May 20, 2011 London – Provide more authenticity and efficacy were the key messages from the fourth edition of the Sustainable Cosmetics Summit, which took place in New York City on 12-14 May 2011. The summit brought together over 180 executives from various sections of the beauty industry to discuss critical issues relating to natural & organic cosmetics and sustainability.
Organized by Organic Monitor, the summit covered a diverse range of sustainability topics including environmental impacts, social footprints, sustainable supply chains, ethical marketing & distribution, natural & organic cosmetic standards and green formulations.
Various speakers and delegates called for greater authenticity from brand owners, in response to the high level of consumer confusion about natural claims and green marketing. Although many brand owners have taken the certification route to authenticate their products, the major agreement was that certification should be no substitute for product efficacy. A number of summit participants stated the challenges of adopting natural & organic standards, with product performance sometimes sacrificed for certification logos and symbols.
William McDonough, co-founder of MBDC, addressed the summit with his opening keynote. He showed how the Cradle-to-Cradle (C2C) design approach can be used to create positive impacts on the environment and social communities. Examples were given on how C2C can utilize waste materials when a product reaches the end of its lifecycle.
According to McDonough, ‘a global population of 9 billion is not a problem, but an opportunity for the beauty industry’ since it creates additional demand. He states the problem is managing this growth by designing beauty products that do not have just zero impacts, but positive impacts.
Aveda, a sustainability pioneer in the beauty industry, highlighted the ecological and social footprints of cosmetic products. Charles J. Bennett stated that growing public concern means the beauty industry needs to engage more with consumers. The importance of a mission-based corporate ethos was emphasized, as this is guiding Aveda in all its sustainability actions. The company uses renewable energy to power its operations, recycles over 75% of its waste, and 90% of its botanical ingredients are from organic agricultural sources. Procter & Gamble shared its systematic approach to sustainability, and how it uses lifecycle assessment to implement sustainability programs. It has set ambitious 10 year goals for raw material sourcing, packaging reduction, renewable energy and waste reduction. The consumer goods multinational stated it has already reduced over 20% of plastic packaging of some brands by eco-design and using biopolymers.
Also in the pioneering sustainability initiatives session, another multinational shared its vision of reducing its ecological footprint by a third by 2030. To meet this target, Henkel is focusing on eco-innovation and sustainable partnerships with its stake-holders. Pete He raised the question of undertaking the lifecycle analysis of a natural personal care product. How does it compare with a conventional product? The company is looking at algae-based biopolymers so that it does not divert agricultural land from food production.
The opening session closed with a panel discussion on sustainability metrics. The difficulty in obtaining external metrics led some speakers to suggest that ‘intentions are more practical than checklists’ when considering sustainability.
Building sustainable supply chains was the theme of the second session. Beraca stated how sustainable sourcing can contribute to biodiversity and social communities in the Amazon. Shea butter was used as an example by Dr. Peter Lovett on how ingredient sourcing can create positive social impacts in African countries. Social impacts by fair trade were explored by Maya Spaull from Fair Trade USA. The growing popularity of fair trade has led to over 320 beauty products to carry the Fairtrade mark in the US.
One of the main highlights of the 3-day summit was the CEO roundtable. CEOs of leading natural personal care companies formed a roundtable to discuss key industry challenges. On the question of standards, the general consensus was that certification was secondary to product efficacy. As one speaker stated, ‘a poor certified product lets everyone down, as we have to try twice as hard to convince consumers to try an organic product again’. Another CEO stressed the importance of positive marketing, ‘it is better to accentuate the positive elements’, rather than undertaking fear-based marketing that focus on paraben-free, SLS-free, etc. Another CEOs re-affirmed the major challenge for natural & organic brands was providing greater authenticity to consumers, especially with so much confusion about what is natural.
Day two of the summit opened with a key note from Stacy Malkan, author and cofounder of Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. According to Malkan, demand for green cosmetics was stemming from consumers becoming more information savvy. In a later paper, she highlighted the dangers caused by environmental chemicals to human health and the need for public education.
