.eu/documents/document/20140211164810-final_aise_habits_survey_2014update.pdf
114
Table 33: Percentage of reduction of environmental impacts due to the compaction of powder detergent
Impact category Unit Standard powder Compact powder Percentage of reduction
detergent detergent of impacts
Global warming g CO2 eq. 90 58 36
Acidification mg SO2 eq. 0.34 0.22 35
2-
Nutrient enrichment mg PO4 eq. 0.12 0.091 24
Energy consumption kJ 1,500 950 37
2
Agricultural land use cm -a 90 61 32
3
Acute aquatic toxicity CDVacute (m ) 190 180 5
3
Chronic aquatic toxicity CDVchronic (m ) 66 59 11
Source: Adapted from Nielsen 2013
4.3.2 Summary of findings

Although the scopes and goals of the reviewed LCA studies vary, most of them draw
similar conclusions that are summarised in this section. From a life cycle perspective the
major environmental impacts associated with laundry detergents are due to:
 The energy used for heating the washing water during the use stage, which
significantly contributes to the energy use impact category. This energy use has
an impact in other categories such as fossil fuel depletion and global warming
potential.
 The extraction and processing of raw materials that cause impacts on categories
such as mineral depletion, land use and energy use.
 The emissions to the environment (water) after use. The discharge of wastewater
has impacts on eutrophication while the impacts due to the end-of-life of
packaging materials depend on their possible scenarios.
The reviewed studies pointed out several improvement opportunities that can be
summarised as follows:
 Detergent compaction could bring environmental benefits due to the savings in
resources which are reflected in lower impacts on categories such as global
warming potential, energy use or chronic aquatic toxicity.
 Reduction in wash temperature brings environmental advantages due to the lower
energy use and therefore lower impacts on categories such as global warming
potential, energy use or fossil fuel depletion.
 Detergent formulation can affect environmental categories such as eutrophication
and acidification, agriculture land use and acute and chronic aquatic toxicity,
among others.
4.4 Opportunities for improvement

The opportunities for potential which have been identified from the literature studies are
reviewed in more detail in this section. This review is based on all the works listed in
Table 29, whether selected for further study in Section 4.1.3 or not, and aims to provide
an overview of the potential improvements that can be addressed during the revision of
the current EU Ecolabel criteria for laundry detergents.
The section focuses on the compaction of detergents and the reduction of the wash
temperature, including an in-depth analysis of the feasibility and effects of these
measures.
115
4.4.1 Compaction of detergents
There may be significant environmental benefits due to the compaction of detergents
such as a reduction in the product dosage and packaging, savings in energy consumption
and reduction of waste production. Additionally, savings in transport can be achieved as
more product (doses) can be carried per truck.
4.4.1.1 Van Hoof et al., 2003 study

Van Hoof et al.144 compared five different laundry detergent formulations available in the
UK market: regular powder, compact powder, powder tablet, compact liquid, and liquid
unit-dose system. The results showed that compact detergents (both powder and liquid)
were environmentally preferable to regular products mainly due to lower use of chemicals
per wash. This fact resulted in benefits on aquatic toxicity, eutrophication, ozone
depletion and photo-chemical smog. For all product formulations, the use stage is
dominant and contributes to above 70 % for most indicators.145 The results of this study
were confirmed by Nielsen et al.146
4.4.2 Wash temperature

Existing studies showed that the largest environmental impact of the laundry process
occurs during the use phase. The use phase consumed 60-80 % of the overall energy
used mainly to heat up the wash water. 147 Reducing the wash temperature could thus
lead to significant environmental gains.
4.4.2.1 A.I.S.E. study

A.I.S.E. commissioned a pan-European survey on consumers’ washing habits in 2011.148
European households wash on average 3.2 times per week at average temperature of 41
°C.149 The most popular program is the 40 °C cycle and approximately 22 % of loads are
washed at or above 60 °C. Washing at or below 30 °C is on the rise, with 32 % of loads
washed at 30 °C or lower, compared to 28 % in 2008.
A.I.S.E. calculated the effect of varying wash temperatures by using sensitivity
analyses.147 Environmental impacts are considerably reduced when wash temperature is
reduced to 30 °C in comparison to 40 °C and 60 °C scenarios. The impact categories
most affected are climate change, particulate matter formation and fossil depletion.
Figure 21 presents the results of this wash temperature sensitivity study.
144
Comparative Life-Cycle Assessment of Laundry Detergent Formulations in the UK Part I: Environmental fingerprint of five detergent
formulations in 2001, Van Hoof G., Schowanek D., Feijtel T.C.J., Tenside Surf. Det., 2003
145
The effects of compact formulations on the environmental profile of North European granular laundry detergents, Saouter E., Van Hoof
G., Pittinger C.A., Feijtel T.C.J., International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2001
146
147
The case for the “A.I.S.E. Low Temperature Washing” Initiative, A.I.S.E., June 2013
148
Findings from a pan-European consumer survey on sustainability and washing habits, A.I.S.E., 2014, from
http://www.aise.eu/documents/document/20140211164810-final_aise_habits_survey_2014update.pdf
149
Laundry washing habits diverse profiles across Europe, Insites report for A.I.S.E. 2011, available via www.iprefer30.eu
116
140%
Characterised results
120%
100%
80%
30°C
60%
40°C (baseline)
40%
20% 60°C
0%
CC PMF NLT FD
Impact categories
Figure 21: Results for wash temperature sensitivity Source: A.I.S.E. 2013
Impact categories stand for CC: climate change, PMF: particulate matter formation, NLT natural land transformation, FD fossil depletion
The energy savings potential from low temperature washing was also investigated by
Kruschwitz et al.150 A 3 °C reduction of the wash temperature across the EU-28
countries can reduce the average laundry energy consumption by 11.3 % and the 18 %
reduction could be achieved if it was reduced by 5 °C.
A generic LCA on liquid laundry detergents and solid laundry detergents was carried out
by A.I.S.E.151,152 Normalization against the average impact of a European citizen (2000)
was used to identify the most relevant indicators. The most relevant impact categories
identified for solid laundry detergents in Europe are fossil depletion, climate change,
natural land transformation, and particulate matter formation.
Both studies showed that the use phase is the life cycle stage with the largest
contribution to the overall environmental impact due to the energy needed to heat the
water during the wash cycle.152,153 It dominates impact categories such as fossil
depletion, climate change and particulate matter formation. Figure 22 shows the results
for solid laundry detergents. The impact caused ranges from 46 % to 95 % in most
impact categories, except for the impacts on agricultural land occupation, natural land
transformation, marine eutrophication, and metal depletion – which are driven by the
ingredients sourcing.
150
How effective are alternative ways of laundry washing, Kruschwitz A., Augsburg, A., Stamminger, R., Tenside Surfactant Det., 50 p263-
269, 2013
151
A.I.S.E LCA: Screening for Cleaning Products in Europe – Solid laundry detergents, A.I.S.E., 2013
152
153
Case study Persil megaperls by Henkel AG & CO. KGAA. Case Study undertaken within the PCF Pilot Project Germany. 2008
117
Characterised results ( %)
100
80 Ingredients
Manufacture
60
Packaging
40
Transport
20
Use Phase
0
End of Life
CC
OD
P…
TA
P…
FE
ME
A…
U…
N…
IR
W…
M…
FD
Impact categories
Figure 22: Impact contribution of different life cycle stages to the environmental impact
Impact categories stand for CC: Climate change, OD: Ozone depletion, TA: Terrestrial acidification, FE: Freshwater eutrophication, ME:
Marine eutrophication, HTox: Human toxicity, POF: Photochemical oxidant formation, PMF: Particulate matter formation, TTox: Terrestrial
ecotoxicity, FTox: Freshwater ecotoxicity, MTox: Marine ecotoxicity, IR: Ionising radiation, ALO: Agricultural land occupation, ULO: Urban
land occupation, NLT: Natural land transformation, WD: Water depletion, MD: Metal depletion, FD: Fossil depletion. Source: Adapted from
A.I.S.E., Screening LCAs for Cleaning Products in Europe – Solid Laundry Detergents, 2013
4.4.2.2 Procter & Gamble

Modern detergents have been designed to wash efficiently even at low temperatures by
including enzymes, catalysts and other activator ingredients into their formulations. P&G
compared Ariel ‘Actif à froid’ (cool clean), a formula that works at lower temperatures
(33 °C), to the regular Ariel 2001 and 1998 formulas used at regular temperatures (45
°C).154 The results indicated that using Ariel Actif à Froid leads to 27 % savings in
primary energy consumption and other indicators related to energy use, without incurring
significant trade-offs with other categories such as the aquatic toxicity potential.154 The
study, however, did not compare the washing performance of the two products.
4.4.2.3 Henkel, 2008

Henkel155 carried out a carbon footprint study of a powder laundry detergent. The results
confirmed the findings of other LCA studies and pointed out the use phase as the most
significant one due to total greenhouse gas emissions. Within the use phase, the
environmental impacts were shown to depend on the time and temperature of the
washing programme as well as the energy efficiency of the washing machine. Production
and transport of raw materials was the second most significant life cycle phase, even
though emissions were significantly lower. The study also looked at other environmental
indicators such as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), eutrophication, human toxicity,
summer smog and resource depletion. The use phase had the highest contribution to
human toxicity, summer smog and resource depletion, whereas the wastewater
treatment was the dominant phase for eutrophication and BOD, i.e. the amount of
dissolved oxygen needed by aerobic biological organisms in water to break down the
organic material present. In general, the authors of the study concluded that consumer
information and education is crucial to increase machine loading. After all, efficient
machine loading will lead to less frequent washing and thereby a reduction of the energy
154
Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Ariel “Actif à froid” (2006), a laundry detergent that allows to wash at colder wash temperatures,
with previous Ariel laundry detergents, Procter & Gamble, 2006
155
Case Study Persil megapearls, undertaken within the PCF pilot project Germany, Henkel AG & CO, 2008
118
and water consumption in the use phase – which is dominant with regard to the
environmental impact. On the other hand, manufacturers should improve detergent
formulations in order to produce detergents that can efficiently clean at lower wash
temperatures.
4.5 Overview of industrial laundry, auxiliaries and alternatives for

laundry washing
4.5.1 Industrial laundry
The industrial and institutional laundering sector includes industrial wash goods, hospital
wash goods, kitchen and food factory wash goods and goods from the lodging industry.
Professional laundries do not just buy a product or a range of products but rather they
purchase a full service solution which includes installations, a control system and dosing
equipment.156
The contribution of different life cycle stages to the environmental impact of industrial
laundering is similar to that of domestic laundering. The use phase is the most energy
intensive phase followed by the production and extraction of raw materials. The use
phase is also responsible for the largest contribution to solid waste and air emissions.
The main impact on water is associated with the BOD. The main difference between
domestic and industrial laundry is that industrial washing uses approximately half the
amount of water and detergent per wash than domestic washing.157
The European Textile Services Association (ETSA) study158 showed that industrial
laundering of work wear is more environmentally friendly than domestic laundering. The
study was based on washing 1 kg of normally soiled blue work wear and showed that the
industrial process used 52 % less primary energy, 73 % less water and 85 % less
detergent leading to lower CO2 and NOX emissions. The main conclusion of this study was
that industrial laundering has lower environmental impacts than domestic laundering
because of the optimisation in the washing process. Most professional laundries use
programmable washing machines meaning that they can tailor the programs with regard
to the number and type of cycles, time, temperature, water levels and dosing of
detergents and auxiliary chemicals. Commercial laundries also soften their water to
minimise detergent use resulting in laundry systems that use 60-70 % less builders.
Moreover, professional laundries use less energy, water and detergent per kg of clothing
because of detergent delivery and dispensing systems, monitoring and controlling
systems and recycling systems for water and energy. Moreover, the industrial laundry
market mostly uses concentrated detergents and liquids.
Nevertheless, the industrial laundry sector varies widely. According to ETSA 158 some
laundry systems can use three times more energy and 1.5 times more water than others
for the same process. Differences in the washing equipment and process control and
differences in on-site energy generation are some reasons for these variations.
4.5.2 Auxiliaries
Fabric conditioners are added at the end of the washing process to soften clothes by
neutralising the very small amounts of residual detergents left in clothes and preventing
156
157
Industrial & Institutional Sector – Environmental dossier on professional laundry, A.I.S.E., 2000
158
Industrial Laundering: Good for the Environment, Life Cycle Assessment Study – Summary, European Textile Services Association (ETSA),
March 2000
119
static electricity. Fabric conditioners also often include small amounts of fragrance and
anti-wrinkle agents and improve the release of dirt. A generic LCA on household fabric
conditioners was carried out by A.I.S.E. in 2010.159 The environmental categories
evaluated were nitrification potential, photochemical ozone creation potential,
acidification potential and global warming potential. Environmental impacts were
dominated by the ingredients and water treatment phase as the use phase was not taken
into account in this study (Figure 23).
Source: A.I.S.E 2010

Figure 23: Contribution of life cycle stages to environmental impact for household fabric conditioners
The study concluded that the most important factor to reduce the overall environmental
impact is the reduction in resources used to manufacture the product. Concentrating
fabric conditioners reduces dosage and packaging and delivers savings in energy
consumption and waste production. Similarly, impacts from transport are reduced
because more doses can be carried per batch.
The environmental impact of washing with or without fabric softeners was investigated
by EPA Victoria and City West Water.160 Across all seven impact categories the use of a
fabric softener (compared with its absence) increased the impacts of land use and
cumulative energy demand. Land use impacts were primarily due to the assumption of a
(renewable) palm oil derived fabric softener.
There are no publicly available studies which evaluate the environmental impact
differences between different fabric conditioners with different properties. However,
based on the review of existing studies on laundry detergents it is expected that compact
fabric softeners or fabric conditioners which are effective at low temperatures should
have lower environmental impacts. Such fabric conditioners are already on the market.
4.5.3 Laundry washing alternatives

A study by Kruschwitz et al.150 evaluated the effectiveness of alternative ways of laundry
washing using soap nuts, soapwort and two kinds of wash balls and compared it with the
use of regular detergent and washing with pure water. The tests were carried out in a 30
°C and 60 °C cotton program. The results showed that none of the investigated
159
A.I.S.E Charter Substantiation dossier on “Fabric Conditioners (household)”, A.I.S.E, 2010.
160
120
alternative cleaning methods delivers any washing effect better than the result achieved
with pure water. This confirmed the findings of Laital et al.161 who investigated washing
pellets and laundry magnets in addition to the abovementioned alternatives.
These studies on laundry washing alternatives also came up with another important
conclusion: they showed that water alone has a substantial cleaning effect. Tests showed
that when clothes are only slightly soiled, a wash temperature of 30 °C with a reduced
amount of detergent (e.g. 50 %) may already provide sufficient cleaning results.150
4.6 Summary of the key environmental impacts of laundry

detergents
Figure 24 shows a schematic representation of the life cycle stages of laundry
detergents. A cradle to grave study of a laundry detergent takes into account the
extraction and processing of the materials, production of the detergent, packaging,
transport, use and end of life. Table 34 describes the impacts of each life cycle stage,
based on the reviewed literature.
Detergent
Ingredients formulation Distribution
Use End of life
sourcing and retail
and
packaging
Raw material Water heating Plastics

Formulation
sourcing and
manufacture
Water supply Paper board
Transport
Production Waste
packaging water
materials treatment
Figure 24: Schematic representation of laundry detergent life cycle
Table 34: Impacts per life cycle stage

LC stage Impacts
Ingredients The raw materials sourcing phase has the second largest environmental impact after the use
sourcing phase. If we exclude the use phase, ingredient sourcing contributes to 75 % of the global
warming potential. In the reviewed studies, the ingredient composition of the detergent varies
based on the product format and on manufacturer formulation.
Commonly used ingredients are surfactants, water and other chemicals. Results show that only
a few ingredients - the surfactants and builders - are responsible for most of the impact.
Concentrated detergents perform better across all impact categories than the ‘generic’ variant,
and the effect of over-dosing even by 1% leads to increased impacts across all categories.
Detergent Detergent formulation includes the use of different energy carriers, water and the wastewater
formulation treatment in the production of the detergent. Technologies used in this stage are rarely
and described since formulation technologies seem to be common to all manufacturers. Packaging
161
Potential for environmental improvements in laundering, Laital K., Boks C., Klepp I.G., International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35,
254-264, 2011
121
packaging generally consists of primary and secondary packaging, and sometimes tertiary packaging.
Overall, impacts from this stage are very low, at 1-3 %.
Distribution Assumptions on transport differ between studies. Most studies include transport of
and retail ingredients/packaging to the manufacturing site. For distribution to retail, studies include either
one distribution route or a selection of routes. Transport to retail is excluded by most studies
and storage is rarely considered. Overall, the impact from transport is around 1-2 % of total
environmental impact, and mostly due to transport to retail.
Use All studies show that the use phase has the highest environmental impact. Among the reviewed
studies, the considered use scenario is either based on average use or a range of different use
scenarios. Impacts in this phase are mainly related with the heating of the water in the washing
machine. If cloth drying is included in the assessment, the impact increases significantly.
Energy use impacts are closely linked to machine size. Similarly the energy source used to heat
the water also influences the results. Studies also indicate that the lowest impacts are
associated with cold washing and that an increase by 10 °C can lead to a disproportional
increase in impacts. Water consumption impacts for front loading are lower than top loading
162
machines. With regard to loading, impacts increase exponentially as washing machine loads
decrease.
End of life Within this phase, most of the impact is related to the treatment of wastewater produced
during laundering. Among the reviewed studies, two main approaches are considered for the
end of life and wastewater treatment: a) an average scenario for the disposal of wastewater
with a municipal wastewater treatment and b) specific scenarios with a specific focus on toxicity
to aquatic organisms and biodegradability of ingredients.
4.7 Non-LCA impacts

