There is often confusion when it comes to green claims on packaging, and this is an ongoing issue within the consumer world. As consumers increasingly demand transparency in how products affect not just our own bodies and those around us, but also the health of society and the planet, clarity of benefit claims becomes crucial. Although not legally mandated or globally regulated, transparency is now more than just a nice-to-have; it’s fundamental to brand survival in a world of oversaturated consumerism.
 
The beauty industry, worth $500 bn, has long skirted the edges of clinical health and medical research. Consumers purchase products to maintain, repair and perfect their bodies, trusting that what it says on the tin is the truth, and ultimately good for us. While the EU stringently bans over 1,300 harmful ingredients from products, global regulation varies significantly. America’s cosmetic regulations are over 80 years old and ban only 11 ingredients. Rules on green claims have long been unclear, and although Europe and the UK are working to regulate claims, consistent global standards do not exist.
 
The general Clean Beauty classification covers products free from harmful ingredients such as parabens, phthalates, sulfates and synthetic fragrances. However, most definitions also include broader ethical brand behaviors such as transparency, sustainability, ethical production (cruelty free, fair-trade), equality and inclusion, waste reduction and responsibility for a better tomorrow. However, non-toxic ingredients do not necessarily mean “all-natural,” as synthetic ingredients can still be present.
 
So, aren’t all beauty products free from harmful ingredients? In short – no. In countries where ingredients are not banned and bodies like the FDA ‘have no authority to recall toxic beauty products,’ clean status becomes a way to separate ‘the good guys’. 
 
“Clean” can be subjective, leading to differing interpretations and potential greenwashing accusations. “Free from foreign matter, unsoiled, unstained” is the dictionary definition, with words like “pure, wholesome, moral and innocent” popping-up. Here is where clean gets messy and subjective as one could say that synthetic ingredients are possibly not ‘pure’ and could be termed ‘foreign matter,’ moving brands into dangerous ground.
 
Within cosmetics, not all synthetic materials are fundamentally nasty and all natural ingredients necessarily good. Consumers want beauty products to pack a punch and deliver those small lab miracles – I know I do. However, we want to be beautiful in a healthy world that has a prosperous future. This is where leadership in true transparency, ethics and sustainability goals of clean beauty brands shine bright and should be highlighted.
 
The need for new news to engage consumers, means sometimes ‘catchy’ terms are quickly created for attraction rather than accuracy. Ever growing demand for ethical and sustainable personal care means the clean beauty category is estimated to reach $15.3 billion by 2028. With guides by giants like Vogue, Harpers Bazaar and GOOP calling out brands and clean beauty searchable as an Amazon category, we have seen the big brands want to enter the movement. It’s crucial however that brands joining the movement walk the talk. With around 85% of consumers demanding clean transparent products, we need brand leadership, holding true to their values, with ethical responsibility from on-pack claims, representation in the world, to the way they treat suppliers and staff.
 
About the Author
Keelie Teasdale is Associate Creative Director, London, Interbrand – a brand agency specializing in Consumer Branding, Brand Ethics and Inclusive Design.