In recent years, the clean beauty movement has expanded and made its way to major retailers and brands. On the shelves of Sephora at Fourth Street, located in West Berkeley, many brands have large signs saying “Clean at Sephora.” Retailers such as Target and Ulta now have their own clean beauty categories as well. However, all the label “clean” means is that products aren’t animal tested. There are countless other issues in the market, such as worker’s rights and unethical sources. The term “clean beauty” must raise brands to a higher standard of morality, encouraging them to take ownership of all actions that may be unethical or wrong.
In 2003, the European Union passed laws that definitively banned animal testing. However, other large contributors to the beauty market, such as the U.S. and China, have yet to ban animal testing. Hence the clean beauty movement emerged, with companies wanting to appeal to concerned consumers who don’t want to buy products with harmful impacts. Brands are “clean” when they commit to stop testing their products on animals. Some brands like L’Oréal, Saie, and Glow Recipe have made this commitment, but other large beauty brands such as Chanel and Calvin Klein Beauty have yet to follow.
But clean beauty isn’t all that it seems. With no universal definition, brands and storefronts interpret the term in different ways. In several storefronts such as Target, L’Oréal Paris is labeled as “clean beauty,” implying that they are an ethical brand — but this simply isn’t the case. To create their luxury perfumes, L’Oréal requires thousands of tons of jasmine flowers from Egyptian farms where children as young as 10 work countless hours, some waking up at 3:00 a.m. to pick jasmine. This is completely unethical, and draws into question what clean beauty truly means. Many brands have commitments, and in L’Oréal’s case, one of their commitments is to “respect human rights.” However, this is a commitment L’Oréal is violating. In other words, the many companies in the clean beauty industry are being completely hypocritical.
Another brand that is in the “Conscious Beauty” section of Sephora is called Clean Reserve. Clean Reserve preaches their ethical takes on their brand, such as non-toxic paper packaging, “sustainable” ingredients, and of course, being cruelty-free. But the reality is that they simply don’t practice what they preach. Many of their most popular perfumes are based on sandalwood, a severely endangered plant. Sandalwood has been endangered for decades, and the local government in Australia has known this for nearly a century. The sandalwood population is expected to decrease by 90 percent because of commercial use, land clearing, etc. When brands like Clean Reserve use their “sustainability” to fuel their identity, it’s ironic that their practices are completely unethical.
Additionally, in order to achieve an equitable and fair understanding of clean beauty, the term needs to be better defined and set in stone. Whether this be a universal organization or legislature that defines clean beauty, it must be something that can easily be distinguished and proven by brands to truly keep companies clean. Moreover, companies should be required to have more specific labels and become more transparent about their labor and sourcing standards.
As one of the main consumer bases of beauty products, young consumers have the power to hold these brands accountable and can make sure that brands follow ethical production guidelines by speaking out against brands and boycotting those with damaging policies. Students should share information about brands that are not truly clean and encourage others to boycott them. To end this hypocrisy, we must create universal terms and agreements in order to hold all brands accountable for their actions which will help protect the workers, the consumers, and the environment.