READING THE INGREDIENT list of any beauty product can be a mildly alarming experience. Chemicals like cetrimonium chloride and sodium acrylate are omnipresent yet few of us have any idea what they do or why they’re used in our favourite moisturiser.
Coupled with the mounting concern at the impact plastic bottles and containers have on the environment, it’s little surprise that so many are looking for cleaner and more sustainable alternatives.
The clean beauty market is forecast to grow and reach approximately 15.3 billion US dollars by 2028 and two thirds of 13-39-year-olds are more likely to buy skin care when the product has a ‘clean’ label on it. Many mainstream cosmetics and skincare brands now tout claims of ‘sustainability’ in their marketing and a walk through any department store or pharmacy will see multiple lotions and potions marked as ‘organic’, ‘clean’, and ‘green’.
However, a report issued last week by sustainability rating platform Good On You highlights the inconsistencies between cosmetics brands’ clean marketing and the reality of their business practices.
Greenwashing is not a new concept. The term was originally coined by environmentalist Jay Westerfield back in the 1980s in relation to a hotel policy that claimed the reusing of towels was to “save the environment,” when, in reality, it was to reduce the hotel’s laundry costs.
It’s a problem across multiple industries, from fast fashion to the automobile trade. In the beauty industry the concept has advanced beyond assertions about a product’s environmental impact, to claims about health and safety, with marketing blurbs signalling that non-toxic and natural ingredients have been used in the formulation of whatever skincare or makeup product being sold.
But the issue with the word clean is that like its sister terms ‘natural’ and ‘green’, it is vague and open to interpretation depending on its context and usage. A lack of regulation gives brands free rein to define for themselves what exactly clean beauty is, leading to confusion and frustration among customers.
The problem is exacerbated by customers’ reasoning for favouring clean products varies widely. For some, it’s a concern about what chemicals are being soaked in through the skin when they apply a cream or lotion. For others, it’s the environmental impact that their choice of cosmetic brand has, that motivates their desire to shop clean. The ethicality of labour practices in the supply chain is yet another reason that some consumers choose to eschew more traditional beauty and skincare in favour of what they perceive as clean choices.
These differing motivations and a lack of consensus on what much of the terminology means, have allowed cosmetics brands to adopt a ‘clean’ ethos despite using a multitude of chemicals in their products and often without employing sustainable practices in their creation. Despite touring their eco-credentials and clean innovations on websites and in marketing materials, most of the 239 brands surveyed by Good On You scored poorly on ingredient transparency. Although the majority of brands disclose their ingredients list online, a staggering 75% fail to provide information on the quantities of the ingredients.
Others were found to camouflage what ingredients were included by using blanket terms like ‘fragrance’ and ‘aroma’ without disclosing exactly what the sub-ingredients used within them are.
Questions were also raised about many of the brands’ claims in relation to sustainability and their environmental impact. 97% of the brands used palm oil in at least some products, an ingredient associated with deforestation, displacing indigenous people from their lands and releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It’s also difficult to reconcile the ‘clean’ message that brands espouse with the heavy use of plastic packaging, most of which can’t be recycled and ultimately ends up in landfill.
Earlier this year, research conducted by the ESRI and Trinity College Dublin found that Irish consumers were less likely to purchase from brands which they suspected of greenwashing, even if the environmental claims were genuine. The study highlights the impact that greenwashing has on genuine sustainable businesses which are forced to compete with the chorus of misleading, and dishonest jargon polluting the conversation, much of which comes from large multi-billion-euro cosmetics corporations with huge budgets.
However, a growing consumer backlash as well as incoming regulation is set to force brands to retreat on their vague and misleading marketing and provide clear, accurate information on just what goes into their products as well as where they come from. In January, the EU Parliament approved a new directive that will ban misleading environmental claims on products. The new rules, which must be implemented in Ireland by 2026, will ban products labelled with terms like ‘natural,’‘green,’ or ‘eco’ without concrete evidence to back up the claim. Potential penalties for companies who fall foul of the regulation include fines of up to 4% of their annual turnover, as well as the confiscation of revenue.
For consumers weary of waiting for the government to act, technology is simplifying the process of quickly finding brands that align with their values. The Good On You website encourages users to utilise its five-point score system which rates brands on criteria such as environmental impact, animal welfare, and labour conditions.
In a similar vein, mobile apps like Think Dirty – which allows customers to scan a product’s barcode and receive a rating of its ingredients as well as potential health effects – have grown in popularity, disincentivising beauty brands from being dishonest in their advertising.
As our irritation with greenwashing mounts, the message to these brands is clear — transparency and clarity are paramount.
Elaine Maguire O’Connor is a writer and consultant working in fashion law.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say