Karen Behnke, founder of Juice Beauty, highlighted the challenges of taking an organic brand into mainstream channels. Behnke shared her experiences in taking her brand into Target retailers and the difficulties in competing with mass market brands. The potential of biodynamic cosmetics was discussed by Dr. Hauschka Skin Care. By taking a holistic view, it was shown how biodynamic products can have a healing effect on the skin. Other papers in the marketing & distribution session covered sustainable packaging, global distribution developments and ethical retailing of natural personal care products. In her paper on consumer insights, Kathy Sheehan from GfK Roper Consulting showed how USDA NOP had become the second most important eco-label in the US. She suggests beauty companies prepare for a future in which all brands will have an associated sustainability value.
Green ingredients and standards were the theme of the final session on day two. Updates were given on natural & organic personal care standards in North America, including the new USDA bio-based standard. Many summit participants expressed concern that the eco-label can be applied to products containing GM ingredients, adding to the existing consumer confusion. Other papers in this session covered natural & organic fragrances, paraben-free preservative systems, and innovations in natural actives.
The summit came to a successful close with 50 delegates attending the interactive workshop on day three. Judi Beerling, head of technical research at Organic Monitor, discussed the various options available to formulators when using green fragrances, emulsifiers and surfactants. The challenges of natural & organic ingredients, including efficacy, safety and stability were once again highlighted.
The fourth edition of the executive summit raised many questions about sustainability in the beauty industry: What are the approaches to measure the environmental and social footprint of a cosmetic product? What about water stewardship? Are natural & organic beauty products always safer than conventional products? Are consumers really aware of what comprises a natural beauty product? How are organic brands tackling raw material issues? What makes an effective natural & organic cosmetic formulation? The next editions of the Sustainable Cosmetics Summit aim to address such questions.
Recycle, Reuse, Rejoice!
Long lines at the gas pump weren’t the only product of the twin energy crises of the 1970s. A legislative push toward energy conservation and innovation were also born as a result.
And that’s why one expert believes the skyrocketing price of oil will do the same in 2011.
“History has proven that innovation in the energy industry has almost always been driven by high consumer prices,” said Robert Brands, a veteran corporate executive who now consults with companies worldwide and author of Robert's Rules of Innovation (www.robertsrulesofinnovation.com). “When we had cheap and abundant oil – and low gas prices – during the 1980s, energy exploration and innovation slowed to a halt. We didn’t need it, and we didn’t see an end in sight to the steady stream of oil from the Middle East. So, investors held back funds for new technologies, oil companies stood pat and conservation became a four-letter word.”
According to the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy, more than $172 billion dollars of government money was spent on new energy technology between 1961 and 2008, with the bulk of it being used during the 1970s. In the 1980s, the spending accounted for only 1 percent of all federal investment.
Brands believes that oil companies, besieged by Congress over taking huge tax breaks amid record profit reports, could earn some much needed political points by taking history’s cue and putting some of that money back into energy innovations.
“When you look at the broad spectrum of what the oil companies are making and compare it to the rate of innovation in alternative energy, it’s like comparing Mount Kilimanjaro to a grape,” Brands said. “Now, most consumers aren’t aware of that truth, because oil companies and ad agencies are very good at making it look like alternative energy is humming along when it’s not. While consumers may not connect those dots, they are very aware of the headlines that show record oil company profits combined with massive tax breaks – especially during a time when federal deficits are threatening them, their children and their children’s children. Today’s energy innovation is a fraction of the total of what we should be spending. What’s more, the same old song and dance the oil companies offer with regard to how much, percentage-wise, their research and development expenditures are as compared to revenue is a joke, and absolutely no guarantee of success.”
Brands wants oil companies to spark innovation not only because of the positive press it will net, but also because it’s the right thing to do.
“The truth is that many scientists are beginning to calculate an end to the fossil fuel era, because one day, we will run out,” Brands added. “Innovation in this area has been driven by high prices and it has been driven by shortages. When we begin to run out, we’ll experience both, and it will be too late to innovate. We need to do it now, when our resources to commit to it are abundant.”
Robert F. Brands has hands-on experience in bringing innovation to market, creating and improving the necessary product development processes and needed culture, he delivered and exceeded bringing “at least one new product per year to market” resulting in double digit profitable growth and shareholder value: Robert's Rules of Innovation
Recycle, Reuse, Rejoice!