4.7.1 Toxicity to aquatic organisms
The preferred approach for safety and regulatory management of chemicals (e.g.
Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)) is a
chemical-specific environmental risk assessment, based on specific exposure data and
tonnages. The toxicity data underlying the assessment are often acute toxicity data from
laboratory experiments because of the lack of chronic toxicity data.
However, scientists agree that the critical dilution volume (CDV) chronic gives a more
accurate picture of the environmental effects of a given substance. 163 CDV was originally
developed as an evaluation criterion for detergent ingredients in the context of the
European Eco-label scheme164,165. It expresses the substance-specific amount of water
needed for dilution to a safe level, and is therefore expressed in L per functional unit
(FU). The Detergent Ingredient Database (DID) List, a public source of agreed ecological
data for detergent production ingredients, can be used to perform CDV calculations as
well as laboratory and in silica test results. The outcomes can be considered as a
product-based relative assessments, on the basis of a functional unit – dose per
wash166,167.
162
In general, front loading machines, which are more high-tech and more efficient in cleaning clothes with less water, are much more
prevalent in Europe than top loading machines, which are more popular in the US and Japan.
163
Ovesen R.K., M.B. Eskeland, and L. Axelsson. 2013. Revision of the Detergent Ingredients Database List. Final report.
164
EU Eco-label 1995. Commission decision of 25 July 1995 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the
community ecolabel to laundry detergents. Official J European Communities L217:0014–0030, 95/365/EC
165
Van Hoof G., D. Schowanel, H. Franceschini, I. Muñoz, 2011. Ecotoxicity impact assessment of laundry products: a
comparison of USEtox and critical dilution volume approaches. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 16:803–818
166
DID list (2007) Detergent Ingredient Database (DID list) – 2007 version.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/ecolabelled_products/categories/did_list_en.htm (accessed 17/12/2010)
122
CDV calculations are based on the dosage, degradation and toxicity of a substance using
the formula below:
CDV   CDVi  (((dosagei  DFi ) / TFi )  1000)

Where dosagei is the recommended dosage expressed in g per wash, DF i is the
degradation factor and TFi is the toxicity factor.
4.7.1.1 Toxicity
Per chemical, a chronic toxicity ‘base set’ of three species should ideally be collected
(fish, crustaceans and algae). The lowest toxicity value of these three values is then used
for CDV calculations. The toxicity test results to be used can be expressed as the effect
concentration at different percentages of effect, e.g. EC10 or EC50, which is the
calculated effect concentration at 10 % or 50 % effect, or LC50, which is the
concentration at 50% lethality. Measured effects may be on for example growth rate,
immobility or mortality, depending on the test organism.
As there are substances with very small amounts of chronic toxicity data or which only
have been tested for acute toxicity, there is a need to distinguish between these and
other substances where the toxicity factors are based on more solid grounds. TF is
calculated as the lowest value of toxicity test results complemented by a safety factor
(SF) that is based on the availability of aquatic toxicity data and ranges from 10 to
10000.
4.7.1.2 Degradation
Degradation of substances in CDV calculations is taken into account through the
Degradation Factor which considers the ready biodegradability of a substance 168. It can
take four discreet values ranging from 0.05, if an ingredient is degraded in under 5 days,
to 1, if an ingredient is persistent in the environment. An exceptional 5 th value, 0.01, was
introduced in the 2014 version of the DID list that is only assigned to very toxic
substances that degrade extremely rapidly.
DF only considers biodegradation and not adsorption. This choice was made in the scope
of the EU Ecolabel as adsorpted substances end up in sludge and the presence of harmful
substances in sludge can cause problems when the sludge is used as a fertilizer.
4.7.1.3 DID list

The DID-list is a public tool containing toxicity and degradation information on over 200
commonly used ingredients in detergents and cosmetics. The DID list is revised on
regular basis to update existing entries and introduce new ones, based on input from
industry, competent bodies and ecotoxicology specialists.163 The list is meant to facilitate
the work of companies applying for EU Ecolabel and that of competent bodies reviewing
applications. Besides listing input data for CDV calculations, it also provides companies,
especially SMEs, with an easy way of comparing and ranking ingredients, making it
possible for them to spot a possible substitution that would result in a less impacting
product.
167
DID list Part B (2004) Detergent ingredients database version 30 June 2004.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/ecolabelled_ products/categories/did_list_en.htm. Accessed 17 Dec 2010
168
OECD Ready Biodegradability test - http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/test-no-301-ready-biodegradability_9789264070349-en
123
Table 35 shows an example of the information available for common detergent
ingredients in the DID-list.
Table 35: Toxicity values and degradation data for example detergent ingredients in the DID-list 169
Acute toxicity Chronic toxicity Degradation
DID number Ingredient name LC50 / SF TF NOEC SF TF DF Aerobic Anaerobic

EC50 (acute) (acute) (chronic) (chronic)
DID category: Cationic surfactants
2301 C8-16 0,08 1000 0,00008 0,0068 10 0,00068 0,05 R O
alkyltrimethyl or
benzyldimethyl
quaternary
ammonium salts
DID category: Other ingredient
Surfactants
2505 Zeolite (Insoluble 100 1000 0,1 100 50 2 1 NA NA
Inorganic)
Builders
2507 Polycarboxylates 40 1000 0,04 12 10 1,2 1 P N
homopolymer of
acrylic acid
2508 Polycarboxylates 100 1000 0,1 5,8 10 0,58 1 P N
copolymer of
acrylic/maleic acid
Bleachers
2525 Perborates (as 14 1000 0,014 0,014 1 NA NA
Boron)
2526 Percarbonate 4,9 1000 0,0049 0,7 50 0,014 0,01 NA NA
Auxiliaries
2533 Carboxymethylcell 250 5000 0,05 0,05 0,5 I N
ulose (CMC)
R = Readily biodegradable according to OECD guidelines, I = Inherently biodegradable according to OECD guidelines, P =
Persistent. The ingredient has failed the test for inherent biodegradability, 0 = The ingredient has not been tested, NA = Not
applicable, N = Not biodegradable under anaerobic conditions
4.7.2 Risk assessment of chemical release

The emissions that occur during the life cycle of washing detergents may have negative
health effects on humans and ecosystems. Air emissions occur primarily during the
ingredients sourcing and use, with the use phase contributing the most due to the energy
required for heating the water and the functioning of laundry machines.
Energy source plays a role in the environmental impacts, and the lower the fossil fuel
share in the national mix the lower the impacts of the overall life cycle.
4.7.3 Human health

Due to occupational exposure or frequent consumer use, the exposure levels to emitted
chemicals can be higher for some groups of people such as manufacturing workers or
laundry workers170 via inhalation of detergent dust, aerosol particles or inhalation of
volatile compounds when, for example, loading the washing machine. According to Van
169 Detergents Ingredients Database (DID-list) Part A. List of ingredients 2014

170
Prud’homme de Lodder L.C.H., H.J. Bremmer, J.G.M. van Engelen, 2006. Cleaning Products Fact Sheet to assess the risks for the
consumer. Bilthoven, The Netherlands: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). Report no.320104003
124
de Plassche et al.171 a cup containing 200 g of washing powder can generate up to 0.27
μg of dust, which is, in the worst case, completely airborne. The typical frequency at
which a consumer generally uses a product is 3.2 times per week. 149
4.7.4 Ecosystems
Saouter et al.172,173 compared the effect of compact formulations on the environmental
profile of regular (1988) and compact granular (1992, 1998) laundry detergents in the
Netherlands and Sweden. The results from Environmental Risk Assessment and LCA were
presented separately. Despite the very conservative nature of the risk assessment, all
ingredients had a risk quotient well below 1 in both the Netherlands and Sweden and at
all times. In the LCA, no significant differences were found between the products as
manufactured between 1988, 1992 and 1998.
Due to the introduction of compact detergents, risk quotients decreased two- to five-fold
between 1988 and 1998 in each country. After the introduction of compact detergents in
1988, the consumption of raw materials and energy, as well as environmental emissions
(air, water and solid waste) decreased. This results in the decrease of a number of
indicators in the LCA results (e.g. acidification, aquatic toxicity greenhouse effects,
eutrophication, toxicity, ozone depletion and smog).
Slightly lower risk quotients were observed in Sweden compared to the Netherlands,
attributable to the lower water hardness and thus the lower detergent usage per wash
cycle in that country. If water hardnesses were equal, the outcome of the product risk
assessments would have been the same in the two countries.
Concerning the life cycle impacts, the differences between the Netherlands and Sweden
are due to differences in electrical generation mix, in energy consumption during
consumer use, in detergent dosage per wash and in the wastewater treatment
infrastructure.
4.7.5 Sustainable sourcing

In order to protect nature and its ecosystem services, sourcing of ingredients for laundry
detergents and their packaging materials should be done in a sustainable way. This
means sourcing in a way that takes into account the consequences for the environment.
For instance, ensuring that adverse effects on biodiversity are minimised and positive
contributions are made where possible174 by, for example, implementing a farmers’ code
to adopt better agricultural practices that are sensitive to biodiversity without harming
agricultural yield or profitability.
4.8 In-house LCA studies

Due to the scarcity of publicly available studies on the environmental performance of
laundry detergents, in-house LCA analyses were carried out in this study. This section
171
Plassche E.J. van de, P.H.F. Bont, J.M.Hesse, 1999. Exploratory Report on Fluorescent Whitening Agents (FWAs). Bilthoven, The
Netherlands: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). Report no. 601503013
172
The effects of compact formulations on the environmental profile of North European granular laundry detergents. Part I: Risk
Assessment, Saouter E., Van Hoof G., Pittinger C.A., Feijtel T.C.J., International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2001
173
The effects of compact formulations on the environmental profile of North European granular laundry detergents. Part II: Life Cycle
Assessment, Saouter E., Van Hoof G., Feijtel T.C.J., and Owens J.W., International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2002
174
http://www.unilever.com/sustainable-living-2014/reducing-environmental-impact/sustainable-sourcing/protecting-
biodiversity/index.aspx
125
describes the methodology followed, the sources and assumptions considered as well as
the obtained results and their interpretation and discussion.
4.8.1 Methodology
The technical analysis was performed using an LCA approach and taking into account the
Product Environmental Footprint. General Guide. 175 The LCA allowed assessing the
relative environmental load of each life cycle stage to have an overall profile of the
products’ performance. Moreover, several comparative analyses and sensitivity analyses
were performed regarding the ingredients, wash temperature, etc. to assess their
importance and identify associated improvement potentials. The LCAs were performed in
accordance with the standard methodology of ISO 14040 and 14044. The four steps
presented in Figure 25 were carried out in an iterative process.
Figure 25: Steps of the life cycle assessment, according to UNE-EN ISO 14040: 2006
4.8.2 Goal definition

Goal definition is the first step of an LCA study. It defines the general context for the
study. In the goal definition, parameters such as the intended application, the reasons
for carrying out the study, the target audience, the limitations and assumptions have to
be described.
The goal of this analysis is to quantify the potential environmental impacts of products
included in the category ‘laundry detergents’ during all their life cycle phases. This
analysis does not aim to make a comparison among different products or brands. The
main objective is to analyse the impact of each life stage and its contribution in relation
to other stages and the global environmental load of the product. Thus, even though
specific products are taken as case studies for some stages, the study only aims to
analyse the performance of an average product manufactured in Europe. Consequently, a
general LCA has been performed in order to have the complete environmental profile of
the selected products.
4.8.3 Scope of the study

The scope of an LCA study consists of describing the system to be analysed along with
the associated considerations and specifications. In the study proposed, an LCA from
175
Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Guide. Official Journal of the European Union (2013/179/EU). Commission Recommendation of 9
April 2013 on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and
organisations. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013H0179
126
cradle to grave is considered and the following phases are covered by the analysis, as
shown in Figure 24: sourcing of the ingredients and packaging materials, manufacture of
laundry detergent, product packing, distribution to retail, use phase and disposal/ end of
life.
4.8.4 Functional unit and reference flow

The functional unit describes qualitatively and quantitatively the function(s) or the
service(s) provided by the product analysed. The functional unit is used to define what
the LCA is measuring, and provides a reference to which the inputs and outputs can be
related. In this case the functional unit chosen is one laundry cycle. The reference flow
describes the amount of the product required to fulfil the functional unit. The reference
flow is assumed to be 85 grams of a powder laundry detergent for an average load of
normal soiled laundry, using medium hardness water. The reference flow is an estimate
based on the review of the existing literature and is not based on the performance of a
specific laundry detergent. The reference wash temperature is 40 °C.
4.8.5 System description and boundaries

The system boundaries were defined following general supply‐chain logic including raw
materials (including raw materials extraction and ingredients manufacturing),
manufacturing, packaging, distribution, use and final disposal (see also Table 36):
 Raw materials: In this sub‐system raw materials and processing of ingredients
are included. Composition and formulation of these products were taken into
account and studied through the following parameters: origin of substances (e.g.
vegetable, petroleum), production processes (energy and resources used) of
substances and the performance of substances (toxicity properties to assess
potential environmental impacts).
 Manufacturing: Standard processes and technologies to manufacture the
products were analysed. The use of energy and water during manufacturing is
reported, together with waste generation, air emissions and water emissions.
 Packaging: The primary and secondary packaging were analysed. Some relevant
aspects are the weight of material, origin of materials (virgin vs. recycled),
recyclability and use of hazardous substances. A common packaging has been
considered for all laundry detergents (see Table 36).
 Transport/Distribution: The average distribution of products in the European
market was analysed, consisting in the transport from the plant to the final point
of sale, including transport among intermediate storages. Storage processes in
the manufacturing plant and intermediary storage have not been included in the
system.
 Use: During use a risk exists that the product may have negative health impacts.
The potential for negative health impacts could be reduced by increasing the
health requirements on fragrances, preservatives and hazardous compounds. LCA
results do not reflect these effects in the use phase (either due to generic use of
data or because the inputs are ‘diluted’ with the inclusion of all LCA inputs). These
effects were discussed in the section on other impacts (Section 4.7). We assume
49 litres of water at 40 °C was used for washing.176 Energy required to heat the
water falls within the system boundaries, being considered as energy mix for
continental Europe in 2000 for the base case.
 Disposal: Two kinds of “waste” were included in the system:
176
Koehler A and C Wildbolz, 2009. Comparing the Environmental Footprints of Home-Care and Personal-Hygiene Products: The Relevance
of Different Life-Cycle Phases. ES&T 43(22):8643-8651.
127
• Disposal of the product into water after use phase. As products studied are
rinsed off, it is considered that the whole product is released to wastewater
after the laundering and that it is subsequently purified in a household
sewage plant.
• Disposal of the packaging. Scenarios were defined for each kind of
packaging considering the shares to be recycled and to be disposed.
Impacts from recycling were included in the system and balanced with
environmental credits due to the avoidance of use of virgin materials. All
impacts coming from waste disposal are included in the system.
4.8.6 Life cycle inventory

Life‐cycle inventory (LCI) is a ‘cradle to grave’ accounting (compilation and
quantification) of the environmentally significant inputs and outputs of the system
throughout its life cycle (Figure 26). The environmental burdens in this study include
material input requirements, total energy consumed, air and water emissions released,
and total solid wastes associated with the product’s life‐cycle. LCI data is converted to
the study’s functional unit.
I PUTS UTPUTS
Product materials Primary products
Ancillary materials Air emissions
Energy/resources
Unit Process Water effluent
Release to land
Figure 26: Inventory inputs and outputs
For each sub‐system defined, inputs and outputs of the processes were gathered and
quantified. For the most important stages primary data (information gathered from
products) were used when possible. For secondary data other studies and existing
databases (such as Ecoinvent) were used. For a few stages, e.g. distribution, generic
data from other studies were also used as they were not considered of high relevance.
For each sub‐system, the key assumptions and information sources are summarized in
Table 36.
Table 36: Key assumptions and information sources
Reference Powder detergent
Functional unit Review of LCA studies 1 wash at 40˚C
177
Reference flow Van Hoof et al. 2011 85 g
Raw materials and ingredients Van Hoof et al. 2011 Standard formulation
Transport ingredients to product Assumed Renewable part in surfactants 5,000 km
manufacturing site (boat)
Other ingredients 2,000 km (lorry )
178
Energy for processing raw materials Franke et al. 1995 40.7 KJ
179
Packaging (primary and secondary) TSC Cardboard (5+6.5E-2 g)
Transport retail Frischknecht and 100 km by truck and 600 km by train
177
Ecotoxicity impact assessment of laundry products: a comparison of USEtox and critical dilution volume approaches, Van Hoof G.,
Schowanek D., Francheschini H., International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16, p803-818, 2011.
178
Franke, M., Klüppel, H., & Olschewski, P. (1995). Ökobilanzierung - Sachbilanz fürdie Waschmittel-
Konfektionierung. Tenside Surf. Det. 32(2) .
179
Sustainability Consortium, 2011.
128
Reference Powder detergent
180
Jungbluth (2002)
Energy use in the use phase Koehler and Wildbolz 0.53k Wh
181
2009
Water use in the use phase Koehler and Wildbolz 49 L
181
2009
Waste water treatment Based on EU Statistics 100 % connection to secondary treatment
182
Recycling rates solid waste Eurostat (2012) Paper & board 83.2 %
Solid waste treatment (i.e. the Eurostat (2012) Landfill 65.3 %

fraction that is not recycled) Incineration 34.7 %
4.8.6.1 Raw materials for laundry detergents

