Bluewashed Sustainability
Sustainable Trends & Sustainability as a Trend
Beauty Matter’s Kelly Kovack points to M&A activity as an indicator of which trends will prove sustainable. Where consumers see trends as missions or marketing initiatives with qualities championed as “good” or “forward-thinking,” investors see trends as validated, smart investment theses. Going into 2020 it seems that the most investable beauty business are adapting, or attempting to adapt, “sustainability” as one of their “good” qualities.
Looking at the Beauty Industry as a niche pool of investments and acquisitions is a perfectly valid way to draw trend lines within the market. But what does “sustainability” mean?
Kovack, like most Beauty thought leaders, uses the terms “green, clean, and sustainable” as if they’re real, specific things. Kovack does recognize that these things are not so much trends as they are “consumer mandate[s].” Ok, but what exactly are consumers mandating? “Green” and “clean” have already been busted for not really meaning anything. Is “sustainable” also fluid and fleeting?
With most 2020 trend reports (including this NDP Group report) referencing, using, or directly discussing “sustainability,” are we looking at a real, viable trend—this one itself sustainable, ha—or are we simply agreeing on a new trend word? I’m not yet convinced that sustainability won’t become as green-washed as “organic,” “clean,” and “natural.” (Or perhaps in 2020 we’ll dub it blue-washed.) Why? For the simple reason that consumers don’t know what sustainability is, or what it looks like. Turns out, neither do most investors.
Sustainability & the Market
Bloomberg’s Matt Levine discusses BlackRock's PR push for sustainability, highlighting the slight silliness at the core of our sustainable efforts: what makes us feel good isn’t always good for the market. (An oversimplification, I know.) And what’s good for the market isn’t always good for or sourced from the community. Sustainability will become a thing because the larger players will make it a profitable thing. But what it is and what its relationship is to the “unsustainable” things currently driving the market aren’t yet defined. So we’re forced to follow a trend that has no clear lines.
I’m not unsympathetic to sustainable efforts. But I am still a bit cynical about the primary role of Indie Beauty in driving a more sustainable Future of Beauty. If the larger companies could produce high-quality low-cost goods with less waste, wouldn’t they have done so already? My guess is that specific sustainable efforts are either too high-cost, or that the immediate switching cost to more sustainable efforts is too high. Because they can rationalize huge startup or switching costs, I do see Indie Beauty as being key to bringing new ideas to market, quickly. But we may have to wait longer for the larger players to bring these sustainable efforts to market widely.
Also, if capitalism and community consumerism got us to a place with sustainability imperatives can we really expect the same system to get us out of it? Is using biodegradable plastic really the answer? Yes, and no. Yes, small steps matter in generating less waste in supply chains, manufacturing, distribution (transportation/shipping), packaging, marketing, etc. No, another biodegradable plastic tube is another biodegradable plastic tube. Creating a new brand won’t solve the problem of creating less waste. (“Less waste” here is my placeholder for a more specific expression of “sustainability.”)
But math says we need a lot of new brand launches: eventually one good and validated idea will win out, and that thing will become the new sustainability standard. Then we’ll tackle the next small sustainability problem.
So I guess I’m not exactly sure if legacy corporations or indie startups will be the primary drivers towards a sustainable future. But I do think it unrealistic to expect lasting shifts towards sustainable efforts, whatever they are, to come from Indie Beauty. Startups are good with coming up with new ideas quickly. But the larger players still dictate what is profitable over a long period of time. Sustainable efforts, whatever they are, have to be long-lasting. So far only legacy corporations have proved equipped to last long enough to bring validated ideas to market, and make them stick.
Perhaps it’s a matter of indie brands coming up with ideas, validating them in the short term, and then larger players adapting them into larger, profitable ideas. Hence, M&A as an indicator of lasting trends...as long as investors know what sustainability is, if only so they know how to make it profitable.
Or we could simply trust that the natural evolution of brand development and consumer behavior should trend towards sustainable initiatives because, as Kovack described, the consumers demand it. And so it shall be.
By this point, however, these initiatives will be less “trend” and more permanent features of consumer goods. Sustainability is not so much a specific trend as a general direction that we would all, ideally, like the market to go towards. For that to happen, “sustainability” has to prove profitable.
For now, I don’t think that the best sustainable choices have been made, or even made an option. I think “sustainability” remains the idea (hope?) that things—campaigns, products, missions, influencers, initiatives—that appear to (or actually do!) somehow benefit humanity and Earth will be more profitable in the near future than the current “unsustainable” things.
Yes, brands should seek to be sustainable. It’s demanded, important, and expected of them. But we can’t move the market forward into sustainability until we move the money into specific, sustainable channels. Maybe just give your money to BlackRock?
Sustainability in the Marketplace
If sustainability really is a thing, what specifically does it mean for a brand to be “sustainable?”
Italian Vouge replaced photo shoots with original artwork for the January issue, citing measures to reduce the carbon footprint of their creative content. EIC Farneti admirrely admits the unsustainability of their sustainable gesture. For now it’s unrealistic to ask for a total abandonment of glitz, but I think we can still rally behind the call for a ban on glitter. (In the same vein but more pressing is public clarification on microplastics, and on 1,4-dioxane.)
CosmeticsDesign gives kudos to Aether Beauty for their sustainable packaging initiatives. But I think this is a case of good intentions setting a bad example. A brand that champions their sustainable non-bioplastic packaging, Aether Beauty is ultimately more holistic than scientific, and suffers for it. Yes, bioplastics aren’t the final answer. Yes, the distinction between virgin plastic, bioplastic, and recycled practice is key to making “sustainability” more specific. But I think the message loses all seriousness when paired with the brand’s claim that their color cosmetics are designed to “[harness] the power of crystals.” Founder Abbitt discusses the utility of her cosmetics with CosmeticDesign, mentioning that “...ruby powder...nurtures and softens lips while protecting against environmental stressors.” That’s not how mineral colorants work...
The real mission of the company isn’t science or sustainability, it’s to sell color cosmetics. If Aether Beauty really wants to be a leader in the sustainable packaging space, why not be a sustainable packaging solution? Why create just another eyeshadow palette? Even if we can’t specifically point to what sustainability looks like, can’t we agree that the creation of yet another vegan eyeshadow palette is decidedly unsustainable, even if in recycled plastic?
Finally, sustainability may be taking on a new definition as single-dose, personalized skincare. L’Oréal’s announcement of Perso speaks to the theory that by delivering custom solutions to every consumer, we ultimately reduce waste in packaging and in mis-used or mis-purchased goods. I don’t think this device is a sustainable solution, but it’s a start. I still think Loop is the closest thing we’ve gotten to sustainable product delivery, literally.
I’m also curious to see what at-home custom skincare will do to the tradition of morning routines, and if it will only widen the Grooming Gap. At the same time, the Gap may be closing from the least likely source: tech bros.
Some men are admitting that they too think that they need artificial, aesthetic help to counter signs of ageing. Maybe the same tech and finance bros that secretly covet the idea of Botox will begin taking more seriously the companies—and the women—that work to make him feel beautiful. (See: American Psycho, jk). I wonder how this will play into the Grooming Gap. Doesn’t tech bros’ desire for Botox follow the same rationale given by professional women: spend money now on your appearance to make more later, with your next promotion won in part because you “look the part”?
Shameless self-promotion: Here’s my take on more specific forces shaping the Beauty Industry.
-- Lizzy Trelstad, Founder + Chemist
Originally published on 20 January 2020 in the Swirl the Beaker industry newsletter.