The skincare market has become extraordinarily good at sounding natural, ethical, and sustainable. Words like “clean,” “natural,” “green,” and “eco-friendly” appear on products that may contain a long list of synthetic ingredients, no environmental certifications, and sourcing practices that bear no relationship to the imagery on the label. This is greenwashing, and it is widespread enough to be worth understanding in some detail.
“Natural”
“Natural” has no legal definition in cosmetics in the EU, the US, or most other major markets. A product can describe itself as natural while containing synthetic preservatives, synthetic fragrances, petroleum-derived silicones, and a minimal amount of one plant extract that justifies the claim. There is no threshold, no required percentage of natural ingredients, no regulatory body verifying the claim.
For “natural” to mean anything, it needs a third-party certification behind it. COSMOS Natural certification (from Cosmetics Organic and Natural Standard) defines specific percentages of natural origin ingredients that must be present, restricts synthetic ingredients to a defined permitted list, and requires third-party audit. Without this or an equivalent certification, “natural” on the label is marketing language.
This does not mean every product calling itself natural is dishonest. It means the word alone tells you nothing. The ingredient list tells you considerably more.
“Clean”
“Clean beauty” is probably the most widely used and least defined term in contemporary skincare marketing. There is no agreed-upon definition. Different brands, retailers, and markets use entirely different ingredient exclusion lists. A product certified “clean” at one retailer may not qualify under another’s definition. The term has no regulatory standing in any major market.
Some clean beauty exclusion lists include scientifically sound concerns: avoiding known contact allergens, restricted concentrations of certain preservatives, no synthetic fragrance for sensitive skin formulations. Others are based on the precautionary principle applied selectively, excluding ingredients with no meaningful evidence of harm at cosmetic concentrations while including others that pose more actual risk.
The practical problem is that some genuinely effective and safe ingredients are often excluded under clean beauty criteria (preservatives like phenoxyethanol are flagged by some lists despite strong safety evidence), while some potentially problematic ingredients (essential oils with known sensitisation rates, for instance) are embraced because they are “natural.”
“Eco-friendly” and “sustainable” packaging
Packaging described as eco-friendly, sustainable, or biodegradable requires scrutiny. “Biodegradable” plastic typically only biodegrades under specific industrial conditions that do not occur in standard waste streams or in the environment. PCR (post-consumer recycled) plastic is a meaningful claim if verified, but can refer to as little as 10% recycled content. “Recyclable” packaging is only recyclable if the relevant local recycling infrastructure can actually process it, which varies enormously by region and material type.
Genuine sustainability credentials include meaningful percentages of verified recycled content, refillable formats, packaging made of genuinely recyclable mono-materials (single material, no multi-layer laminates), and verified third-party certification for environmental claims. Vague language like “eco-conscious” or “environmentally aware” on packaging without verification is filler.
“Dermatologist tested” and “hypoallergenic”
“Dermatologist tested” means a dermatologist was involved in testing the product in some capacity. It does not specify what was tested, how many people were tested, what the outcomes were, or whether the testing was to a standard that would be considered rigorous. It is essentially unverifiable marketing language in its standard form.
“Hypoallergenic” has no legal definition. It implies the product is less likely to cause allergic reactions but does not mean it cannot cause them and does not specify what steps were taken to achieve this. Some hypoallergenic products contain known common allergens including fragrance compounds and preservatives that are among the most frequent causes of contact allergy.
If allergy safety is a genuine concern for you, look at the full ingredient list and check for known allergens specific to your sensitivities rather than relying on the hypoallergenic claim.
“Cruelty-free”
Cruelty-free has more meaning than some of the other terms on this list, but it still requires verification. In the EU, animal testing of cosmetic products and ingredients has been banned since 2013, which means any product sold in the EU should technically already be cruelty-free within European supply chains. However, brands that sell in China (which has historically required animal testing for imported cosmetics) cannot legitimately claim cruelty-free status across their full market operations, even if the specific products sold in Europe are not tested.
Verified cruelty-free status means certification from organisations like Leaping Bunny, which audits the entire supply chain including ingredient suppliers, not just the finished product testing. A brand self-declaring cruelty-free without third-party supply chain audit is making an unverified claim.
What genuine transparency looks like
Brands that are genuinely doing what they claim tend to provide specific, verifiable information: certified ingredient percentages, named third-party certifications, transparent supply chain information, and specifics rather than adjectives. COSMOS certification, Leaping Bunny, the Vegan Society trademark, and B Corp status all involve independent verification and specific criteria.
Small, independently owned brands with direct knowledge of their supply chains are often more genuinely transparent than large brands with complex global sourcing, precisely because the shorter supply chain is easier to know and verify. The handmade cosmetics from HOIA, produced in Kuressaare with local and verified ingredient sourcing, represent a different kind of transparency from the brand marketing of large commercial players, where “natural” and “sustainable” often refer to the aesthetics of the packaging rather than the content or the supply chain.
The rule of thumb: the more specific a claim, the more it means. “Made with 95% natural-origin ingredients, certified COSMOS” means more than “natural.” Specificity is the marker of honesty in this market.