There is no ‘standard’ laundry detergent formulation. A large number of different
ingredients can be used in a variety of combinations giving rise to different detergent
formulations. Generally however, all laundry detergents contain the following categories
of ingredients but in different concentrations: surfactants, builders (a.o. alkalis),
bleaches, enzymes, and auxiliaries. Table 37 shows the general characteristics of a
laundry detergent.
Table 37: Generic laundry powder detergent formulation
Product formulation Function Concentration
(WT %)
Surfactant Wetting agent, soil removal, soil/film prevention, sheeting 10-15 %
action, soil dispersion, drying aid
Builder Sequestration, soil suspension, alkalinity, emulsification, soil 30-85.5 %
pepitization
Bleach (optional) Soil removal, stain removal, sanitation, disinfection 7-21 %
Defoamer (optional) Foam prevention, wash efficiency 0-1 %
Colour, perfume (optional) Aesthetic enhancement 0-1 %
Water (optional) Solvent, carrier, flow property Balance
Source: Oakdene Hollins, based on data from www.isditproductveilig.nl
Thus, considering the number of different formulations possible, assessing the

environmental impact of all varieties of detergents is impractical and a representative
product is needed. The bill of materials for a laundry formulation for this study was
created based on Van Hoof et al.183 Table 38 shows the inventory data used to model the
generic laundry detergent.
Ingredients of laundry detergents contain very specific substances: some of these

substances are not included in the Ecoinvent database. In cases where there has been a
lack of information, alternative substances that fulfil similar functions in soaps were
chosen as a best guess.
180
Frischknecht, R., and Jungbluth, N.(2002). Working paper: Qualitiy guidelines ecoinvent 2000 (in German: Arbeitspapier:
Qualitätsrichtlinien ecoinvent 2000). Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, ecoinvent Center: Duebendorf, Switzerland. Retrieved
10.12.2010, from http://www.ecoinvent.org/fileadmin/documents/en/presentation_papers/Qualitaet_5.7.pdf.
181
Koehler A and C Wildbolz, 2009. Comparing the Environmental Footprints of Home-Care and Personal-Hygiene Products: The Relevance
of Different Life-Cycle Phases. ES&T 43(22):8643-8651.
182
Eurostat. (2012). EU Packaging recycling 2005. Retrieved from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu.
183
The effects of compact formulations on the environmental profile of North European granular laundry detergents, Saouter E., Van Hoof
G., Pittinger C.A., Feijtel T.C.J., International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2001
129
Table 38: Ecoinvent data inventory for a laundry detergent frame formula
Laundry product formulation Concentration Ecoinvent data
(wt%)
Water 7.80 Water, completely softened, at plant/RER S
Sodium carbonate 22.17 GLO: Sodium carbonate from NH3Ch production, at plant
Sodium sulphate 19.89 Sodium sulphate, powder, production mix, at plant/RER S
Sodium percarbonate 13.27 Sodium percarbonate, powder, at plant/RER S
Na, 8.69 Alkylbenzene, linear, at plant/RER S
Linear alkylbenzene sulfonate
Zeolite 7.04 Zeolite, powder, at plant/RER S
Sodium silicate 4.71 Layered sodium silicate, SKS-6, powder, at plant/RER S
Bentonite 4.48 Bentonite, at processing/DE S
C12-15 alkylethoxysulphate 3.08 RER: fatty alcohol sulphate mix, at plant*
(3EO)
Sodium acrylic acid 1.48 Empty process**
Carboxymethyl cellulose 1.23 Carboxymethyl cellulose, powder, at plant/RER S
Citric 0.99 Empty process
Perfume 0.76 Empty process
Polycarboxylate polymer 0.57 Polycarboxylates, 40 % active substance, at plant/RER S
Phosphonate (HEDP) 0.53 Empty process**
Enzymes 0.34 Empty process**
Sodium chloride 0.07 Sodium chloride, powder, at plant/RER S
Dye 0.01 Empty process**
* Alcohol sulphate (AS) C12-18, 25 % mix of petrochemical, palm kernel oil, coconut oil, palm oil
** Due to a lack of data, these ingredients are modelled as empty processes which causes uncertainty in the impact assessment.
4.8.6.2 Manufacturing
This module contains energy inputs for the manufacturing of a laundry detergent. As
described in Section 4.1.2, the manufacturing process employed for laundry detergent
products generally consists of mixing and pumping the ingredients into mixing vessels.
The exact process employed will depend on the manufacturer and the format of the final
product. For the manufacture of powder laundry detergents, the required energy was
based on a study by Franke et al.184 and set to 40.7 kJ. The average EU energy mix from
the Ecoinvent database 2.2 was used. We assume the detergent is produced and
subsequently packaged at the same location. In the LCA, the required ingredients,
packaging and transport are combined under the assembly of the laundry detergent.
Production of waste and emissions for the production of a laundry detergent was not
included due to lack of data. Infrastructure has also not been included.
4.8.6.3 Packaging
Packaging can be defined as the materials used for the containment, protection,
handling, delivery, and presentation of goods. Packaging can be divided into three
categories: primary, secondary and transport packaging.
There are different published definitions of packaging; thus it is proposed that, in the
context of EU Ecolabel criteria, the definitions given in Article 3 of the EU Directive on
184
130
Packaging and Packaging Waste 94/62/EC 185 are used (as already done for some other
product groups e.g. rinse-off cosmetics). These definitions are as follows:
a) “Sales packaging or primary packaging, i.e. packaging conceived so as to
constitute a sales unit to the final user or consumer at the point of purchase;
b) Grouped packaging or secondary packaging, i.e. packaging conceived so as to
constitute at the point of purchase a grouping of a certain number of sales units
whether the latter is sold as such to the final user or consumer or whether it
serves only as a means to replenish the shelves at the point of sale; it can be
removed from the product without affecting its characteristics;
c) Transport packaging or tertiary packaging, i.e. packaging conceived so as to
facilitate handling and transport of a number of sales units or grouped packaging
in order to prevent physical handling and transport damage. Transport packaging
does not include road, rail, ship and air containers".
It covers wooden pallets, board and plastic wrapping and containers that are used
to collate the groups into larger loads for transport, which facilitates loading and
unloading of goods
In this study, both primary and secondary packaging have been included. Table 39 shows
the inventory data used for the packaging materials. The secondary packaging (i.e.
cardboard box/carton) consists of recycled material (80 %). It has been assumed that 20
boxes of laundry detergent fit into one case.
Table 39: Primary & secondary packaging for laundry detergent
Packaging Weight (g) Ecoinvent data
(Primary& Secondary)
Cardboard box 5 g* Packaging, corrugated board, mixed fibre, single wall, (80 % recycled)
Case for 20 boxes 6.5E-2 g* Packaging, corrugated board, mixed fibre, single wall, (80 % recycled)
* The weight is allocated based on the functional unit
4.8.6.4 Transport
Transport of raw materials is assumed to be 5,000 km (boat) for the renewable part in
surfactants, and 2,000 km (lorry) for other ingredients. The ingredients are assumed to
come from another continent (Asia) - hence the large distance. Literature data have been
used to estimate the transport distance during the distribution phase. Normally in the
European market products are distributed via lorry first to an intermediate storage, then
to the storage facilities of direct customers (retailer) and from there to the point of sale
(e.g. supermarket). Transport from retail to consumer homes was omitted as data were
unavailable. This omission should not have significant consequences as studies for other
categories show that these impacts are generally minimal when compared to other
activities and typical shopping habits. Based on Frischknecht and Jungbluth (2002) 180 the
distance transported in the EU was set to 100 km by truck (>16 tonnes, fleet average)
and 600 km by freight train.
4.8.6.5 Use
The energy for the wash temperatures was taken from the Preparatory studies for eco-
design requirements of energy using products (EuPs): Domestic Washing machines and
dishwashers, December 2007.60 The inventory data for water withdrawal is of poor
quality and this should be remembered when interpreting the findings of the study. The
water inventory does not distinguish between sources of water or water quality.
185
Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste
131
4.8.6.6 Disposal
The release of the product to water and the waste packaging generation is split. It is
considered that the whole product is rinsed off, i.e. 85 g of laundry detergent is released
to water that subsequently goes to a residential wastewater treatment plant. Packaging
waste is partially recycled (values based on Eurostat (2012) rates for paper and
board).The remaining waste is landfilled and incinerated. See Table 36 for the
percentages of the waste treatment flows.
4.8.6.7 Data quality

Data quality concerning the ingredients is fair. For some ingredients for which no
information was available, proxies were used as a best guess. Data for electricity and
production are quite good. Data for waste water treatment are fair, but waste water
treatment does not contribute much to the life cycle impacts. We used typical municipal
waste water treatment data. For the use phase, which is dominant in the impact, data
quality is good.
4.8.7 Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)

This section presents the LCI assessment. It is based on the data obtained in the
inventory stage and includes the analysis of alternative substances for different products.
4.8.7.1 Impact assessment method used

The impact assessment method used is ReCiPe.186 ReCiPe proposes a feasible
implementation of a combined midpoint categories (expressed in units of a reference
substance) and damage approach, linking all types of LCI results (elementary flows and
other interventions) via midpoint categories to four damage categories: human health,
ecosystem quality, climate change, and resources.
Normalization can be performed either at midpoint or at damage level. Midpoints are
used for a more specific and detailed analysis, whereas damage endpoints are useful to
communicate the results obtained to a broader audience. The pre‐defined (mathematical)
weighting of the different midpoint scores within the ReCiPe assessment method allows
us to come to a single score. However, as previously mentioned, this should be used
more for communication purposes than for analysis, as weighting is not standardised and
it is generally considered more relevant for the experts groups to hold discussions in
greater detail – on midpoints level.
4.8.7.2 Contribution analysis by life cycle stage

The life cycle stages with the highest contribution to the environmental impacts were
identified using characterised midpoint results from ReCiPe. The list of the impact
categories and their abbreviations is given in Table 40.
Table 40: Glossary
Impact Category Unit Abbreviation
186
Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., De Schryver, A., Struijs, J., & Van Zelm, R. (2009). ReCiPe 2009. A life cycle impact
assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. The Hague, The Netherlands:
VROM.
132
Climate change kg CO2 eq CC
Ozone depletion kg CFC-11 eq OD
Terrestrial acidification kg SO2 eq TA
Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq FE
Marine eutrophication kg N eq ME
Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq HTox
Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC POF
Particulate matter formation kg PM10 eq PMF
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq TTox
Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq FTox
Marine ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq MTox
235
Ionising radiation kg U eq IR
2
Agricultural land occupation m *yr ALO
2
Urban land occupation m *yr ULO
2
Natural land transformation m *yr NLT
3
Water depletion m WD
Metal depletion kg Fe eq MD
Fossil depletion kg oil eq FD
The results for a powder laundry detergent are shown in Figure 27. For more information,
please see Annex V.
100
80
60 Ingredients
40 Manufacturing
20 Packaging
Transport
0
Use Phase
OD
CC
TA
FE
ME
HTox
POF
PMF
TTox
FTox
MTox
IR
End of Life
ALO
ULO
NLT
WD
MD
FD
Figure 27: Impact contribution of different life cycle stages of a laundry detergent
Ingredients: For terrestrial ecotoxicity, the ingredient sodium percarbonate is important
(63 % of impacts), as well as the surfactant fatty alcohol sulphate (28 %). The surfactant
modelled in this study is of a mixed origin, i.e. both oleo chemical origin (palm and
coconut resources) and petrochemical, which has an effect on both natural land
transformation and agricultural land occupation. The largest share of freshwater ecotoxic
impacts is also caused by the ingredients (81 %, mainly sodium percarbonate). The
impacts related to occupation of agricultural land are mainly caused by the ingredients
(39 %), i.e. fatty alcohol sulphate (20 %) and carboxymethyl cellulose (12 %). For
natural land transformation, the largest share of the impacts is caused by the ingredients
(57 %, of which fatty alcohol 40 %). For the impacts related to metal depletion, the
ingredients (a.o. zeolite) caused 24 % of the environmental impact. For marine
ecotoxicity, the ingredients contributed 43 % to the environmental impact. The most
important ingredient was sodium percarbonate, a bleaching agent.
133
Use phase: The life cycle stage with the largest contribution to the overall
environmental impact is the use phase. In particular, the energy needed to heat the
water during the wash cycle. For climate change, ozone depletion, terrestrial
acidification, freshwater eutrophication, human toxicity, photochemical oxidant
formation, particulate matter formation, ionising radiation, urban land occupation, water
depletion, and fossil depletion, the use phase contributed 60-97 %. For the impacts
related to occupation of urban land, the energy of the use phase contributed 59 % to the
environmental impact, for marine ecotoxicity 45 %, for natural land transformation 37
%, for metal depletion 29 %, for agricultural land occupation 26 %, for freshwater
ecotoxicity 15 %, for marine eutrophication 10 %, and for terrestrial ecotoxicity 4 %.
End of life: For marine eutrophication, the end of life was important: 84 % of
characterised midpoint results. In particular, the wastewater sent to wastewater
treatment plant contributed much to the impact. Furthermore, the treatment of
wastewater contributed 40 % for the environmental impact related to metal depletion.
Other life cycle stages: Manufacture and transport a have a minor contribution towards
the total environmental impact when compared to the use phase or the ingredients
sourcing (Annex V). Packaging is only relevant for agricultural land occupation (33 %,
related to the non-recycled content of the cardboard).
Table 41: Aggregate midpoint results for a laundry detergent
Impact category Unit Laundry detergent
Climate change kg CO2 eq 9.8E-01
Ozone depletion kg CFC-11 eq 5.5E-08
Terrestrial acidification kg SO2 eq 4.1E-03
Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq 8.9E-04
Marine eutrophication kg N eq 1.7E-03
Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 7.6E-01
Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC 2.3E-03
Particulate matter formation kg PM10 eq 1.3E-03
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 5.4E-04
Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 4.5E-02
Marine ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 2.8E-02
Ionising radiation kg U235 eq 6.5E-01
2
Agricultural land occupation ma 3.7E-02
2
Urban land occupation ma 5.2E-03
2
Natural land transformation m 2.0E-04
3
Water depletion m 6.3E+00
Metal depletion kg Fe eq 2.9E-02
Fossil depletion kg oil eq 2.7E-01
4.8.7.3 Identification of significant impacts

The magnitude of different environmental impacts cannot be compared to each other
because each impact category is expressed in a different unit. We can, however, identify
how significant an impact is when compared to a reference - in this case, the average
impacts of a European citizen in the year 2000. This step in LCIA is known as
normalization.
The results were calculated based on the ReCiPe endpoint approach187, using the
hierarchist perspective with European normalisation data from the year 2000.188 The
187
Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., De Schryver, A., Struijs, J., & Van Zelm, R. (2009). ReCiPe 2009. A life cycle impact assessment
method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. The Hague, The Netherlands: VROM.
134
hierarchist perspective can be seen as a method based on scientific consensus, unlike the
more explicit views like egalitarian (precautionary principle) and individualist (short-term
impacts only). It is therefore the recommendation of the method developers to use the
hierarchist perspective.188 Normalization at endpoint helps identify whether the
contribution of an impact indicator is relevant in a damage category (i.e. effect of an
indicator such as climate change on human health, ecosystem quality, and resource
depletion). The normalised values of the different life cycle stages of a laundry detergent
are shown in Figure 28.
Normalised results (person.yr)
1.E-04
8.E-05
6.E-05 Ingredients
4.E-05 Formulation
Packaging
2.E-05
Transport
0.E+00
CCh
Use Phase
OD
HTox
POF
PMF
IR
CCe
TA
FE
Ttox
Ftox
End of Life
Mtox
ALO
ULO
NLT
MD
FD
Endpoint impact categories
Figure 28: Normalised endpoint results for laundry detergent

For a laundry detergent, the most relevant impact categories relative to the reference
(average impacts of a European citizen in the year 2000) are climate change (both
human health (h) and ecosystems (e)), human toxicity, fossil depletion, and natural land
transformation. The level of significance is set by the overall contribution of an impact
indicator to an area of protection.
Climate change impacts are mainly related to the electricity used to heat the water in the
use phase. Human toxicity impacts are mainly due to the emissions of the bleaching
agent sodium percarbonate, and to electricity. Fossil depletion impacts are mainly caused
by electricity use too. The impacts on natural land transformation are mainly driven by
the surfactant, the fatty alcohol sulphate, and the electricity used to heat the water in
the use phase is also important.
4.9 Sensitivity analysis

In this section we explore the consequences of the assumptions on the overall results.
The following variables were analysed: product dosage, wash temperature, surfactant
origin, energy mix and use of fabric softener. These variables were selected because of
their significant contribution from a particular life cycle phase.
188
Sleeswijk AW, et al, Normalization in product life cycle assessment: An LCA of the global and European economic systems in the year
2000, Sci Total Environ (2007), doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.09.040
135
Since climate change, human toxicity, natural land transformation and fossil depletion
were shown to be the most important impact categories according to the endpoint
normalisation, in this section we graphically present the results for those four impact
categories.
4.9.1 Washing program

Existing studies and the in-house LCA have shown that the largest environmental impact
of the laundry process occurs during the use phase. This is due to the energy consumed
to heat the water; reducing the wash temperature through altering the wash program
can lead to significant environmental gains. The washing program takes into account
wash temperature and washing duration, which are both determinants of the amount of
energy that is used in the use phase. In this sensitivity analysis we have adjusted the
energy use as if the water temperature in the use phase would be reduced by 10 °C or
increased by 20 °C. In the reference scenario, an energy consumption of 0.53 kWh was
used for a wash temperature of 40 °C (standard conditions, based on Koehler and
Wildbolz).181 The clothes were assumed to be medium soiled, and the water hardness
was assumed to be medium.
The results show that the impacts are significantly reduced for the 30 °C wash compared
to the 40 °C and 50 °C wash programs. Figure 29 shows that a change in energy
consumption, due to e.g. a change in wash temperature (a reduction of 10 °C or an
increase of 20 °C), results in proportional changes in the environmental impact. Marine
eutrophication, terrestrial toxicity, freshwater toxicity, and water depletion were the least
influenced by a reduction in energy use, with a change of reduction of less than 2 %
impact contribution when switching from 40 °C to 30 °C.
100
80
60
30 degrees
40
40 degrees
20 60 degrees
0
CC HTox NLT FD
Impact categories
Figure 29: Characterised results for washing program sensitivity
4.9.2 Energy source for heating the water

In the baseline scenario we used the energy mix for Continental Europe (the Union for
the Coordination of the Transmission of Electricity) from Ecoinvent. This represents the
electricity net production shares by the member countries based on annual averages
from the year 2000. For the sensitivity analysis we used the dataset for electricity
production in France (approximately 50 % is derived from nuclear energy), electricity
production in Switzerland (approximately 50 % derived from hydropower), and electricity
production in the Netherlands (approximately 50 % is derived from natural gas). The
results are shown in Figure 30
The results show that an energy mix based mostly on nuclear energy or hydro power
significantly reduces the environmental impacts in all impact categories which were
136
shown to be the most important according to the normalisation, i.e. climate change,
human toxicity, natural land transformation and fossil depletion. This is because these
sources are a cleaner source of energy compared to the electricity mix used in the study,
which includes coal, crude oil, lignite, etc., which have higher greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. Switching to an energy mix based mostly on gas is also an improvement for
the toxicity categories freshwater and eutrophication, but – obviously – not for
transformation of natural land.
Trade-offs occurs between other impact categories. Switching to the Dutch country mix
would significantly reduce the impacts on freshwater eutrophication, human toxicity and
ionising radiation (related to nuclear energy), but increase the impacts in a.o. natural
land transformation, fossil depletion, and climate change. (NB: these results do not
indicate the advantages of a shift toward a nuclear based electricity production since a
limited number of environmental indicators have been analysed in this study. It needs to
be remembered that there are trade-offs between various energy sources and their
comparison is not straight forward.)
100
Impact contribution (%)
80
60 UCTE (baseline)
40 FR
CH
20
NL
0
CC HTox NLT FD
Impact categories
Impact categories stand for CC: climate change, HTox: human toxicity,NLT: natural land transformation and FD: fossil depletion.
Figure 30: Sensitivity analysis of energy source mix
4.9.3 Dosage
In the reference scenario we assumed a dosage of 85 g of a laundry detergent per wash.
The effect of using a lower (-20 %) or higher (+20 %) dosage is investigated in the
sensitivity analysis (see Figure 31). Changing the dose by 20 % results in changes in
impacts of 6-13 % for CC, HTox, NLT and FD and maximally 16 % for terrestrial toxicity.
100
impact contribution (%)
80
60
Dose -20%
40
Dose 85 g (baseline)
20 Dose +20%
0
CC HTox NLT FD
Impact categories
Impact categories stand for CC: climate change, HTox: human toxicity,NLT: natural land transformation and FD: fossil depletion
137
Figure 31: Characterised results of dosage sensitivity
4.9.4 Surfactant origin

