Beauty and Environmental Packaging: Towards an unprecedented breakthrough!

Manufacturers of packaging for the beauty and luxury goods sector are facing yet another challenge, and this one is unprecedented in their already turbulent history. There is no doubt that the “sustainable transition” will be at the heart of this “disruption” (and this word is not used lightly!). Although the subject is not new and one might think that this movement is well underway, we are only at the beginning. The fundamental consequences are yet to come. In terms of meaningful concrete action, and despite the many initiatives that have emerged in recent years (which should be welcomed as steps in the right direction), it is a fact that this transition is struggling to move up to the next level (!). According to the World Economic Forum, we have only covered 10% (only!) of the ground needed to “circularize” the economy.

In mid-2025, we can only detect the first signs of “Sustainability Fatigue” among both consumers and brands, even though the realities of a world with finite resources make this transition inevitable. It will be all the more brutal if we delay in managing it, and we will have no choice but to endure it.
Brands are navigating between consumer expectations (often contradictory, even schizophrenic) and growing regulatory pressure, all against a backdrop of economic uncertainty. Some brands are genuinely sincere in their commitment to sustainability and have made it a central part of their vision and actions. For others, although well-honored marketing rhetoric has been used from the outset to project an image of irreproachable behavior, the issue is seen more as an obstacle to doing business as usual.

Plastics: What can be done?

The most immediate problem, fueled by the highly publicized plastic pollution crisis, is its replacement with materials considered more responsible [1]: glass, aluminum, cellulose pulp, etc. But it’s not that simple!
As for cellulose, although enormous innovation efforts are underway to “functionalize” it (i.e., give it the barrier properties it lacks), this material still has a long way to go before it can completely replace plastic, i.e., without additional plastic barriers, even bio-based ones, and without PFAS.
And despite remarkable advances in molded pulp technology, its application in the beauty sector remains limited.
As for glass and aluminum, these materials usually have to be combined with a small amount of plastic, unless we are willing to give up features that are considered essential (pumps, pipettes, applicators, airless systems, etc.). However, we can still hope to achieve packaging with less plastic...
Nevertheless, these “substitutions” often lead to higher packaging costs, which is not ideal at a time when consumer purchasing power is constantly declining and some brands are struggling. As for the packaging manufacturing community, these material substitutions are obviously a source of misery for some and joy for others.

Change everything!

However, it is important to realize that the current dominant initiatives, such as making packaging more recyclable, incorporating PCR, substituting plastic, and offering refillable models, to name but a few, only scratch the surface of the problem.
Reaching a stage where the beauty industry is truly sustainable (if that is even possible!) will require much more. And we will not escape an inevitable reconfiguration of the “consumer society” as a whole, given that the beauty sector is only a small part of it. This reconfiguration will require a fundamental overhaul of all business models across all value chains, incorporating greater frugality, more reuse, and a shift towards the functional economy (buying a service rather than a product).
Frugality, a controversial concept often presented as an obsession of fringe activists, will, whether we like it or not, inevitably become the norm sooner or later, as resources and energy become increasingly scarce. Trade-offs will have to be made.
The initiatives mentioned above (recycling, use of PCR, substitution, reuse, etc.) lead us to believe that we can have our cake and eat it too, i.e., continue to consume as before, or even more, at the cost of a few minor adjustments, while stopping to endanger our life-supporting system. This is an illusion!
Yet our industry is moving in the opposite direction to this necessary frugality. The dominant business model is based on a plethora of constantly renewed products and presents the act of consuming beauty products as an affordable and fun little luxury: a “quantum of solace” that we allow ourselves “because we’re worth it!”
This constant renewal encourages disposability, and the luxurious aspect encourages overpackaging. A few figures to illustrate the scale of this: it takes thirty grams of plastic to contain one and a half liters of water (1,500 grams); and it also takes thirty grams of packaging to contain three grams of lipstick; the ratio is 500! And while water bottles are fully recyclable, this is far from the case for most lipstick tubes.

Reusable, a future with conditions

If we don’t want to live like the Amish, one of the best ways to combine desirability, brand differentiation, and sustainability is undoubtedly reuse. Reusable models give brands more freedom to invest in higher-value, more desirable, and more functional packaging, promoting a better customer experience and encouraging loyalty. This is in stark contrast to the cumulative cost and environmental impact of single-use packaging.
However, for this model to be effective, reusable packaging would need to be reused at least five times. This would require widespread adoption of the system by consumers, which is far from certain. Brands obviously have the power to use their influence to accelerate this shift, but this poses a threat to profits. This is because (for the time being) we are seeing that for a refill system to be adopted, the price difference with the original product must be around 30%. Overall, for five reuses, this represents a 25% loss in revenue for the franchise [2]. And this is only one of the obstacles. More fundamentally, the planned obsolescence generated by the frenetic pace of new product launches encourages consumerism, which is completely at odds with the concept of reuse.
It is therefore not surprising that this practice is ultimately little used in a context where consumers are constantly confused by contradictory messages...

There is no other choice!

Nevertheless, as with frugality, we will have to embrace the concept of reuse and the functional economy for the same reasons: the scarcity and rising cost of resources, if not stricter regulations in this area. And we are not talking here about niche use, as is currently the case, but about a new dominant paradigm.
The bad news for the manufacturing community is that this will inevitably lead to a significant overall decline in volumes and revenues. For example, instead of six single-use packs, only one “mother” pack and five refills would be needed, representing a 50% drop in revenue! [3] And it is not certain that the manufacturer of the original pack would supply the refills. Indeed, economic and ecological logic dictates that a jar, for example, should be made of glass and the refills of plastic... or cellulose pulp.
Manufacturers are obviously affected to varying degrees depending on the materials they process, their geographical location, the specific nature of their technologies, etc., but all will need to reinvent their business models, and not all will survive. In any case, those who survive, or even thrive (because every crisis offers opportunities for the most visionary), will be those who are able to face reality head-on and prepare to tackle it with a clear head. Stay tuned for more thoughts on the paths that innovation will need to take.

Gérald Martines - IN-SIGNES