GUIDING SUSTAINABILITY: FINDING THE BALANCE

During the last European political mandate, a wave of proposed initiatives and legislation appeared as a result of the European Green Deal. For cosmetics, although the proposed targeted revision of the European Cosmetics Regulation (CPR) has not yet materialised, the impacts from evolving and emerging horizontal legislation up- or downstream within the value chain are set to become applicable during the current political mandate by the mid-2020s. Moreover, it is not only amendments to the framework itself, but any subsequent delegated acts for specific product categories that will present regulatory challenges. Industry-wide collective management and closer pre-competitive collaboration will be essential to capitalise on these opportunities through standardised best-practices and initiatives that lower entry barriers – particularly for SMEs.

The interplay between the zero-pollution ambition and the circular economy are at the heart of the strategies and legislative proposals set to impact cosmetics, and how sustainability will be measured. For some time now, ethical and sustainable sourcing has quickly become a cornerstone for raw material selection, considering both the environmental or social impact of raw materials or their production using green chemistry, biotechnology, or upcycling of industrial waste stream and by-products.

In the last 12-months we’ve already seen 3 legal Acts published covering rules for raw materials resulting from deforestation (1), as well as corporate due diligence (2) and reporting (3). Whilst the scope of these three examples only affects certain raw materials (e.g., palm oil and its derivatives) or larger companies (e.g., with over 1000 employees and a net global turnover of €450k), it is undeniable that these regulations are a turning point for mandating company responsibility for the potential impact of their operations and supply chains on the environment and human rights. Furthermore, these practices promote traceability in the supply chain, which are integral for consumer transparency.

If we consider circularity as a focal point of a future economy, we must consider how to improve product design and environmental impact. We’ve seen these aspects being addressed holistically in the published Eco-design for Sustainable Product (ESPR) (4) and the provisional agreement for packaging and packaging waste (PPWR) (5) regulations. The published ESPR guarantees product sustainability throughout the EU market via uniform requirements across all Member States. It also encourages waste reduction by preventing the destruction of unsold consumer products, accounts for recycled content and reusability, and sets restrictions for substances of concern that impact a product’s sustainability.

Each of these upstream initiatives will ultimately assist in providing the types of legal guarantees consumers can expect from future products to promote circularity. Nevertheless, claims play an important role in consumer orientation, helping them learn more about a product and seek out those characteristics they consider as important in a purchase. When it comes to green claims, two anti-greenwashing Directives - a revision of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (6) and the proposed Green Claims Directive (7) - are set to establish a complimentary framework for social and environmental sustainability labels and claims to support consumer informed decision making based on reliable, verifiable and comparable information. Moreover, both Directives support the validation of labels and claims by third-party certification to reassure consumers and increase trust. To this point, independent third-party verification of sustainable practices already exists outside the scope of legal compliance through voluntary Type-I and Type-1 like ecolabels label schemes including product characteristics like natural or organic, where schemes have existed for almost two decades providing a point of orientation for consumers. Nevertheless, any private label scheme will need to ensure compliance with the framework of these Directives to ensure continued use after application of the Directives. Ultimately, with two Directives at play, consistency between the final texts is crucial to avoid any potential conflict that could derail their joint objective. Additionally, harmony with other legislative acts is important, and, as with all the Green Deal initiatives, a clear balance needs to be struck between the expectations of the environmental and social sustainability objectives and the reality of the economic sustainability and capacities of the market. The interruption of this process by the European elections leaves the final outcome uncertain.

When it comes to what’s inside a cosmetic product, we now have a clearer picture of how the 2020 Chemical Strategy for Sustainability (CSS) (8) aligns with a revised Classification, Labelling, and Packaging (CLP) regulation (9). However, the provisional CLP text still has open questions on how to deal with natural complex substances (NCSs), like plant extracts or essential oils, which may contain composites classified as hazardous even if the substance can be risk assessed as safe for cosmetics. In this regard, on the one hand NCSs aligns well with the transition away from fossil fuels towards a boosted bioeconomy, but on the other those already under review at ECHA, such as p-cymene found in ca. 350 NCSs, may face a collision with Article 15 of the existing CPR. Despite the alignment of CLP to the CSS, there has been no publication of REACH nor CPR, which now may come in 2025 or beyond due to lack of political consensus. To this extent, these sustainability initiatives for chemical and consumer products remains on-hold. This delay allows stakeholders time for reflection, and for the CPR to take account of what sustainability-linked measures related to ingredient use can be accounted for under the existing provisions.

As the transition towards a greater sustainable footprint continues to take hold, there is a case to accelerate collaboration and adaptation to the increasingly intricate and complex web of regulatory compliance outside the CPR, which will impact cosmetic manufacturers. Failure to do so may result in penalties for non-compliance and significant reputational risk for brands – potentially loosing consumer trust; especially since consumers may have the right to claim compensation for any non-compliant products purchased.