For the reference scenario the surfactant modelled is a mix from both oleochemical (palm
kernel oil and coconut oil) and petrochemical origins. For the sensitivity analysis we
replaced this surfactant with a petrochemical surfactant and an oleochemical surfactant
(only palm kernel oil). The results are shown in Figure 32. For more information about
the surfactant used in the reference scenario please see Table 38.
The LCIs for surfactants, whilst the best available, are over 15 years old and do not
contain adequate data relating to direct land use change. For compliance with the World
Resources Institute GHG protocol, ILCD and ISO 14040/44, any direct land use change
occurring in the previous 20 years should be considered for above and below ground
biomass and for soil organic matter (differentiated for peat and mineral soil).
Consequently the results for impact categories relating to direct land use change and its
associated GHG emissions are compromised and must be interpreted with caution.
However, the available (outdated) LCI datasets have been included for the purposes of
completeness and for future comparison with the updated and improved surfactant
inventories which have not been published at the time of this revision.
The impact category most affected by the origin of the surfactants used is natural land
transformation. Replacing a partly renewable surfactant with a purely petrochemical
equivalent will reduce the impact on natural land transformation by 10 %. Similarly
replacing a partly renewable surfactant with an oleochemical surfactant, based only on
palm kernel oil, will reduce the impact on natural land transformation by 10 %. This is
because the largest impacts on natural land transformation are from the coconut oil in
mixed origin surfactant used the baseline scenario.
Impacts of surfactant origin on freshwater eutrophication, freshwater, human or marine
toxicity do not change substantially primarily because these impacts are driven by the
use phase. These results will likely undergo some changes as the new surfactant data
become available.
100
Impact contirbution (%)
80
60
mix (baseline)
40
palm oil
20 petrochemical
0
CC HTox NLT FD
Impact categories
Impact categories stand for CC: climate change, HTox: human toxicity,NLT: natural land transformation and FD: fossil depletion
Figure 32: Sensitivity analysis of surfactant origin
4.9.5 Toxicity impact of ingredients

There is no ‘standard’ laundry detergent formulation. A large number of different
ingredients can be used in a variety of combinations giving rise to a large number of
possible detergent formulations. Table 42 shows the toxicity impacts of some key
ingredients used in laundry detergent formulations. Here the potential impact of an equal
quantity (i.e. 1 g) of different ingredients is compared. A full toxicity impact assessment
138
was performed as part of the LCA. The ingredient with the highest impact on human
toxicity, freshwater toxicity, and marine ecotoxicity is sodium percarbonate. The
ethoxylated alcohols are also among the most toxic ingredients. For terrestrial ecotoxicity
the surfactants, fatty alcohol sulphate and ethoxylated alcohols, have the highest impact.
Table 42: Toxicity impacts of key ingredients per gram
Ingredients (1 gram)/ (kg 1,4-DB) Human Terrestrial Freshwater Marine
Alkylbenzene, linear, at plant/RER S 3.78E-03 1.38E-06 8.57E-05 9.71E-05
Bentonite, at processing/DE S 2.87E-03 9.77E-07 1.81E-05 2.61E-05
Sodium chloride, powder, at plant/RER S 1.60E-03 1.80E-07 1.22E-05 1.51E-05
Sodium hydroxide, 50% in H2O, production mix, at plant/
1.01E-02 1.09E-06 5.65E-05 6.49E-05
RER U
Zeolite, powder, at plant/RER S 2.19E-02 4.20E-06 1.42E-04 1.85E-04
Polycarboxylates, 40% active substance, at plant/RER S 3.57E-03 3.80E-07 2.59E-05 3.02E-05
Layered Sodium silicate, SKS-6, powder, at plant/RER S 7.88E-03 8.80E-07 5.04E-05 6.04E-05
Ethoxylated alcohols (AE3), coconut oil, at plant/RER S 6.22E-03 9.92E-07 1.39E-04 1.48E-04
Ethoxylated alcohols (AE3), palm kernel oil, at plant/RER S 7.65E-03 1.28E-03 3.68E-04 1.93E-04
Ethoxylated alcohols (AE3), petrochemical, at plant/RER S 6.25E-03 9.49E-07 1.49E-04 1.54E-04
Ethylene glycol diethyl ether, at plant/RER S 1.49E-02 3.02E-06 3.03E-04 3.04E-04
Sodium percarbonate, powder, at plant/RER S 1.46E-01 3.02E-04 1.56E-02 2.59E-03
Carboxymethyl cellulose, powder, at plant/RER S 1.63E-02 6.23E-06 1.07E-04 1.49E-04
Sodium carbonate from ammonium chloride production,
4.22E-03 1.26E-06 3.12E-05 4.19E-05
at plant/GLO S
Polycarboxylates, 40% active substance, at plant/RER S 3.57E-03 3.80E-07 2.59E-05 3.02E-05
Fatty alcohol sulfate, petrochemical, at plant/RER S 6.16E-03 1.14E-06 4.32E-05 5.60E-05
Fatty alcohol sulfate, mix, at plant/RER S 6.61E-03 5.82E-04 1.37E-04 6.76E-05
Fatty alcohol sulfate, palm oil, at plant/RER S 6.18E-03 8.14E-04 1.70E-04 6.50E-05
Sodium sulphate, powder, production mix, at plant/RER S 2.02E-03 2.04E-07 1.58E-05 1.82E-05
4.9.6 Use of fabric softener

Based on a report by the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the
Environment189 and the portal www.isditproductveilig.nl190, a generic formula for fabric
softeners was produced (see Table 43).
The fabric softener was packed in bottles of 1 litre, made of a mixture of LDPE and PP.179
The assumptions for formulating and transport were similar to the assumptions for the
laundry detergent, and are shown in Table 44. Furthermore, the system boundaries were
the same as for the laundry detergent and defined following general supply‐chain logic
including: raw materials (including raw materials extraction and ingredients
manufacturing), manufacturing, packaging, distribution, use and final disposal. The fabric
softener was added to the use phase of the life cycle of the laundry detergent.
Table 43: Ecoinvent data inventory for a fabric softener formula
Fabric softener product formulation Concentration Ecoinvent data
(wt %)
Cationic surfactants* 20 Ammonium chloride, at plant/GLO S
Non-ionic surfactants**, 4 Ethoxylated alcohols, unspecified, at plant/RER S
Solvent: ethanol 5 Ethanol from ethylene, at plant/RER S
Solvent: isopropanol 5 Isopropanol, at plant/RER S
Additives*** 1 Empty processes
189
Cleaning Products Fact Sheet - To assess the risks for the consumer, L.C.H. Prud’homme de Lodder, H.J. Bremmer, J.G.M. van Engelen
RIVM report 320104003/2006
190
www.isditproductveilig.nl (translation: “is this product safe”), a website by the Dutch Association of Soap Manufacturers (NVZ)
139
Water 65 Water, completely softened, at plant/RER S
*: Quaternary ammonium chlorides, e.g. dialkyl dimethyl ammonium chlorides
**, e.g. alkyl polyethyleneglycol ethers (AEO)
***: preservatives, dye, perfume, silicones
Table 44 Key assumptions for fabric softener
Reference Fabric softener
Functional unit Review of LCA studies 1 wash at 40 ˚C
Reference flow Consumer studies 10 g
Transport ingredients to Assumed Renewable part in surfactants 5,000 km
product manufacturing site (boat)
Other ingredients 2,000 km (lorry )
191
Energy for processing of raw Franke et al. 1995 40.7 KJ
materials
192,179
Packaging (primary) TSC LDPE (3.48E-1g), PP 3.41E-2g)
192
Packaging (secondary) TSC Cardboard (5+6.5E-2g)
Transport retail Frischknecht and Jungbluth 100 km by truck and 600 km by train
193
(2002)
Inserted in the LC of laundry detergent
181
Energy use in the use phase Koehler and Wildbolz 2009 0.53 kWh
181
Water use in the use phase Koehler and Wildbolz 2009 49 L
Waste water treatment Based on EU Statistics 100% connection to secondary treatment
194
Recycling rates solid waste Eurostat (2012) Paper & board 83.2 %
Plastic 31.9 %
Solid waste treatment Eurostat (2012) Landfill 65.3 %
Incineration 34.7 %
The use of fabric softener was negligible for most impact categories (see Figure 33). The
highest contribution to environmental impacts was found for freshwater toxicity, where
fabric softener accounted for an additional 4 % of the normalized results. As such it can
be concluded that using a fabric softener in addition to laundry detergent has a small
impact on the overall environmental impact.
191
192
193
Frischknecht, R., and Jungbluth, N.(2002). Working paper: Qualitiy guidelines ecoinvent 2000 (in German: Arbeitspapier:
Qualitätsrichtlinien ecoinvent 2000). Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, ecoinvent Center: Duebendorf, Switzerland. Retrieved
10.12.2010, from http://www.ecoinvent.org/fileadmin/documents/en/presentation_papers/Qualitaet_5.7.pdf.
194
Eurostat. (2012). EU Packaging recycling 2005. Retrieved from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu
140
100
Impact contribution (%)

80
60
Fabric softener not used
40
Fabric softener used
20
0
CC HTox NLT FD
Impact categories
Figure 33: Sensitivity analysis of fabric softener use
4.9.7 Sensitivity of the surfactant to the database used

In the present screening LCA the widely used Ecoinvent database version 2.2 was chosen
as a reference for the ingredients data. Recently, another LCI database containing data
on palm and coconut oil production became available: the Agri-footprint® database. It is
important to note that the differences in data collection methods between these
databases result in differences in environmental impact of coconut and palm oil when
using the ReCiPe endpoint method. Here we compare the results of the two databases on
two renewable surfactants: coconut oil and palm kernel oil, which have shown to have a
significant contribution to the environmental impact of detergents, which is to a large
extent due to land transformation.
In general, the Agri-footprint database based land transformation data on observed
changes of palm fruit or coconut cropland for the past in 20 years in the countries where
they are grown. Ecoinvent based its inventory data on permanent transformation of
primary forest into agricultural land, and subsequently transformation into forest (planted
forest) when the palm trees are not productive anymore, as reported by the farmers.
4.9.7.1 Coconut oil

The Ecoinvent database assumes that for coconut trees, primary forest is permanently
transferred into agricultural land. In Agri-footprint it is assumed that the coconut area did
not increase in the Philippines for the past 20 years, based on observed data. As a result,
1 kg of ethoxylated alcohols from coconut oil in Ecoinvent scores higher on natural land
transformation (see Figure 34). Furthermore, the total environmental impact at endpoint
level of 1 kg of ethoxylated alcohols from coconut oil is slightly higher in Ecoinvent. This
is because the impact from other categories is much higher in case of Agri-footprint, due
to different assumptions on yield per hectare and fossil fuel use. As the difference
between the total impact of this ingredient is small, Agri-footprint will lead to the same
overall conclusion regarding the importance of the surfactants in the life cycle of
detergents.
141
Figure 34: Comparison between the environmental impact at endpoint level of 1 kg of ethoxylated alcohols
195
from coconut oil in Ecoinvent and in Agri-Footprint
4.9.7.2 Palm kernel oil

In the Ecoinvent database, the amounts of transformation for palm kernel oil are based
on numbers for tropical forest transformed into palm kernel oil cropland and
transformation to forest (planted forest), as reported by the farmers. Conversely, in Agri-
footprint the amounts for palm kernel oil are based on data that indicate there was an
increase in palm kernel oil cropland in Malaysia in the past 20 years. In Ecoinvent there
is more transformation of tropical forest into palm kernel oil cropland, but there is also
transformation to forest (not specified as being tropical forest). In Agri-footprint there is
less transformation of tropical forest transformed into palm kernel oil cropland, but there
is no planting of new forest.196 This is because the developers of Agri-footprint calculated
the net transformation to palm fruit area.
As the characterisation factor for damage at the end point level for transformation from
tropical forest is about 30 times higher than the characterisation factor for transformation
from forest (and the negative factor for transformation to tropical rain forest is about 30
times higher than for transformation to forest), the higher number for transformation
from tropical forest in Ecoinvent leads to a higher impact on natural land transformation
for 1 kg of ethoxylated alcohols from palm kernel oil in Ecoinvent (see Figure 35).
Furthermore, the total environmental impact at endpoint level of 1 kg of ethoxylated
alcohols from palm kernel oil higher in Ecoinvent.
The information that is currently available does not give an insight into which of the
methods lead to more realistic results. However, as natural land transformation is also
the most important impact category in our study when using coconut or palm oil from
Agri-footprint, just as it is when using Ecoinvent, from the use of Agri-footprint it can
also be concluded that the surfactants are an important contributor to the life cycle
impact of detergents. The magnitude of the impact, however, is variable.
195
Impact categories that are not shown contribute less than 1%
196
A bug correction in the current version of Agri-Footprint was made for the process oil palm fruit bunch: “Tranformation, from forest”
changed into “Transformation, from tropical rain forest”.
142
9
8
Environmental impact at endpoint (single score in
7
Fossil depletion
6 Natural land transformation
5 Agricultural land occupation
4 Terrestrial ecotoxicity
Pt)
3 Climate change Ecosystems
0
Agri-Footprint: Ethoxylated alcohols Ecoinvent: Ethoxylated alcohols (AE3),
(AE3), palm kernel oil palm kernel oil
Figure 35: Comparison between the environmental impact at endpoint level of 1 kg of ethoxylated alcohols
195
from palm kernel oil in Ecoinvent and in Agri-Footprint
4.10 Summary of findings

The following conclusions can be derived from the screening LCA:
I. The life cycle stage with the largest contribution to the environmental impact
profile of laundry detergents is the use phase, particularly the energy needed to
heat the water for the wash cycle. For some impact categories, the sourcing of
raw materials is also important.
II. Based on the normalisation assessment, the most significant impact categories for
laundry detergents in Europe are: freshwater eutrophication, human toxicity,
freshwater ecotoxicity, marine ecotoxicity, and natural land transformation.
categories freshwater eutrophication, human toxicity, and marine ecotoxicity, whereas
freshwater ecotoxicity and natural land transformation are dominated by ingredients
sourcing.
Based on the results of this study, the key environmental performance indicators (KPIs -
i.e. those variables that mainly drive the results) for laundry detergents in Europe are:
 amount of product used
 choice and amount of surfactant (but there are trade-offs between impact
categories)
 wash temperature
 energy source used to heat the water
 emissions to water.
143
Based on this information the following conclusions can be made about the key
environmental considerations that should be linked to the EU Ecolabel criteria of laundry
detergents (see Table 45):
Table 45: Overall summary of the key environmental considerations linked to the EU Ecolabel criteria
197
Conclusion Significance Improvement measures
The use phase has the most significant contribution to Very high Indirectly through consumer
the environmental impact, driven by energy needed to information on the product
heat water. Therefore, the environmental impact can packaging encouraging low
be lowered by encouraging low temperature washing. temperature washing.
Innovations for effective washing
at low temperatures will be
investigated.
Raw materials extraction and processing are the second High Directly by restricting the use of
largest contributor to environmental impact. the worst performing builders and
Surfactants and builders are responsible for most of the surfactants.
impact.
Concentrated products perform better than other High By encouraging the use of
product formats, across all impact categories. concentrated products.
An important environmental impact arises from the end Medium Directly, through the toxicity to
of life, specifically related to municipal wastewater aquatic organisms.
treatment.
Impacts of detergent manufacturing and packaging are Low Directly, through the packaging
very low. requirements criteria.
The impacts of distribution and transport are low. Low No, would require specification for
local sourcing.
197
Significance assessed depends on the number of impact categories for which it is high.
144
5. PRODUCT INNOVATIONS AND IMPROVEMENT POTENTIAL
5.1 Introduction and approach

The aim of this section of the report is to assess the potential improvement that might be
delivered by the implementation of revised criteria for the EU Ecolabel for laundry
detergents. For laundry detergents, the most sensible way to assess the improvement
potential is by analysing different scenarios through sensitivity tests.
In order to assess the potential improvement of laundry detergents, the following have
been undertaken: a sensitivity analysis using the results from the LCA study;
identification of product innovations through recent laundry product innovations; an
estimation of the potential benefits associated; and identification of the possible
measures to be undertaken in the EU Ecolabel.
The sensitivity analysis conducted using results from the LCA study is presented in
Section 4.9. We have chosen to conduct the sensitivity analysis on the attributes which
showed significant contribution to the environmental impact. These are product dosage,
washing program, surfactant origin, use of fabric conditioner and toxicity of ingredients.
The sensitivity analysis showed that varying the wash program had the most significant
impact on the overall environmental impact. Wash programs which consumed less
energy, for instance low temperature washing, led to substantial reductions across nearly
all the impact categories. Reducing the product dosage by 20 % also led to a reduction in
the overall impact, but to a lesser extent than lowering the wash temperature.
5.2 Laundry detergent product innovations

In order to understand the scope of improvement options for laundry detergents, recent
product innovations which lead to enhanced environmental performance have been
identified. These product innovations are: compaction, low-temperature wash
performance, low/no harmful chemicals content, natural/renewable ingredients. Each of
these innovations and their improvement potential is discussed below. 198
5.2.1 Compaction
Compaction is now commonplace amongst the large manufacturers in laundry
detergents, with manufacturers such as Unilever and P&G offering products which are at
least 2x and often 3x concentrated. However, further innovation in compaction
technology has led to the development of 8x concentrated laundry detergents. 199
Compaction of laundry detergents brings several environmental benefits, through
reductions in the amount of ingredients and packaging raw materials used, and savings
in water, energy and resources. This type of innovation, however, only leads to better
environmental performances if consumers do not overdose.
5.2.2 Low-temperature wash performance

