Greenwashing Diapers: Are “Eco-Friendly” Diapers Just a Scam?

Misleading Labels

Polylactic acid (PLA) is a biodegradable polymer that can replace plastic in certain applications, effectively utilizing natural resources and reducing microplastic contamination in the environment. Certain diaper brands have incorporated PLA into their product to support their “sustainable” labeling, since PLA is synthesized from lactic acid, which is derived from sugar (Li et al., 2020). Companies market the biodegradable and recyclable properties of PLA, despite the fact that these materials require a dedicated recycling facility since they are not compatible with other recyclables, causing productions containing PLA to be typically incinerated or sent to the landfill. While it is true that PLA is biodegradable, degradation takes roughly 80 years in natural landfill conditions, as opposed to industrial recycling plants with proper capabilities that can degrade PLA within days (Gianeco, 2024). This can significantly hamper PLA’s benefits for the environment.

In addition to the biodegradability issues, PLA is highly synthesized and consequently, not a natural product. PLA is synthesized via three methods: the lactonitrile method, acrylonitrile method, and the propionic method. Both the lactonitrile and acrylonitrile method require sulfuric acid, which has its own set of environmental and economic concerns. At least 80% of the global stock of sulfuric acid is derived from fossil fuels (Maslin et al., 2022), and therefore, scaling its use in the diaper industry would increase sulfuric acid demand – which is already strained due to efforts to reduce fossil fuel production. Current sulfuric acid demand is largely from the fertilizer industry, so increased disruption in the supply chain of sulfuric acid would cause instability in the global food supply, a phenomenon already of concern due to the extensive use of sulfuric acid in ore mining and lithium battery production (USGS, 2022; Maslin et al., 2022).

Despite the global environmental and economic concerns of scaling the use of PLA, laboratory testing reveals that products labeled “plant-based” actually contain very little PLA, if any. Four diapers were tested via microscopy and infrared spectral analysis to determine material composition of each diaper section, of which only one marketed as “eco-friendly” contained any amount of PLA. The product with PLA in the core material contains a non-biodegradable polyethylene sheath, while the remaining diaper materials were a mixture of non-biodegradable polyester and polypropylene. Polyester takes 20 to 200 years to decompose (Manteco, 2024), while polypropylene takes up to 450 years (Nghiem, 2021). These results reveal that some diapers marketed as biodegradable actually contain only a small fraction of biodegradable material.

Replanting Harvested Trees – Does it Matter?

The core diaper material is cellulose, a tree-derived fiber used for its highly absorbent properties. With the use of cellulose comes concerns for deforestation, therefore companies use replanting promises to mislead consumers into believing they are supporting reforestation efforts. Companies claim their products to be made of “FSC Certified, sustainably sourced plant-based pulp, which helps nurture our planet’s forests”. Pulp is inherently plant-based, given it is derived from trees. Companies use claims of partnerships with Forest Stewardship Council® (FSC®) certified wood sources, which are logging sources that regenerate forests as trees are harvested to limit net forest loss, which, to the consumer, appears to negate the overall impact of harvesting. These claims are often vague and have little impact on the environment. One company advertises a promise to replant 1,000 trees, but no timeline or further detail is given and the carbon emission offset from replanting 1,000 trees is negligible, especially in comparison to the sheer number of trees that are harvested for their products. For better context, a single baby is estimated to require 20 trees-worth of cellulose while of diaper age (Clean Water Action, 2024). Some companies promise to replant one tree for every tree harvested, but what consumers do not often know is that it takes roughly 10-15 years for a white pine tree to reach a considerable size (Wendel and Smith, n.d.) and it does not absorb its full capacity of carbon dioxide for over 80 years (Minerva Action Group, 2024). A white pine at approximately 15 years of age absorbs only roughly 6% of carbon dioxide of that of a 75 year old tree, for example. The extensive time needed for these “regenerated” trees to reach a size that is similarly beneficial for atmospheric carbon absorption as the harvest tree is often severely overlooked, misleading the consumer into believing these companies are completely offsetting their harvesting and even supporting reforestation.

Branding: How Packaging and Product Appearance Affects Sentiment

Another form of greenwashing is the use of dyes to make products appear naturally-sourced. Several companies known to dye their materials brown to give a “natural” look to their products have been called out in the press for this practice. Some companies defend their dye practices by claiming that the choice to dye their product is to differentiate it from competitors, rather than to mislead their consumers. However true this may be, most consumers are unlikely to read the fine print on a diaper company’s website to learn about this important distinction.

Companies also alter their packaging to appear more sustainable, without actually changing the product itself. This greenwashing tactic is a marketing strategy, using ‘earthy’ colors, such as green, brown, and white, as well as suggestive images such as trees and plants to create a visual association between the product and the environment. Research on consumer sentiment when exposed to green advertising reveals the color green on packaging enhances consumer perceptions of the environmental impact of products in a variety of industries (Seo and Scammon, 2017; Parguel et al., 2014). Some of these studies note a negative brand image for consumers who are aware of greenwashing marketing tactics (Seo and Scammon, 2017), which potentially reduced brand trust among companies that are actually providing sustainable and eco-friendly products.

Chlorine-Free: Does it Matter?

Making claims of using ‘healthier’ practices over other safe, standard methods to appeal to consumers is a common greenwashing tactic (United Nations, 2024). In the diaper industry, this tactic is used by advertising “chlorine-free” diapers.