In recent years detergent manufacturers have invested significant efforts to improve
washing performance at low temperatures. Household laundry detergents are now
198
Global Household Care: Green Cleaning – Still an Oxymoron, Euromonitor International, September 2009.
199
How laundry detergent became a catalyst for green innovation, Yale Environment 360, June 2013. Available from:
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/adam_lowry_how_laundry_detergent_became_green_innovation_catalyst/2662/
145
available on the market which claim wash efficacy at temperatures as low as 15 °C. This
has largely been achieved through the choice of surfactants and polymers and the use of
sophisticated enzyme systems.200 As shown in the LCA conducted as part of this study,
the use phase has the largest contribution to the overall environmental impact of a
laundry detergent; this is largely driven by the energy needed to heat the water.
Consequently, washing at lower temperatures will significantly lower the overall
environmental impact of the product through energy savings.
5.2.3 Low/no harmful chemicals

According to Euromonitor international, the shift towards home care products with lower
levels of harmful chemical ingredients is gaining momentum and this includes laundry
detergents.198 For laundry detergents the reduction and elimination of phosphates has
been in focus, as they are a leading cause of fresh water pollution. As a result,
manufacturers have begun to produce phosphate-free laundry detergent products, which
are now available on the market. P&G has pledged to eliminate phosphates from all of its
laundry detergents from January 2014.201 In addition, many smaller companies such as
Ecover and Seventh Generation have been making phosphate-free laundry detergents
since the 1980s.
5.2.4 Natural/renewable ingredients

The use of ingredients from natural or renewable sources instead of from petrochemical
sources is increasing in the laundry detergents market. For most of the bulk ingredients
this is not an option as they are inorganic and therefore cannot be easily replaced by
renewable raw materials. However, for surfactants it is possible to use raw materials
from renewable origins as their lipophilic compound is usually organic. Historically,
vegetable and animal oils and fats were used as raw materials for soaps and detergents
and thus the use of renewable raw materials in this product group is not a recent
innovation. This will be discussed in further detail in technical background report.
5.3 Conclusions
A summary of the results from the sensitivity analysis and the LCA analysis for laundry
detergents, along with suggestions for how these issues can be addressed by the EU
Ecolabel and an estimate of the potential benefits associated, is presented in Table 46.
The outcomes are presented by life cycle stage.
As the results of the LCA and sensitivity analysis have shown that the highest
environmental impacts are associated with the use phase and the ingredients used, the
focus for improvement should be on for these phases. The high environmental impact of
the use phase can be addressed by encouraging consumers to wash at lower
temperatures and promoting products which are effective at low temperatures. Product
compaction should also be encouraged along with the restriction of harmful substances.
200
The case for the ‘A.I.S.E Low Temperature Washing Initiative’, substantiation dossier, June 2013, A.I.S.E. Available from:
http://www.iprefer30.eu/component/attachments/attachments?task=download&id=244
201
Procter & Gamble touts ‘win-win’ of cutting phosphates in all laundry soaps, Guardian Sustainable Business, January 2014. Available
from: http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/proctor-gamble-remove-phosphates-laundry-soap
146
Table 46: Outcomes of sensitivity analysis and improvement potentials
Environmental impact Potential Good environmental Improvement potential
environmental practices/restrictions
Stage
gain
3-95 % impact High. For each functional Improving the environmental

contribution, highest group in the product performance of ingredients used.
for terrestrial composition, promote The sensitivity analysis has shown
ecotoxicity. Also the use of substances that, for terrestrial ecotoxicity, the
important for natural which are less harmful surfactants fatty alcohol sulphate
land transformation, in terms of ecotoxicity, and ethoxylated alcohols have the
freshwater ecotoxicity aquatic toxicity and highest impact. For human
and natural land biodegradability. toxicity, freshwater toxicity and
transformation. marine ecotoxicity sodium
percarbonate, sodium
tripolyphosphate and zeolite have
the highest impacts.
Restrict the use of The sensitivity analysis showed
surfactants which have that impact can be reduced by
a significant impact on excluding surfactants from
Ingredients
natural land coconut oil.

transformation and
agricultural land
occupation.
0-37 % impact Moderate. Reduce the use of As most of the environmental
contribution, highest packaging materials impact from packaging is due to
for agricultural land from virgin sources by the material, a decrease in the use
occupation. encouraging post- of virgin materials will result in a
consumer materials for direct decrease of the
Packaging
packaging. environmental impact.

The use of compact detergents
greatly reduces the amount of raw
materials used for packaging.
0-17 % impact Low. Decrease product Saving of fossil fuel used in
contribution, highest weight and improve transport. Packaging weight can
for photochemical transport efficiency be reduced by using compacted
oxidant formation. and logistics. detergents.
Transport
Overall the impact is

minor compared to
the use phase.
3-96 % impact Moderate – can Wash at lower The sensitivity analysis has shown
contribution, highest only be temperatures. that reducing the wash
for water depletion addressed Encourage the use of temperature from 60 °C to 30 °C
and ionising radiation. indirectly detergents effective at brings environmental gains of up
The energy used to through 30 °C and below. to 46 %.
heat the water is the recommendatio Do not overdose the The sensitivity analysis has shown
highest contributor. ns on use. product as this that by reducing the dosage by
increases the overall 20 % brings environmental gains
chemical load. for terrestrial ecotoxicity (19 %),
freshwater ecotoxicity (15 %) and
metal depletion (21 %) as well as
for other impact categories.
Use phase
The overall chemical load of the

product in the use phase is
reduced and fewer raw materials
are consumed.
147
Environmental impact Potential Good environmental Improvement potential
environmental practices/restrictions
Stage
gain
1-85 % impact Impacts depend Encourage the use of Recycling packaging waste is
packaging waste
contribution, highest on the packaging which is generally more environmentally

Treatment of
for marine packaging stage. recyclable and easy to preferable than other waste
eutrophication, but disassemble. treatment options.
also significant for
marine ecotoxicity.
148
6. Conclusions and further steps
The Preliminary Report presents the research carried out, through stakeholder surveys,
market analysis, legal review and an environmental performance investigation, on areas
related to the product groups covered by the EU Ecolabel on laundry detergents. The
preliminary report is a document that provides the background information and
underpins the revision of the EU Ecolabel criteria and proposal for changes for two
product groups: laundry detergents and industrial and institutional laundry detergents,
due to their multiple overlaps.
The main findings of the Preliminary Report are:
-The legal review revealed that the 2012 Revision to the EU Detergents Regulation
(EU/259/2012) will impact on the consumer laundry detergents on the market. The
revision limits the use of phosphates and phosphorus compounds and lays down
requirements for dosage information. The revision of the EU Ecolabel criteria shall take
into account these changes to the Detergents Regulation.
-The market analysis revealed that the laundry detergent market in Europe is dominated
by a few well-known brands, including Procter & Gamble, Henkel and Unilever. Laundry
detergents are available in a range of formats, but liquid laundry detergents account for
the largest market share in Europe, closely followed by powder laundry detergents.
Market trends show that sustainability is of growing importance to consumers of laundry
detergents, with an increase in concentrated/compacted products, use of plant-based
ingredients and minimisation of packaging.
-The technical analysis revealed that the key environmental impacts associated with the
product group can be summarised as follows:
 The life cycle stage with the largest contribution to the environmental impact profile
of laundry detergents is the use phase, particularly the energy needed to heat the
water for the wash cycle. For some impact categories, the sourcing of raw materials
is also important.
 Based on the normalisation assessment, the most significant impact categories for
laundry detergents in Europe are Freshwater Eutrophication, Human Toxicity,
Freshwater Ecotoxicity, Marine Ecotoxicity, and Natural Land Transformation.
The results of the LCA for a powder laundry detergent conducted as part of the technical
analysis are shown in Figure 36.
100
80
Ingredients
60
Manufacturing
40
Packaging
20
0 Transport
CC TA Use Phase
ME POF TTox
MTox ALO End of Life
NLT MD
Figure 36: Impact contribution of different life cycle stages of a laundry detergent
149
categories freshwater eutrophication, human toxicity, and marine ecotoxicity, and
ingredients sourcing dominates the freshwater ecotoxicity and natural land
transformation.
The key environmental performance indicators (KPIs), i.e. those variables that mainly
drive the results for laundry detergents in Europe, based on the results of this study are:
 Wash temperature,
 Amount of product used per application,
 Choice of and amount of surfactant (although there are trade-offs between impact
categories),
 Energy source used to heat the water,
 Emissions to water.
150
7. ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ABBREVIATIONS
A.I.S.E Association for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance Products (trade body)
aNBO aerobically non-biodegradable
anNBO anaerobically non-biodegradable
APD alkyl phenol derivative
APEO alkyl phenol ethoxylate
ASP Advanced Sustainability Profile
BCF bioconcentration factor
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
BRIC Brazil, Russia, India and China
CAGR compound annual growth rate
CDV critical dilution volume
CFC chloro-fluorocarbon
CLP (EU Regulation on the) Classification, Labelling and Packaging of
Substances and Mixtures
COMEXT statistical database on trade of goods managed by Eurostat
DF degradation factor
DID list Detergents Ingredient Database
DTPA diethylene triamine pentaacetic acid
EC European Commission
EC50 median effective concentration
ECHA European Chemicals Agency
EDTA ethylenediaminetetracetic acid
EEA European Economic Area
EU European Union
ETSA European Textile Services Association
FSC Forest Stewardship Council
FWA fluorescent whitening agent
GDP gross domestic product
GHG greenhouse gas
GHS Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals
GLDA glutamic acid di-acetic acid
GPP green public procurement
HSNO Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Act)
HDPE high density polyethylene
I&I industrial and institutional
IC50 median inhibition concentration
IFRA International Fragrance Association
IILD industrial and institutional laundry detergents
IKW Industrieverband Körperpflege- und Waschmittel e. V.
ISO International Organisation for Standards
KOW octanol-water partition coefficient
LCA life cycle assessment
LCIA life cycle impact assessment
LC50 median lethal dose
LD laundry detergents
LDPE low density polyethylene
LOEC lowest observed effect concentration
MGDA methylglycin di-acetic acid
n.e.c. not elsewhere classified
151
NOEC no observed effect concentration
NLT natural land transformation
n.p.r.s Not packaged for retail sale
NTA nitrilo tri-acetic acid
PBT persistent, bio-accumulable and toxic
PP polypropylene
ppm parts per million
PRODCOM PRODuction COMmunautaire (Community Production)
p.r.s Packaged for retail sale
PVC polyvinyl chloride
REACH Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of CHemicals
SCHER Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks
SVHC substances of very high concern
TCmax total chemicals maximum dosage limit
vPvB very persistent and very bio-accumulable
WUR weight/utility ratio
DEFINITIONS
Domestic This term is used to denote laundry detergent products which are
laundry intended for use principally in household machines, but may also include
detergent use of household machines in laundrettes and common laundries. May be
(LD) used interchangeably with the term ‘household laundry’.
Industrial This term is used to denote laundry detergent products which are
and intended for use solely by professional users in the industrial and
institutional institutional sector. May be used interchangeably with professional
laundry laundry.
detergent
(IILD)
Bio- The tendency for a substance to be accumulated in an organism due to
accumulative difference in the rate of intake and loss of the substance from the
organism.
Biocide Chemicals used to suppress organisms that are harmful to human or
animal health, or that cause damage to natural or manufactured
materials.202
Biocidal Active substances and preparations containing one or more active
products substances, put up in the form in which they are supplied to the user,
intended to destroy, render harmless, prevent the action of, or otherwise
exert a controlling effect on any harmful organism by chemical or
biological means.203
Detergent Any substance or preparation containing soaps and/or other surfactants
intended for washing and cleaning processes. Detergents may be in any
form (liquid, powder, paste, bar, cake, moulded piece, shape, etc.) and
202
For more details see: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/biocides/index_en.htm.
203
Based on Regulation (EC) No 528/2012of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available
on the market and use of biocidal products (L 167/1 OJEU 27.8.2012) Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/biocides/index_en.htm.
152
marketed for or used in household, or institutional or industrial
purposes.204
Enzyme Proteins that speed up the rate of chemical reactions without interacting
in the reactions themselves.
ISO 14024 A voluntary multicriteria-based, third party program that awards a license
Type I that authorises the use of environmental labels on products indicating
Environment overall environmental preferability of a product within a particular product
al label category based on life cycle considerations.
EU Ecolabel The ISO 14024 Type I environmental label from the European Union that
is valid throughout Europe.
Surfactant Any organic substance and/or mixture used in detergents, which has
surface-active properties and that consists of one or more hydrophilic and
one or more hydrophobic groups of such a nature and size that it is
capable of reducing the surface tension of water, and of forming
spreading or adsorption monolayers at the water air interface, and of
forming emulsions and/or micro-emulsions and/or micelles, and of
adsorption at water-solid interfaces.204
Standard A document established by consensus and approved by a recognised body
that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or
characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at the achievement of
the optimum degree of order in a given context.
204
Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 2012of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents (OJ L 104, 8.4.2004)
Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/chemicals/documents/specific-chemicals/detergents/.
153
8. List of tables
Table 1: Summary of respondents to questionnaire ..................................................13
Table 2: Summary of questionnaire analysis ............................................................13
Table 3: Alternative voluntary labelling schemes and standards .................................18
Table 4: Product group definitions and scope of alternative voluntary labelling schemes 21
Table 5: Overview of the requirements of different ecolabels for consumer laundry
detergents ...........................................................................................................25
Table 6: Overview of the requirements of different ecolabels for IILDs ........................41
Table 7: Comparison of excluded substances ...........................................................48
Table 8: Summary of wash processes by washing machine type .................................53
Table 9: Comparison of LD, IILD and GPP criteria .....................................................55
Table 10: Summary of suggested criteria changes for household laundry detergents ....72
Table 11: Summary of suggested criteria changes for industrial and institutional laundry
detergents ...........................................................................................................72
Table 12: PRODCOM cleaning product categories, code and description .......................74
Table 13: Comparison of the categorisation criteria for PRODCOM categories (cleaning
product-type) and EU Ecolabel for laundry detergents ...............................................75
Table 14: Production of manufactured detergent products, EU-28, value and tonnes,
2013 ...................................................................................................................75
Table 15: COMEXT detergent code and description ...................................................76
Table 16: Intra-EU trade of detergents, import and exports, 2013 ..............................77
Table 17: Extra-EU trade of detergents, import and exports, 2013 .............................77
Table 18: Market value of laundry care, 2012 (EU-27 + CH + NO) ..............................80
Table 19: Largest organisations in laundry care market, % breakdown by retail value,
Europe*, 2013 .....................................................................................................84
Table 20: Laundry care products, value by distribution channel (€m), Western Europe,
2009 ...................................................................................................................84
Table 21: Common brand name laundry care products, Europe, 2013 .........................85
Table 22: Home and fabric care speciality ingredients market: % of revenues by chemical
type, Europe, 2009 ...............................................................................................86
Table 23: Impact of industry challenges on European home and fabric care speciality
ingredients market ...............................................................................................86
Table 24: EU Ecolabel consumer LD products manufactured and sold, by country (EU-28)
..........................................................................................................................93
Table 25: EU Ecolabel consumer LD products on the EU-28 market .............................94
Table 26: EU Ecolabel IILD manufactured and sold, by country (EU-28) ......................94
Table 27: Nordic Swan consumer laundry detergent products & stain removers on the
EU-28 market ......................................................................................................95
Table 28: Number of Nordic Swan I&I laundry detergent products on the EU-28 market 95
Table 29: Overview of studies on laundry detergents .............................................. 108
Table 30: Reasons for excluding available studies ................................................... 110
Table 31: Cut-off criteria, allocation and geographical scale of the selected studies ..... 111
Table 32: Evaluation of comprehensiveness based on the PEF methodology ............... 112
Table 33: Percentage of reduction of environmental impacts due to the compaction of
powder detergent ............................................................................................... 115
Table 34: Impacts per life cycle stage ................................................................... 121
Table 35: Toxicity values and degradation data for example detergent ingredients in the
DID-list ............................................................................................................ 124
Table 36: Key assumptions and information sources ............................................... 128
Table 37: Generic laundry powder detergent formulation ......................................... 129
Table 38: Ecoinvent data inventory for a laundry detergent frame formula ................ 130
Table 39: Primary & secondary packaging for laundry detergent ............................... 131
Table 40: Glossary .............................................................................................. 132
Table 41: Aggregate midpoint results for a laundry detergent .................................. 134
Table 42: Toxicity impacts of key ingredients per gram ........................................... 139
Table 43: Ecoinvent data inventory for a fabric softener formula .............................. 139
154
Table 44 Key assumptions for fabric softener ......................................................... 140
Table 45: Overall summary of the key environmental considerations linked to the EU
Ecolabel criteria .................................................................................................. 144
Table 46: Outcomes of sensitivity analysis and improvement potentials .................... 147
Table 47: Intra EU-28 Import, 2013...................................................................... 183
Table 48: Intra EU-28 Export, 2013 ...................................................................... 183
Table 49: Extra EU-28 Import, 2013 ..................................................................... 184
Table 50: Extra EU-28 Export, 2013...................................................................... 185
Table 51: Life cycle impact contribution of a laundry detergent ................................ 187
Table 52: Life cycle impact contribution of a laundry detergent (in percentages) ........ 187
Table 53: Impact contribution of the dosage sensitivity ........................................... 188
Table 54: Impact contribution of wash temperature sensitivity ................................. 188
Table 55: Impact contribution of surfactant sensitivity ............................................ 189
Table 56: Impact contribution of energy source sensitivity ....................................... 189
Table 57: Impact contribution of the dosage sensitivity ........................................... 190
155
9. List of Figures
Figure 1: Value and volume of Western Europe laundry care products, 2012 ................80
Figure 2: Market value and % share of laundry care market, household and I&I, 2012 ..81
Figure 3: Sales of laundry care products by category, value (€m) 2012 .......................82
Figure 4: Split of laundry care products by category, ( %) 2012 .................................82
Figure 5: Sales of laundry detergents by category, value (€m) 2012 ...........................83
Figure 6: Split of laundry detergents by category, (%) 2012 ......................................83
Figure 7: Split of laundry detergents, standard vs concentrated, (%) 2012 ..................84
Figure 8: Retail value (€m) of laundry care market, Europe (EU-28), 2013 ..................87
Figure 12: Market trends, actual and projected retail value (€m), Europe (EU-28
average), 2008-18................................................................................................88
Figure 13: Actual and projected retail value (€m) for countries with top 5 market share
(% share, by retail value) across Europe, 2008-18 ...................................................89
Figure 14: Washing machine possession rates (%), EU-28, 2013 by country ................90
Figure 15: Washing machine possession rates (%) EU-28 Average, by year (2008-13) .90
Figure 16: Sales of laundry detergent by category, EU average*, 2007-12 ..................91
Figure 17: Sales of powder laundry detergent by category, EU average*, 2007-12 .......91
Figure 18: Sales of liquid laundry detergent by category, EU average*, 2007-12 ..........92
Figure 19: Sales of tablet laundry detergent by category, EU average*, 2007-12 .........92
Figure 20: Laundry products (SKUs) launched with environmentally friendly or fair trade
claims, Europe .....................................................................................................96
Figure 21: Sales of laundry detergents (concentrated vs standard), €m, EU average*
2007-12 ..............................................................................................................97
Figure 22: Units of laundry care products sold with A.I.S.E. ASP profiles in Europe, 2012
........................................................................................................................ 100
Figure 23: Supply chain for home and fabric care products ...................................... 103
Figure 24: Results for wash temperature sensitivity Source: A.I.S.E. 2013 ................ 117
Figure 25: Impact contribution of different life cycle stages to the environmental impact
........................................................................................................................ 118
Figure 26: Contribution of life cycle stages to environmental impact for household fabric
conditioners ....................................................................................................... 120
Figure 27: Schematic representation of laundry detergent life cycle .......................... 121
Figure 28: Steps of the life cycle assessment, according to UNE-EN ISO 14040: 2006 . 126
Figure 29: Inventory inputs and outputs ................................................................ 128
Figure 30: Impact contribution of different life cycle stages of a laundry detergent ..... 133
Figure 31: Normalised endpoint results for laundry detergent .................................. 135
Figure 32: Characterised results for washing program sensitivity .............................. 136
Figure 33: Sensitivity analysis of energy source mix. .............................................. 137
Figure 34: Characterised results of dosage sensitivity ............................................. 138
Figure 35: Sensitivity analysis of surfactant origin .................................................. 138
Figure 36: Sensitivity analysis of fabric softener use .............................................. 141
Figure 37: Comparison between the environmental impact at endpoint level of 1 kg of
ethoxylated alcohols from coconut oil in Ecoinvent and in Agri-Footprint .................... 142
Figure 38: Comparison between the environmental impact at endpoint level of 1 kg of
ethoxylated alcohols from palm kernel oil in Ecoinvent and in Agri-Footprint187........... 143
Figure 39: Relationship between LCI parameters (left), midpoint (middle) and endpoint
indicator (right) in ReCiPe 2009 ............................................................................ 186
156
ANNEXES
ANNEX I: Stakeholder survey
QUESTIONNAIRE TO ANALYSE THE EXISTING SCOPE, MARKET

SEGMENTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE FOR
LAUNDRY DETERGENTS
Stakeholders Consultation Document
157
1. INTRODUCTION
Objectives
The EU Ecolabel is a key policy instrument in promoting environmentally friendly products and services. This
document constitutes one of the initial stages of revision of the EU Ecolabel and the Green Public Procurement
criteria (GPP) for laundry detergents. The objective of this first questionnaire relating to the existing Ecolabel
criteria for laundry detergents is to determine whether the scope definition is still appropriate and which
criteria need to amended, prolonged or withdrawn. In order to evaluate the current criteria in a successful and
meaningful fashion, contact with relevant stakeholders is of upmost importance.
The EU Ecolabel criteria for ‘Laundry Detergents’ were adopted:

 in 2011 (2011/264/EU) for domestic laundry detergents,
 and in 2012 (2012/721/EU) in respect of industrial & institutional laundry detergents.
The aim of these criteria was to promote laundry detergents that correspond to the best 10-20 % of the
products available on the community market in terms of environmental performance considering the whole
life-cycle (from production, through the use phase and until disposal). These criteria are due to expire in April
2015 and in November 2016, respectively.
One of the goals of the revision is to obtain simplified criteria addressing the most important environmental
impacts of laundry detergents from a life cycle perspective. This questionnaire covers both domestic and
industrial and institutional laundry detergents.
Analysis of existing criteria

The framework of the Commission Decisions 2011/264/EU and 2012/721/EU that sets out the EU Ecolabel
criteria for laundry detergents defines the aims of the criteria as promoting products that have a reduced
impact on aquatic ecosystems, contain a limited amount of hazardous substances and whose performance has
been tested. In addition, the criteria aim at reducing the energy consumption from laundering by promoting
products that are efficient at low temperatures.
The current criteria are set for each of the following aspects of laundry detergents:
Domestic laundry detergents Industrial and institutional laundry detergents

1. Dosage requirements 1. Product and dosage requirements
2. Toxicity to aquatic organisms: Critical Dilution 2. Toxicity to aquatic organisms: Critical Dilution
Volume (CDV) Volume (CDV)
3. Biodegradability of organics 3. Biodegradability
4. Excluded or limited substances and mixtures 4. Excluded or limited substances and mixtures
5. Packaging requirements 5. Packaging requirements
6. Washing performance (fitness for use) 6. Washing performance (fitness for use)
7. Points 7. Automatic dosing systems
8. Consumer information 8. User information
9. Information appearing on the EU Ecolabel
In the following sections the following abbreviation is used: for domestic products– DLD; for industrial and
institutional – IILD.
158
1.3 Confidentiality and contact details
All responses received through this questionnaire will be treated as confidential. Where data is published, this
will be in an aggregated format only. Comments will not be attributed to an individual person or organisation
unless this is specifically requested.
We rely heavily on stakeholder consultation, so your time and expertise are greatly appreciated and valued.
For further information regarding this questionnaire, please contact us writing to Josie Arendorf to the
following e-mail address: josie.arendorf@oakdenehollins.co.uk.
Once this survey has been completed, please email to: JRC-IPTS-LAUNDRY-DETERGENT@ec.europa.eu
Thank you for your participation!
159
2. QUESTIONNAIRE
2.1 Your contact details
First name: Surname:
Email:
Company/ Organisation:
Organisation type:
☐ Industry ☐ Government
☐ Environmental Agency ☐Trade Association
☐ Competent body
☐ Other (please specify)

Company/Organisation details:
Email address
Country
Telephone Number
160
2.2 Scope and definition
a) Domestic laundry detergents
At present the product group “laundry detergents” comprises laundry detergents and pre-treatment stain
removers, which fall under the following definitions:
Laundry detergents and pre-treatment stain removers whether in powder, liquid or any other form which are
marketed and used for the washing of textiles principally in household machines but not excluding their use in
laundrettes and common laundries.
Pre-treatment stain removers include stain removers used for direct spot treatment of textiles (before
washing in the machine) but do not include stain removers dosed in the washing machine and stain removers
dedicated to other uses besides pre-treatment.
This product group does not compromise products that are dosed by carriers such as sheets, cloths or other
materials nor washing auxiliaries used without subsequent washing, such as stain removers for carpets and
furniture upholstery.
1. Do you agree with the existing

☐ Yes If no, please explain why and/or propose modification.
products in scope?
☐ No
2. Is the current definition appropriate If no, please explain why and/or propose modification.
☐ Yes
and suitable for this product category?
☐ No
3. Are there any laundry detergent

☐ Yes If yes, please indicate.
products which are excluded by this
definition which, in your opinion should ☐ No
be included?
4. Should other stain removers in

addition to pre-treatment stain
removers also be included in the ☐ No
criteria?
6. Is the current definition of ‘principally

used in household machines but not
excluding use in laundrettes and ☐ No
common laundries’ clear? How could
this be improved?
161
b) Industrial and Institutional laundry detergents
At present the product group “industrial and institutional laundry detergents” comprises laundry detergents
products performed by professional users in the industrial and institutional sector:
Included in the product group are multi-component-systems constituting of more than one component used
to build up a complete detergent or a laundering program for automatic dosing system.
This product group shall not comprise products for obtaining textile attributes such as water-repellent,
waterproof or fire-proof, etc. Furthermore, the product group shall not comprise products that are dosed by
carriers such as sheets, cloths or other materials, as well as washing auxiliaries used without subsequent
washing, such as stain removers for carpets and furniture upholstery.
Consumer laundry detergents are excluded from the scope of this product group.
7. Do you agree with the existing

products in scope?
☐ No
8. Is the current definition appropriate If no, please explain why and/or propose modification.
☐ Yes
and suitable for this product category?
☐ No
9. Are there any laundry detergent

products which are excluded by this
definition which, in your opinion should ☐ No
be included?
c) All laundry detergents
10. Are differences in definition and

☐ Yes If yes, please explain why and/or propose modification.
scope necessary for the EU Ecolabel and
GPP? ☐ No
11. Should the criteria for domestic and

☐ Yes If yes, please indicate the reasoning behind. If you have
industrial and institutional laundry
☐ No a proposal of a joint definition, please share it. If
detergents be merged? Or remain as
possible, please indicate also expected pros and cons.
two separate criteria?
162
These questions are specifically addressed to the EUEB members and Competent Bodies:
11. Have producers or any other interested party had difficulty in understanding the scope of the product
group, or encountered difficulties because the product was not covered within the current scope and
definition?
☐ Yes ☐ No
If yes, please specify:
12. Have you ever denied the EU Ecolabel licence for the laundry detergents product group because of a
product not being covered by the current scope and definition?
☐ Yes ☐ No
These questions are specifically addressed to the stakeholders/licence holders:
13. Do you have any difficulty in understanding the scope of the product group?
☐ Yes ☐ No
14. Have you ever been denied the EU Ecolabel licence for laundry detergents because of a product not being
covered by the current scope and definition?
☐ Yes ☐ No
163
2.3 The need for criteria revision
Please indicate which of the criteria you believe may need revision and, where appropriate, please explain how
in your opinion the criteria should evolve:
15. Dosage requirements: ☐Keep ☐ Modify/remove

Please give further details:
16. Toxicity to aquatic organisms: Critical ☐Keep ☐ Modify/remove

Dilution Volume (CDV) Please give further details:
17. Biodegradability of organics ☐Keep ☐ Modify/remove

18. Excluded or limited substances and ☐Keep ☐ Modify/remove

mixtures Please give further details:
19. Packaging requirements ☐Keep ☐ Modify/remove

20. Washing performance (fitness for use) ☐Keep ☐ Modify/remove

164
21. Points ☐Keep ☐ Modify/remove
22. Consumer information ☐Keep ☐ Modify/remove

23. Information appearing on the EU Ecolabel ☐Keep ☐ Modify/remove

b) Industrial and institutional laundry detergents
24. Product and dosage requirements: ☐Keep ☐ Modify/remove

25. Toxicity to aquatic organisms: Critical ☐Keep ☐ Modify/remove

Dilution Volume (CDV) Please give further details:
26. Biodegradability ☐Keep ☐ Modify/remove

165
27. Excluded or limited substances and ☐Keep ☐ Modify/remove
mixtures Please give further details:
28. Packaging requirements ☐Keep ☐ Modify/remove

29. Washing performance (fitness for use) ☐Keep ☐ Modify/remove

30. Automatic dosing systems ☐Keep ☐ Modify/remove

31. User information - information appearing ☐Keep ☐ Modify/remove

on the EU Ecolabel Please give further details:
166
2.4 Questionnaire on currently valid criteria
In order to assist with the revision of the criteria, questions for the stakeholders regarding preliminary issues
identified for consideration in the revision of the current criteria are outlined in this section.
Criterion 1: Dosage requirements (DLD) / Product and dosage requirements (IILD)

The recommended maximum dosage amounts, as described in the current criteria, are summarised in the table
below:
Product type Dosage, powder/tablet Dosage, liquid/gel
Heavy-duty laundry detergent, 17.0 g/kg wash 17.0 ml/kg wash
colour-safe detergent
Low-duty detergent 17.0 g/kg wash 17.0 ml/kg wash
Stain remover (pre-treatment 2.7 g/kg wash 2.7 ml/kg wash
only)
Dosage corresponds to grams or millimetres of product used per kilogram wash. Heavy-duty detergents are defined as detergents used for
ordinary washing of white and coloured textiles at any temperature. Low-duty detergents are defined as detergents promoting special
fabric care, e.g. delicate fabrics such as wool and silk or for delicate colours.
32. Are the dosage criteria strict

enough for promoting the best 10-
20 % (in terms of environmental ☐ No
performance) of laundry detergent
products currently available on the
market?
33. Are additional dosage requirements If yes, please explain why and/or propose modification
☐ Yes
needed? For example dosage
depending on water hardness or ☐ No
level of soiling?

The current criteria state that the recommended total dosage for 1 kg of laundry according to the degree of
soiling and water hardness shall be given in g/kg laundry or ml/kg laundry. For multi-component systems all
products have to be included with the worst case dosage for assessments of the criteria.
34. Are the total chemicals criteria

strict enough for promoting the
best 10-20 % (in terms of ☐ No
environmental performance) of
laundry detergent products
currently available on the market?
35. Are additional dosage requirements If yes, please explain why and/or propose modification
☐ Yes
needed? Such as maximum dosage
limits? ☐ No
167
Criterion 2: Toxicity to aquatic organisms: Critical Dilution Volume (CDV)

The current criteria specify that the critical dilution volume of the product must not exceed the following limits
(CDVchronic):

Heavy-duty laundry detergent, 35,000 l/kg wash
Low-duty detergent 20,000 l/kg wash
Stain remover (pre-treatment 3,500 l/kg wash
only)
36. Are the CDV criteria effective in

distinguishing between the state of
the art and the best performing ☐ No
products in laundry detergents
product group?
37. Should different CDV limits be set If yes, please explain why and/or propose modification.
☐ Yes
for different forms of laundry
detergent, for example powder or ☐ No
gel capsules?
38. Should CDV limits be set for If yes, please explain why and/or propose modification.
☐ Yes
different levels of water hardness
or level of soiling? ☐ No
168
The current criteria specify that the critical dilution volume of the product must not exceed the following limits
(CDVchronic):
Soft water (0-6 °dH) CDVchronic (L/kg laundry)

Powder 30,000 40,000 50,000
Liquid 50,000 60,000 70,000

Powder 40,000 60,000 80,000
Liquid 60,000 75,000 90,000
Hard water (>14 °dH) CDVchronic (L/kg laundry)

Powder 50,000 75,000 90,000
Liquid 75,000 90,000 120,000
39. Are the CDV criteria strict enough

for promoting the best 10-20 % (in
terms of environmental ☐ No
performance) of laundry detergent
products currently available on the
market?
169
Criterion 3: Biodegradability of organics

The current criteria specify that the content of organic substances in the product that are aerobically non-
biodegradable (not readily biodegradable aNBO) and/or anaerobically non-biodegradable (anNBO) shall not
exceed the following limits:
For aerobically non-biodegradable organics (aNBO)

Product type aNBO, powder aNBO, liquid
Heavy-duty laundry detergent, 1.0 g/kg wash 0.55 g/kg wash
Stain remover (pre-treatment 0.10 g/kg wash 0.10 g/kg wash
only)
For anaerobically non-biodegradable organics (anNBO)

Product type anNBO, powder anNBO, liquid
Heavy-duty laundry detergent, 1.3 g/kg wash 0.70 g/kg wash
Stain remover (pre-treatment 0.10 g/kg wash 0.10 g/kg wash
only)
40. Are the current limits set for the

maximum amounts of aerobically
and anaerobically non- ☐ No
biodegradable strict enough for
laundry detergents available on the
market?
41. Are the current limits effective in

products in laundry detergents
product group?
42. Should specific requirements apply If yes, please explain why and/or propose modification
☐ Yes
to the biodegradability of
surfactants? ☐ No
43. Should the limits be set for If yes, please explain why and/or propose modification
☐ Yes
different levels of water hardness
or level of soiling? ☐ No
170
The current criteria specify that the content of organic substances in the product that are aerobically non-
biodegradable (not readily biodegradable aNBO) and/or anaerobically non-biodegradable (anNBO) shall not
exceed the following limits:
For aerobically non-biodegradable organic substances:

Soft water (0-6 °dH) aNBO (g/kg laundry)
Powder 0.70 1.10 1.40
Liquid 0.50 0.60 0.70

Powder 1.10 1.40 1.75
Liquid 0.60 0.70 0.90

Powder 1.40 1.75 2.20
Liquid 0.70 0.90 1.20
For anaerobically non-biodegradable organic substances:

Powder 0.70 1.10 1.40
Liquid 0.50 0.60 0.70

Powder 1.10 1.40 1.75
Liquid 0.60 0.70 0.90

Powder 1.40 1.75 2.20
Liquid 0.70 0.90 1.20
44. Are the current limits set for the

maximum amounts of aerobically
and anaerobically non- ☐ No
biodegradable strict enough for
detergents?
171
45. Are the current limits effective in
products in industrial and
institutional laundry detergents
product group?
Criterion 4: Excluded or limited substances and mixtures
Substance Domestic laundry Industrial and institutional laundry

detergents
Phosphates X X
EDTA (ethylene diamine X X
tetraacetate)
Nitromusks and polycyclic musks X
APEO (alkyl phenol ethoxylates) X
and ADP (alkylphenols and
derivatives thereof)
In addition, the most critical substances regarding human health and environment must also not be included in
the product. This is a standard requirement for ecolabelled washing and cleaning products. However, there are
certain substances which are specifically exempted from this requirement:
Industrial and institutional laundry

Substance Domestic Laundry
detergents
Surfactants (in concentrations <25 X
% in the product)
Surfactants (in concentrations <20 X
% in the product)
Fragrances X
Biocides used for preservation X X
Enzymes X X
Bleach catalysts X X
NTA as in impurity in MGDA and X X
GLDA
Optical brighteners (only for heavy X
duty domestic laundry detergent)
46. Are there any additional ingredients

☐ Yes If yes, please specify and provide rationale or
which should be specifically
☐ No supporting information.
excluded or limited from
ecolabelled laundry detergents?
172
47. Should the list of exempted If yes, please explain why and/or propose modification
☐ Yes
substances be reviewed? and provide rationale or supporting information.
☐ No
Criterion 5: Packaging requirements

The current criteria for laundry products specify that the weight/utility ratio (WUR) must not exceed the
following values:
Product type WUR

Powders 1.2 g/kg wash
Others (e.g. liquids, gels, tablets, 1.5 g/kg wash
capsules)
Plastic/paper/cardboard packaging containing more than 80 % recycled material is exempt from this requirement.
48. Are the WUR limits acceptable for