Prior to the 1980s, wood pulp was commonly bleached with elemental chlorine during manufacturing to remove excess lignin and impurities, helping to remove unpleasant odors and prevent allergic reactions. However, the method was found to produce dioxins, chemicals that are known carcinogens and environmental pollutants (Axegård, 2019). As such, the practice of elemental chlorine bleaching was replaced by elemental chlorine-free (ECF) and total chlorine-free (TCF) methods. The ECF bleaching method uses chlorine dioxide so it is not “chlorine free,” but despite the name, the chlorine dioxide method does not produce dioxins, it is simply a chemical naming convention. Dioxin exposure from diapers is well-studied, and research shows negligible levels of dioxins in diapers, even in those diapers containing pulp bleached by elemental chlorine. Exposure analysis from 2002 indicated that a nursing infant’s diet causes 30,000–2,200,000 times the exposure than chlorine-bleached disposable diapers (DeVito and Schecter, 2002). However, despite low dioxin levels in the diapers themselves, the concern for dioxides in wastewater from production facilities still encouraged regulation changes. In the late 2000s, 88% of the pulp industry used the ECF method, while TCF bleaching accounted for 5% and 6% for elemental chlorine bleaching (Axegård, 2019), demonstrating the widespread adoption of the ECF method. However, companies exploit the distinction between TCF and ECF methods by using “chlorine-free” marketing to mislead the consumer into believing that their products are safer than others–a common greenwashing tactic.

Eco-Friendly: What Are They Actually Made of?

In a laboratory study, four diaper brands making “eco-friendly” or “plant-based” claims were analyzed via microscopy to determine their true composition in each section of the product, including the top/back sheet, the core fiber, core wrap, the film, waistband, and top fiber/film. The core of each diaper in the analysis was comprised of cellulose, as expected. However, none of them contained any significant amount of plant-based biodegradable polymers as advertised.

Diaper 1. The first diaper analyzed is largely comprised of polypropylene components, including the top sheet, back sheet, core wrap, tab core, and tab fiber. The analysis found a fraction of calcium carbonate in the diaper film, a harmless additive the provides extra breathability.

Diaper 2. The top/back sheets, core wrap, tab fiber, film, waist, and hook of diaper 2 is polypropylene and the Velcro loop fiber/film is comprised of nylon and polyethylene. All of the material in this sample is non-biodegradable.

Diaper 3. This diaper is comprised mostly of polypropylene throughout the waist and core section, with a spandex tab stretch material and a polyester acquisition distribution layer (ADL). The ADL is designed for faster absorption from the diaper surface.

Diaper 4. One diaper brand, promoting PLA as a sustainable, non-plastic alternative, used a polyethylene layer around the PLA core for the back sheet, along with a dual-layer top sheet made of polyester (layer 1) and a PLA/polypropylene mix (layer 2), and a polypropylene core wrap, resulting in a minimal percentage of PLA that was encased in standard plastic, which may completely negate its biodegradability benefits.

Each of the diapers analyzed are marketed as “eco-friendly”, leading consumers to believe that these products are composed of a significant amount of biodegradable, plant-based material. According to the results, this was far from the truth, since each one is composed mainly of non-biodegradable polypropylene.

Are There Viable Alternatives?

While the growth of the disposable diaper industry provides convenience to consumers, it also raises environmental concerns, highlighting the need to explore sustainable alternatives. The use of cloth diapers reduces landfill waste, environmental pollution, and deforestation, but also aids in the practice of circular economy. Cloth diapers are typically made from cotton, bamboo, or hemp, each of which can be highly sustainable due to their fast-growing nature. It is estimated that, for cotton cloth diapers, two years’ worth of diaper use would require less than 10 kg of cotton, whereas a single child requires an estimated 20 full trees for disposable diapers (Meseldzija et al., 2013; Clean Water Action, 2024).

Though cloth diapers are a well-known alternative to disposables, consumers are hesitant to use them because of their inconvenience and the sanitary concerns that come with washing them. Washing also requires higher water, detergent, and energy use. In countries experiencing water scarcity, the use of cloth diapers is disadvantageous and often discouraged (Hoffman et al., 2020). Cloth diapering is also a less viable alternative in regions with inadequate waste treatment infrastructure, where it can pose health risks and require significant energy investments to improve facility capacities.

Diapers-as-a-service models are often seen as environmentally advantageous, as they typically use more energy-efficient washing and drying machines. However, at smaller scales, the water and energy consumption required for these services may not offer significant environmental benefits (Hoffman et al, 2020). The larger washing facilities are estimated to consume 2.5 times less water per diaper change and half the energy in comparison to in-home washing. However, aside from their lack of efficacy in managing moisture and leakage, these services can be expensive for the average consumer, and can require odor reducing solutions for storing the soiled diapers in between pick-ups. The pick-up and delivery services also increase the carbon footprint because of the reliance on vehicles using fossil fuel.

Takeaways

Some diaper companies undermine real sustainability efforts by using greenwashing tactics to drive sales growth and appeal to environmentally-conscious consumers, a concern the United Nations has publicly highlighted. These companies use a variety of misleading greenwashing tactics, including deceptive use of labels such as “plant-based” and “chlorine-free,” making inconsequential reforestation claims, and marketing misleading branding. Despite their claims, laboratory tests reveal most “eco-friendly” diapers are composed of traditional, non-biodegradable polymers. It is vital that consumers are aware of greenwashing tactics and make concerted efforts to understand the validity of a brand’s claims, whether it be through exploring current scientific research or simply by evaluating sustainability statements on their websites and marketing materials – while keeping these greenwashing tactics firmly in mind.