☐ Yes If no, please specify.
laundry detergents currently on the
market? ☐ No
49. Should additional criteria be set to If yes, please explain why and/or propose modification
☐ Yes
further promote the use of recycled
materials in packaging? ☐ No
50. Should the WUR limits be set by If yes, please explain why and/or propose modification
☐ Yes
water hardness? Such as for
industrial and institutional laundry ☐ No
detergents.
51. Should there be restrictions on If yes, please explain why and/or propose modification
☐ Yes
combinations of materials used for
packaging? For instance to ☐ No
encourage ease of disassembly for
recycling.
☐ Yes
promote the use of sustainably
sourced virgin wood fibres for ☐ No
paper and cardboard packaging?
173
The current criteria for laundry products specify that the weight/utility ratio (WUR) must not exceed the
following values:
Product type/water hardness WUR (g/kg laundry)

Soft water Medium water Hard water
Powders 1.5 2.0 2.5
Liquids 2.0 2.5 3.0
Plastic/paper/cardboard packaging containing more than 80 % recycled material or more than 80 % plastic from renewable origin is exempt
from this requirement.
53. Are the WUR limits acceptable for

detergents available currently on ☐ No
the market?
☐ Yes
further promote the use of recycled
materials in packaging? ☐ No
55. Should there be restrictions on If yes, please explain why and/or propose modification
☐ Yes
combinations of materials used for
packaging? For instance to ☐ No
encourage ease of disassembly for
recycling.
☐ Yes
promote the use of sustainably
sourced virgin wood fibres for ☐ No
paper and cardboard packaging?
Criterion 6: Washing performance (fitness for use)

The criteria state that the product shall comply with the performance requirements as specified in the EU
Ecolabel laundry detergents performance test’s latest version which can be found here:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/ecolabelled_products/categories/laundry_detergents_en.htm.
174
57. Please provide us with your comments on the washing performance test and, if appropriate proposals
for modification

The existing criteria state that the primary laundering effects of the detergent such as dirt and stain removal
capacity must be documented by the producer/applicant with the aid of artificially soiled test clothes which are
washed in the process.
58. Please provide us with your comments on the washing performance test and, if appropriate, proposals
for modification
175
Criterion 7: Points (DLD only)
The current criteria utilise a points scoring system which has the objective of 1) promoting cold water and low-
temperature products and 2) promoting products with very low emissions of hazardous substances to the
environment. The maximum available number of points is 8 and a minimum of 3 points is required.
The points available for heavy-duty and low-duty laundry detergents are summarised below:
For heavy-duty laundry detergents:

Climate profile Coldwater product (washing 2P
performance documents at ≤ 20 °C
Low-temperature product 1P
(washing performance
documented at > 20 °C to < 30 °C)
Maximum dosage Max dosage ≤ 14 g/kg wash 2P
(powder/tablet) or ≤ 14 ml/kg
wash (liquid/gel)
Max dosage ≤ 16 g/kg wash 1P
wash (liquid/gel)
CDV CDVchronic < 25,000 l/kg wash 2P
CDVchronic between 25,000 to 1P
30,000 l/kg wash
aNBO aNBO ≤ 75 % of limit value 1P
anNBO anNBO ≤ 75 % of limit value 1P
For low-duty laundry detergents:

Climate profile Coldwater product (washing 2P
performance documents at ≤ 20 °C
Low-temperature product 1P
(washing performance
documented at > 20 °C to < 30 °C)
Maximum dosage Max dosage ≤ 14 g/kg wash 2P
wash (liquid/gel)
Max dosage ≤ 16 g/kg wash 1P
wash (liquid/gel)
CDV CDVchronic < 15,000 l/kg wash 2P
CDVchronic between 1 5,000 to 1P
18,000 l/kg wash
aNBO aNBO ≤ 75 % of limit value 1P
anNBO anNBO ≤ 75 % of limit value 1P
59. Based on laundry detergents

currently available on the market,
does the points system effectively ☐ No
promote cold water and low-
temperature products?
176
60. Could anything be done to further If yes, please specify.
☐ Yes
promote the use of cold water and
low-temperature products through ☐ No
Ecolabel?
Criterion 7: Automatic dosing systems (IILD only)

With regards to automatic dosing systems, the existing criteria state that:
Multi-component systems shall be offered to the customer together with an automatic and controlled dosing
system.
In this must incorporate customer visits:

 To ensure correct dosage
 To be performed at customers premise
 At least once a year during the license period
 As a minimum must include calibration of dosage equipment
 Can be performed by a third party
61. Are the criteria for automatic

☐ Yes If no, please explain why you think so.
dosing systems efficient?
☐ No
Criterion 8: Consumer information (DLD) / User information – Information appearing on the EU Ecolabel (IILD)
Dosage instructions
Under the existing criteria, dosage instructions shall be specified for ‘normally’ and ‘heavily’ soiled textiles as
well as various water hardness’ ranges relevant to the countries concerned. The difference between the dosage
recommendations for the lowest water hardness range for normally soiled textiles and the highest water range
for heavily soiled textiles may not differ by more than a factor of 2.
62. Are the requirements for dosage

instructions efficient?
☐ No
177
Information on the packaging
 Wash at the lowest possible temperature
 Always wash with full load
 Dose according to soil and water hardness, follow the dosing instructions
63. Should further information on

☐ Yes If yes, please specify.
washing recommendations be
included on the packaging? ☐ No
64. Do you have any recommendations If yes, please specify.

☐ Yes
for information on the packaging
which encourages washing at low ☐ No
temperatures?

65. Are the requirements for claims on

the packaging efficient?
☐ No
Information on the packaging/product information sheet

Under the existing criteria, the following washing recommendations shall appear on the packaging and/or
product information sheet:
 Wash at the lowest recommended temperature
 Always wash with the highest possible load, the textiles allow
 Dose according to the dosing instructions and use the dosage according to water hardness and degree
of soiling
178
66. Is this information on the packaging
sufficient for encouraging low
temperature washing? ☐ No
67. Is there any other information If yes, please specify.

☐ Yes
which should be included on the
packaging/product information ☐ No
sheet?

68. Are the requirements for claims on

the packaging efficient?
☐ No
2.5 Additional questions

These questions are for all laundry detergents
2.5.1 Measurement thresholds

The framework of the current EU Ecolabel defines the concentration of ingredients in the product which
implies documentation at a threshold of more than or equal to 0.010 % by weight of the preparation.
Should the threshold be:
lower, such as: % higher, such as: % Remain at 0.010 % ☐
Please, specify your reason if you propose any change in the current threshold:
2.5.2 Further issues or hot spots for laundry detergents
179
The current criteria are set for 9 different aspects of laundry detergents (8 for IILD), with the aim of promoting
products which have a reduced impact on aquatic ecosystems, contain a limited amount of hazardous
substances and whose performance has been tested. Furthermore they aim to promote products that are
efficient at low temperatures.
Should further criterion be developed? Either because all the issues are not already covered or because of
recent developments which affect the environmental performance of laundry detergents.
2.5.3 Market data

The market analysis forms an integral part of the criteria revision process, as it identifies important drivers,
trends and innovations in the market for laundry detergents.
If you have any information on market statistics for laundry detergents product group please mention this here
so that we can get in touch with you and collect the details needed for the project. Thank you in advance for
your cooperation.
180
ANNEX II: Laundry detergent ingredients
Surfactants
Surfactants (surface active agents) are the active cleaning ingredients found in laundry detergents, this is due
to their ability to remove dirt from wet hydrophobic surfaces and keep it in suspension. They are organic
substances which have both a hydrophobic part and a hydrophilic part. Surfactants are a large group of surface
active substances and are used throughout the entire spectrum of cleaning products. The primary function of
surfactants in laundry detergents is to remove soil. Three types of surfactants are found in laundry detergent
products; these are anionic, non-ionic and cationic. It is common for more than one type of surfactant to be
used in a laundry detergents, this is because their actions reinforce each other thus giving rise to increased
cleaning ability. As a result of their surface activity properties, surfactants are relatively toxic to aquatic
organisms. The toxic effects and biodegradability of surfactants varies depending on their carbohydrate chain
structure.
Builders
Builders are used to enhance the action of surfactants (and other ingredients of the detergent) by softening the
water, by helping to disperse soils and prevent their redeposition out of solution and to assist with dissolving
oil-based soils. Phosphorous compounds are often used as builders in cleaning products. However, phosphorus
is a major contributor to eutrophication in water systems and the use of phosphorus compounds in laundry
detergents is being phased out. Other builders which do not contribute to eutrophication are available on the
EU market, therefore phosphates and other phosphorous compounds can be replaced. Phosphates are
currently banned from use in laundry detergents in some European countries and their use is also limited by
the EC Detergents Regulation. However, the alternatives such as zeolites are not without issues, in terms of
environmental performance. These alternative builders include zeolites, MGDA, GLDA and citrates.
Ethylenediaminetetracetic acid (EDTA) is also a commonly used builder in laundry detergents. EDTA is used to
improve cleaning ability through water softening, it is a very strong complexing agents. As with phosphates, the
use of EDTA in laundry detergents is also of environmental concern as it is poorly biodegradable. The use of
EDTA in laundry detergents is restricted under the current Ecolabel criteria.
Biocides/preservatives
Preservatives are used to prevent the product from spoiling during storage, typically they are only required in
liquid or gel laundry detergents. They function by preventing the break-down of organic ingredients; some
preservatives are anti-bacterial in function. Often biocides are used as preservatives in laundry detergents.
However, some biocides are bio-accumulative and this may have negative impacts on human health. Typically
they are only added in very small amounts and are not added to powder detergents. The use of biocides is
currently restricted by EU regulation and in the current EU Ecolabel criteria for laundry detergents.
Bleaches
Bleaching agents are used for hygienic reasons, to remove stains and to bleach textiles. Bleaching impacts on
the fibre structure of textiles and in doing so reduces the life of some textiles. Some halogenated bleaches such
as active chlorine bleaches may be toxic and degrade slowly in the aquatic environment. Bleaching agents such
as sodium hypochlorite are inherently toxic and can break down into toxic by-products which present a threat
to human health and the environment. The environmental impacts of bleaching agents vary greatly depending
on the chemical groups used. Other bleaching agents used are percarbonates, perborates, peroxides and
peracids.
Optical brighteners
Optical brighteners are used to make fabrics appear whiter and brighter, they do this by enhancing the light
reflected from the fabric surface. Substances used as optical brighteners include aminotriazines, coumarins and
stilbenes. Many optical brighteners used in laundry detergents are not biodegradable and therefore will remain
in wastewater for long periods of time.
Fragrances
Fragrances are used to neutralise the inherent odour of detergent chemicals and give the laundry a pleasant
smell. There are many different fragrance substances used by the detergent industry of which several are of
environmental concern. For example, nitro-musks and polycyclic musk compounds are suspected of being
181
carcinogenic and they show a tendency to accumulate in a mother’s milk. As a consequence all nitro-musks are
banned from EU Ecolabel laundry detergent products.
Dyes
Dyes are added to laundry detergents for aesthetic reasons and have no effect on the ability of the product to
clean textiles. The environmental impacts of dye substances vary greatly depending on the functional group,
therefore, no general remarks have been made on their environmental impacts of toxicity.
Enzymes
Enzymes are typically used in laundry detergents to improve washing performance at low temperatures. They
function by targeting difficult stains and breaking them down into smaller parts which can be more easily
removed by other ingredients. As they do not lose functionality after use, they can replace large quantities of
other chemicals with the same function. Enzymes which are commonly used in laundry detergents and stain
removers include: protease, lipase and amylase. Enzymes have few negative environmental impacts as they are
205
readily biodegradable and have no adverse effects to the aquatic system.
Solvents
Organic solvents are often added to liquid detergents in order to dissolve the ingredients. Typically alcohols are
used as solvents in laundry detergent products. The environmental impact of solvents will vary depending on
the exact substance.
205
Environmental assessment of laundry detergents, European Textile Services Association, http://www.eco-
forum.dk/detergents/index_files/Page693.htm
182
ANNEX III: Market analysis data
A. COMEXT trade data
Table 47: Intra EU-28 Import, 2013

Intra EU – Import
34012090 34012010 34011100 34011900
Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity
Value (€) (100kg) Value (€) (100kg) Value (€) (100kg) Value (€) (100kg)
AT 9,860,816 62,034 1,124,141 7,340 26,174,482 107,439 5,764,565 18,035
BE 25,664,690 129,710 1,566,479 8,758 32,046,592 160,771 11,920,610 49,215
BG 905,873 5,503 752,468 2,793 5,952,192 25,297 1,724,299 9,259
CY 690,700 4,314 64,553 484 2,153,361 7,192 314,136 2,970
CZ 6,873,642 52,329 2,378,855 9,761 18,439,363 90,784 3,829,189 25,560
DE 21,195,747 162,789 1,694,411 11,611 88,930,730 497,277 21,558,555 86,957
DK 10,535,994 76,164 1,550,330 9,494 4,657,139 22,385 4,656,260 31,819
EE 1,757,755 6,956 431,086 2,331 1,198,503 3,539 628,852 1,716
ES 13,325,759 90,187 969,078 4,849 30,545,978 188,778 6,977,603 39,721
FI 7,287,388 38,846 460,024 1,635 10,834,368 33,551 2,119,857 6,506
FR 67,417,126 455,955 2,590,283 18,018 68,393,144 374,015 28,936,326 118,231
UK 29,481,643 203,910 9,428,590 82,943 45,901,601 206,401 15,039,155 99,115
EL 5,237,123 33,215 857,724 5,250 9,173,623 49,960 1,706,128 6,123
HR 1,917,315 15,218 43,436 169 5,290,281 28,277 1,114,701 3,752
HU 6,956,298 49,954 85,424 494 16,888,678 103,202 3,914,903 15,013
IE 13,136,920 49,862 12,970,485 53,878 22,761,315 84,656 5,496,298 23,550
IT 10,388,226 59,742 5,670,541 65,435 25,702,018 123,039 7,697,502 51,012
LT 1,829,651 10,078 305,318 3,149 2,965,470 10,297 1,373,456 5,683
LU 2,763,987 8,865 266,810 1,119 2,311,999 10,715 1,164,788 2,660
LV 2,919,171 11,981 137,630 1,120 1,636,046 6,070 742,721 3,921
MT 695,420 5,240 116,791 715 731,756 2,661 214,708 799
NL 11,816,657 79,981 1,999,497 11,650 43,765,012 243,412 14,872,990 85,550
PL 16,182,112 108,465 8,230,003 101,387 24,722,433 134,031 7,083,988 41,675
PT 16,531,568 154,776 4,403,310 42,243 15,060,772 89,111 12,871,024 96,527
RO 6,682,534 72,204 715,009 3,319 14,164,858 71,005 2,583,951 11,897
SE 16,275,142 108,426 430,921 4,050 13,116,281 73,894 2,833,061 9,231
SI 2,730,381 19,026 126,615 778 5,801,524 25,590 984,461 3,726
SK 3,140,560 39,003 86,403 640 7,591,582 36,677 1,806,229 7,544
EU-28 314,200,198 2,114,733 59,456,215 455,413 546,911,101 2,810,026 169,930,316 857,767
Table 48: Intra EU-28 Export, 2013

Intra EU – Export
34012090 34012010 34011100 34011900
AT 1,094,700 4,845 192,903 603 4,718,597 7,502 1,580,637 4,393
BE 27,477,138 255,379 4,403,867 30,035 17,822,614 86,541 15,177,706 69,041
BG 949,131 14,150 493,366 1,413 2,781,554 13,042 256,791 834
CY 12,104 49 0 0 192,796 584 46 0
CZ 3,336,662 22,931 2,663 21 21,321,582 118,392 1,060,645 5,590
DE 47,386,021 392,547 9,028,764 67,457 226,578,415 1,387,417 21,400,132 52,531
DK 11,242,005 67,628 22,467 70 3,932,153 9,280 1,070,521 2,299
EE 405,345 1,778 8,815 51 59,681 211 58,425 208
ES 9,908,208 97,737 2,657,162 17,194 9,972,946 53,802 24,080,173 171,882
FI 374,918 1,683 90 0 73,045 160 84,416 264
FR 27,882,645 114,877 2,025,873 25,365 19,440,672 43,955 16,897,062 89,961
UK 23,490,863 114,139 20,181,125 128,050 56,572,423 251,280 35,999,204 272,031
EL 3,375,052 21,669 277,761 1,049 1,747,191 6,316 3,269,659 20,172
183
HR 79,443 446 0 0 293,872 246 5,375 0
HU 1,408,276 12,494 16,677 82 6,476,464 25,488 1,722,603 5,002
IE 1,177,435 4,816 1,161,750 5,694 2,098,506 6,673 3,158,113 7,627
IT 122,879,067 895,849 3,485,510 30,698 35,231,803 123,782 43,383,588 326,914
LT 395,514 1,941 12,987 65 596,157 2,017 584,720 4,071
LU 670,501 2,592 65,879 303 313,102 1,092 307,084 404
LV 138,757 717 16,398 123 1,099,836 2,295 144,924 618
MT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL 14,176,639 75,784 1,359,995 10,276 31,147,877 154,328 30,498,680 122,001
PL 25,051,772 258,898 182,434 582 73,844,810 437,245 20,752,106 108,947
PT 940,288 6,594 1,134,634 8,052 7,047,479 25,613 140,059 1,010
RO 528,651 3,637 81,374 415 2,073,865 6,487 321,089 1,587
SE 18,196,810 112,707 542,152 2,402 4,109,648 16,079 682,902 976
SI 433,869 3,275 361,124 3,452 2,498,055 6,737 416,488 1,344
SK 292,570 1,237 2,700 14 3,773,695 26,193 112,146 269
EU-28 343,304,384 2,490,399 47,718,470 333,466 535,818,838 2,812,757 223,165,294 1,269,976
Table 49: Extra EU-28 Import, 2013

Extra EU - Import
34012090 34012010 34011100 34011900

AT 246,195 1,553 11,999 80 5,022,528 23,157 221,476 316
BE 816,756 7,302 764,777 9,019 10,307,464 73,591 9,915,524 67,101
BG 637,037 8,186 2,415,358 32,491 3,741,211 28,992 2,768,199 31,095
HR 605,945 6,932 9,329 18 1,551,290 7,958 147,388 638
CY 17,291 72 227,227 2,213 208,714 1,097 99,296 423
CZ 155,165 1,169 31,296 254 7,931,812 54,491 1,364,856 10,236
DK 362,049 1,549 5,406 9 1,067,266 4,375 2,310,784 16,979
EE 41,662 381 0 0 107,750 689 115,885 765
FI 88,554 442 104 0 184,879 673 21,488 51
FR 7,087,629 74,931 6,159,096 77,272 13,200,985 85,339 5,814,483 39,309
DE 12,932,777 136,276 3,112,561 40,009 25,084,913 162,740 2,544,635 11,612
EL 494,439 3,194 295,164 3,950 768,467 3,418 898,726 6,968
HU 172,617 847 0 0 1,548,461 10,180 328,175 2,317
IE 253,569 2,056 8,774 14 83,309 311 107,769 76
IT 665,500 2,860 4,398,303 57,936 5,901,760 38,371 2,043,344 14,753
LV 88,088 700 67 0 394,950 1,813 565,887 3,274
LT 3,808 12 269,537 3,601 321,255 1,557 241,131 1,586
LU 3,310 1 0 0 368 0 1,304 0
MT 31,714 109 0 0 391,931 1,955 16,318 77
NL 2,848,966 13,695 757,995 9,980 17,185,365 120,928 8,439,748 41,470
PL 1,430,124 14,996 1,213,620 13,217 15,367,611 107,950 747,361 5,326
PT 83,108 973 96,520 1,940 2,049,035 15,273 149,786 986
RO 329,168 3,586 665,918 2,750 5,520,286 46,929 2,063,374 20,255
SK 143,331 1,372 476 0 1,360,324 9,991 82,582 283
SI 155,853 616 73,441 1,280 1,094,165 2,017 640 0
ES 1,227,394 11,949 1,182,972 14,518 6,472,729 28,622 3,616,779 27,319
SE 1,641,364 11,383 772,982 8,472 2,530,516 12,857 335,935 983
UK 22,440,645 112,045 1,853,675 20,864 37,414,669 225,237 10,970,544 64,185
EU-28 55,004,058 419,187 24,326,597 299,887 166,814,013 1,070,511 55,933,417 368,383
184
Table 50: Extra EU-28 Export, 2013
Extra EU - Export
34012090 34012010 34011100 34011900

AT 399,586 958 2,062 2 1,113,568 2,561 624,208 2,805
BE 3,726,420 9,726 281,159 2,013 2,176,500 7,286 642,924 1,340
BG 1,291,330 14,903 33,992 273 2,034,154 11,890 392,756 2,477
HR 58,358 391 0 0 2,064,688 8,334 55,951 79
CY 50 0 0 0 42,312 126 0 0
CZ 284,908 1,941 83 0 5,579,107 23,425 629,699 4,777
DK 8,926,081 35,579 504,221 3,863 770,952 2,025 460,424 1,169
EE 1,066 6 0 0 99,778 422 106,848 430
FI 761,726 3,098 0 0 82,844 139 84,077 197
FR 13,276,215 44,909 436,236 2,676 29,392,256 72,597 9,268,074 33,776
DE 11,800,258 71,363 5,150,878 24,039 93,553,880 477,675 6,204,430 14,889
EL 137,441 833 0 0 282,278 677 1,922,056 10,664
HU 569,107 5,060 660 0 2,310,404 9,182 593,934 2,917
IE 2,684 2 4,964 22 153,716 52 51,207 42
IT 11,731,905 72,310 837,540 2,839 13,375,321 33,338 11,241,019 80,519
LV 82,096 418 19 0 1,979,052 3,580 948,620 6,015
LT 1,491,223 7,349 630,394 6,291 1,016,481 3,793 1,572,536 9,321
LU 413 1 11 0 530 0 515 0
MT 175,185 768 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL 2,861,688 14,757 427,105 1,355 33,332,357 135,171 7,039,630 27,206
PL 4,289,527 35,350 230,445 2,009 23,320,411 95,959 1,834,435 7,506
PT 977,221 5,946 316,416 1,854 5,213,924 13,709 5,078,806 75,953
RO 283,368 2,037 0 0 2,787,585 8,954 42,816 38
SK 21,293 134 0 0 117,035 388 249,529 1,244
SI 770,917 4,675 16,623 200 1,138,156 5,825 152,001 1,256
ES 4,344,861 37,698 173,484 1,978 10,088,300 47,191 4,460,650 21,814
SE 8,973,983 46,283 160,248 303 8,082,921 22,948 2,309,127 5,898
UK 20,533,995 81,185 4,475,081 22,135 60,878,460 236,819 18,599,162 86,317
EU-28 97,772,905 497,680 13,681,621 71,852 300,986,970 1,224,066 74,565,434 398,649
185
ANNEX IV: Life cycle impact assessment
For each substance, a schematic cause and effect pathway needs to be developed that describes the
environmental mechanism of the substance emitted. Along this environmental mechanism an impact category
indicator result can be chosen either at the midpoint or endpoint level. Endpoint results have a higher level of
uncertainty compared to midpoint results but are easier to understand by decision makers.
 Midpoint impact category, or problem-oriented approach, translates impacts into environmental

themes such as climate change, acidification, human toxicity, etc.
 Endpoint impact category, also known as the damage-oriented approach, translates environmental
impacts into issues of concern such as human health, natural environment, and natural resources.
Ozone depletion Decr. Ozone P. Damage

Hum tox Hazard. W. Dose Damage
Human health
LCI result Radiation Absorbed Dose Damage
DALY
P. C. Ozone Form. Ozone Conc.
Damage
Particulate Form. PM10 Conc.
CO2
Climate Change
VOS Infra-red Forcing Damage
P Terr.Ecotox Hazard W. Conc.
SO2 Terr. Acidif.
Ecosystems
Base Saturation
Single score
PDF.m2..yr
Terr.
NOx Agr. Land Occ. Damage
CFC Occupied Area
Cd Urban Land Occ.
PAH Nat. Land Transf. Transformed area

DDT Marine
Marine Ecotox. Hazard W. Conc.
Land use Damage
Oil Marine Eutr. Algae Growth
Surpus cost
Raw mat.
Resources
Fresh water Eutr. Algae Growth Fresh.

. Damage
Fresh W. Ecotox Hazard W. Conc
Fossil fuel Cons. Energy Content
Damage
Minerals Cons. Decrease Conc.
Figure 37: Relationship between LCI parameters (left), midpoint (middle) and endpoint indicator (right) in
ReCiPe 2009
186
ANNEX V: Contribution analysis of different life cycle stages
Table 51 and Table 52 show the life cycle impact contribution of laundry detergent.
Table 51: Life cycle impact contribution of a laundry detergent
Impact category Unit Ingredients Formulation Packaging Transport Use phase End of life
CC kg CO2 eq 1.1E-01 5.8E-03 5.7E-03 2.5E-02 3.3E-01 6.2E-02
OD kg CFC-11 eq 1.0E-08 2.9E-10 5.9E-10 3.9E-09 1.6E-08 1.9E-09
TA kg SO2 eq 4.5E-04 2.4E-05 1.9E-05 1.5E-04 1.4E-03 1.8E-04
FE kg P eq 5.2E-05 5.8E-06 2.1E-06 3.5E-06 3.4E-04 5.4E-05
ME kg N eq 9.2E-05 1.7E-06 5.8E-06 8.7E-06 9.4E-05 1.2E-03
Htox kg 1,4-DB eq 2.0E-01 3.7E-03 1.6E-03 3.5E-03 2.2E-01 4.3E-02
POF kg NMVOC 2.9E-04 1.2E-05 1.9E-05 2.4E-04 7.1E-04 1.3E-04
PMF kg PM10 eq 1.7E-04 7.7E-06 7.5E-06 6.4E-05 4.5E-04 6.0E-05
Ttox kg 1,4-DB eq 5.0E-04 1.4E-07 1.2E-06 2.2E-06 1.4E-05 8.9E-06
Ftox kg 1,4-DB eq 1.8E-02 8.9E-05 1.2E-05 4.5E-05 2.0E-03 6.9E-04
Mtox kg 1,4-DB eq 3.3E-03 8.7E-05 1.4E-05 5.6E-05 2.0E-03 6.2E-04
IR kg U235 eq 2.9E-02 4.6E-03 1.1E-03 3.2E-03 2.6E-01 1.1E-02
2
ALO ma 1.4E-02 7.4E-05 1.2E-02 1.3E-04 5.6E-03 2.7E-04
2
ULO ma 6.7E-04 1.8E-05 2.2E-04 3.1E-04 1.8E-03 5.9E-04
2
NLT m 1.0E-04 6.2E-07 2.7E-06 9.0E-06 3.9E-05 -1.9E-06
3
WD m 1.6E-03 4.8E-05 1.1E-04 1.1E-04 5.8E-02 4.5E-04
MD kg Fe eq 4.4E-03 4.2E-05 1.5E-04 1.2E-03 3.2E-03 6.0E-03
FD kg oil eq 4.1E-02 1.6E-03 1.7E-03 8.9E-03 8.9E-02 4.1E-03
Table 52: Life cycle impact contribution of a laundry detergent (in percentages)
Impact category Unit Ingredients Formulation Packaging Transport Use phase End of life
CC % 20 1 1 5 62 12
OD % 31 1 2 12 49 6
TA % 20 1 1 7 63 8
FE % 12 1 0 1 74 12
ME % 7 0 0 1 7 85
Htox % 43 1 0 1 46 9
POF % 21 1 1 17 51 9
PMF % 22 1 1 8 60 8
Ttox % 95 0 0 0 3 2
Ftox % 86 0 0 0 10 3
Mtox % 54 1 0 1 33 10
IR % 10 2 0 1 84 4
ALO % 43 0 37 0 18 1
ULO % 19 1 6 9 50 17
NLT % 66 0 2 6 26 -1
WD % 3 0 0 0 96 1
MD % 29 0 1 8 22 40
FD % 28 1 1 6 61 3
187
ANNEX VI: Sensitivity analysis
Dosage sensitivity
Table 53 shows the results of the dosage sensitivity analysis.
Table 53: Impact contribution of the dosage sensitivity
Impact category Unit -20 % Baseline +20 %
Climate change kg CO2 eq 4.98E-01 5.35E-01 5.73E-01
Ozone depletion kg CFC-11 eq 3.02E-08 3.32E-08 3.63E-08
Terrestrial acidification kg SO2 eq 2.09E-03 2.23E-03 2.36E-03
Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq 4.42E-04 4.55E-04 4.69E-04
Marine eutrophication kg N eq 1.31E-03 1.37E-03 1.42E-03
Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 4.21E-01 4.69E-01 5.17E-01
Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC 1.28E-03 1.40E-03 1.52E-03
Particulate matter formation kg PM10 eq 7.07E-04 7.58E-04 8.09E-04
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 4.26E-04 5.27E-04 6.27E-04
Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 1.71E-02 2.07E-02 2.44E-02
Marine ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 5.35E-03 6.07E-03 6.79E-03
235
Ionising radiation kg U eq 2.98E-01 3.05E-01 3.13E-01
2
Agricultural land occupation ma 2.66E-02 3.18E-02 3.70E-02
2
Urban land occupation ma 3.29E-03 3.58E-03 3.87E-03
2
Natural land transformation m 1.28E-04 1.51E-04 1.73E-04
3
Water depletion m 6.00E-02 6.04E-02 6.07E-02
Metal depletion kg Fe eq 1.37E-02 1.49E-02 1.61E-02
Fossil depletion kg oil eq 1.36E-01 1.47E-01 1.58E-01
Wash temperature sensitivity

Table 54 shows the results of the wash temperature sensitivity analysis.
Table 54: Impact contribution of wash temperature sensitivity
Impact category Unit 30 degrees 40 degrees 60 degrees

235
2
2
2
Water depletion m3 6.0E-02 6.0E-02 6.2E-02
188
Surfactant sensitivity
Table 55 shows the results for the data source sensitivity analysis.
Table 55: Impact contribution of surfactant sensitivity
Impact category Unit Mixed origin Oleochemical Petrochemical
235
2
2
2
3
Water depletion m 6.04E-02 6.05E-02 6.00E-02
Energy source sensitivity

Table 56 shows the results for the energy source sensitivity analysis
Table 56: Impact contribution of energy source sensitivity
Impact category Unit UCTE FR CH NL
Climate change kg CO2 eq 5.35E-01 2.76E-01 2.36E-01 6.14E-01
Ozone depletion kg CFC-11 eq 3.32E-08 2.05E-08 2.66E-08 3.25E-08
Terrestrial acidification kg SO2 eq 2.23E-03 1.20E-03 9.64E-04 1.46E-03
Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq 4.55E-04 1.73E-04 1.51E-04 2.45E-04
Marine eutrophication kg N eq 1.37E-03 1.29E-03 1.28E-03 1.32E-03
Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 4.69E-01 3.33E-01 3.11E-01 3.63E-01
Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC 1.40E-03 9.17E-04 7.84E-04 1.34E-03
Particulate matter formation kg PM10 eq 7.58E-04 4.56E-04 3.76E-04 5.52E-04
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 5.27E-04 5.23E-04 5.21E-04 5.22E-04
Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 2.07E-02 2.03E-02 1.99E-02 2.12E-02
Marine ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 6.07E-03 5.61E-03 5.16E-03 6.56E-03
235
Ionising radiation kg U eq 3.05E-01 7.17E-01 3.76E-01 8.80E-02
2
Agricultural land occupation ma 3.18E-02 2.89E-02 2.81E-02 3.32E-02
2
Urban land occupation ma 3.58E-03 2.95E-03 2.71E-03 3.84E-03
2
Natural land transformation m 1.51E-04 1.25E-04 1.21E-04 2.00E-04
3
Water depletion m 6.04E-02 6.12E-02 6.00E-02 5.91E-02
Metal depletion kg Fe eq 1.49E-02 2.73E-02 2.63E-02 2.55E-02
Fossil depletion kg oil eq 1.47E-01 7.54E-02 6.57E-02 1.86E-01
189
Fabric softener sensitivity
Table 57 shows the results for the fabric softener sensitivity analysis.
Table 57: Impact contribution of the dosage sensitivity
Impact category Unit Fabric softener used No fabric softener used
Climate change kg CO2 eq 5.56E-01 5.35E-01
Ozone depletion kg CFC-11 eq 3.43E-08 3.32E-08
Terrestrial acidification kg SO2 eq 2.27E-03 2.23E-03
Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq 4.61E-04 4.55E-04
Marine eutrophication kg N eq 1.39E-03 1.37E-03
Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 4.76E-01 4.69E-01
Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC 1.46E-03 1.40E-03
Particulate matter formation kg PM10 eq 7.76E-04 7.58E-04
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 5.42E-04 5.27E-04
Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 2.08E-02 2.07E-02
Marine ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 6.17E-03 6.07E-03
235
Ionising radiation kg U eq 3.08E-01 3.05E-01
2
Agricultural land occupation ma 3.30E-02 3.18E-02
2
Urban land occupation ma 3.69E-03 3.58E-03
2
Natural land transformation m 1.64E-04 1.51E-04
3
Water depletion m 6.05E-02 6.04E-02
Metal depletion kg Fe eq 1.54E-02 1.49E-02
Fossil depletion kg oil eq 1.53E-01 1.47E-01
190
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union
Free phone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.
A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server http://europa.eu
How to obtain EU publications
Our publications are available from EU Bookshop (http://publications.europa.eu/howto/index_en.htm),

where you can place an order with the sales agent of your choice.
The Publications Office has a worldwide network of sales agents.

You can obtain their contact details by sending a fax to (352) 29 29-42758.
191
LF-NA-27380-EN-N
JRC Mission
As the Commission’s
in-house science service,
the Joint Research Centre’s
mission is to provide EU
policies with independent,
evidence-based scientific
and technical support
throughout the whole
policy cycle.
Working in close
cooperation with policy
Directorates-General,
the JRC addresses key
societal challenges while
stimulating innovation
through developing
new methods, tools
and standards, and sharing
its know-how with
the Member States,
the scientific community
and international partners.
Serving society
Stimulating innovation
Supporting legislation
doi:10.2791/0171
ISBN 978-92-79-50316-0
192

Laundry Pubsy 20151104 - 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Laundry Pubsy 20151104 - 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Laundry Pubsy 20151104 - 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Revision of the European Ecolabel

Criteria for: Laundry detergents and

JRC Science Hub

PDF ISBN 978-92-79-50316-0 ISSN 1831-9424 doi:10.2791/0171 LF-NA-27380-EN-N

© European Union, 2015

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Towards a sustainable laundry!

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... 3

1.2 Purpose of this document

1.3 EU Ecolabel for laundry detergents

1.4 Investigation overview

2.2 Scope and definition

2.2.2 Current EU Ecolabel product scope and definition

80 % of respondents considered that the LD and IILD criteria, and therefore EU

excluded or limited from EU Ecolabel detergents.

which exclusion/limitations should be considered. Including peracetic acid, hydrogen

currently on the market.

respondents agreeing to this statement.

happy with the current testing procedure.

water and low temperature products.

2.4 Review of legislation – key changes since the previous criteria

2.4.2 Revision to the Detergents Regulation

2.4.3 The Biocides Regulation (EC) No 528/2012

2.4.4 Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Chemical

2.5 Review of national ecolabelling schemes

Industrial and institutional

coloured textiles at any temperature.

powder. Hand wash is not covered.

Refers to EU Ecolabel criteria (Commission Decision 2012/271/EU) for category

combination products), fine washable laundry detergents, spot removers, stain

protectants, fabric refreshers, starch, sizing and fabric finish.

Products intended for laundering textiles in water by professional or commercial users

A multi-component system is a detergent system based on components used to build

type and sheet type detergents.

Liquid laundry detergent which is used in home washing machines.

Hazardous substances and mixtures

H300 R28 H410 R50/53

H301 R25 H411 R52, and phthalates.

EUH029 R29 H373 R48/22

this requirement: R39/26

(NTA) as H341 R46 and/or

H361f R62, R63

Optical H413 R53 H361d and/or R64

Dosage and dosage instructions

The recommended dosage for middle- Prod type Dosage

Toxicity to aquatic environments

All plastic packaging must be made of At least 80 % of cardboard packaging

 Use of PVC and/or phthalates in As far as possible, the packaging must

Points scoring system

Bio-concentration factor (BCF)

duty detergents and medium water hardness and lightly soiled

- Dosage and dosage instructions: The maximum dosage Fabric soften-ers ≤4 g

Table 6: Overview of the requirements of different ecolabels for IILDs

Complexing agents: The maximum concentration of

Sodium: the total sodium load per wash shall be less

Medium water (7-13 °dH) CDVchronic (L/kg laundry)

Hard water (>14 °dH) CDVchronic (l/kg laundry)

aNBO: g/kg laundry Level of soiling