Globalization helped create large cosmetics multinational corporations (MNCs) which often off-shored production and manufacturing facilities to developing economies [27]. Companies such as L’Oreal acquired Helena Rubenstein, while Unilever acquired Rimmel and Faberge, and Revlon bought Max Factor and Almay. By 2000, L’Oreal had 16.8% of the global market share, followed by Estee Lauder (10.9%), P&G (9.3%), Revlon (7.1%), and Avon (4.7%), with the top 10 accounting for 62.1% of the global market [1,2]. These cosmetics firms typically outsourced packaging [2]. Under deregulation, plastics production shifted to Asia, and post-consumption waste was also often sent to developing economies for disposal. Land-based plastics constitute almost 70–80% of ocean pollution via runoff from rivers and the coastline, which is overwhelmingly from Asian rivers [48]. Large cosmetics companies with sufficient clout to ensure adherence to terms by suppliers could outsource packaging to China, and at times, this had a substantial impact on the business models of cosmetics packaging producers in countries such as Turkey [49]. Nevertheless, products sold in specific markets required localization, and in many markets, western products have since been replaced by local, traditional ones [27]. Established companies may find it difficult to develop and implement new technological solutions and often use third-party collaboration with NGOs and other companies, followed by a scale-up [26].

Rising awareness of environmental and social issues led to an opportunity for smaller cosmetics companies in a market dominated by multinationals. Companies such as Burt’s Bees, Tom’s of Maine, and The Body Shop were all interested in the ethical dimension of consumer marketing and in creating an aesthetic that was biocentric and ethical, rather than anthropocentric, going beyond skin-deep beauty [50]. Cosmetic companies in the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) were significantly smaller than those not in the association and were concentrated on a small segment of the industry, such as soaps and skin care products, implying a far greater impact in markets for the latter group [2]. BUAV member companies were more concerned about the environmentally acceptable attributes of their products with non-BUAV members satisfied with one or two attributes while continuing to develop products with animal testing for certain consumer segments, although there was internal disagreement within BUAV members as well regarding ’cruelty-free’ products [2]. However, the survival rate of startups is typically low and even though the timing of several ’enviropreneurs’ was in line with customer needs, they were often driven more by founder values rather than detailed customer needs analysis, and many boutique companies stalled. The Body Shop has since been bought by L’Oreal, and then sold to Natura [22,51], which is representative of many such startups, while large companies have often re-assimilated their divisions focused on sustainability into traditional ones [52].

There is a convergence in corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the circular economy (CE) amongst cosmetics MNCs, and CSR reports of eight cosmetics MNCs show a focus on CE that is is not observable in the CSR actions of SMEs [53]. MNCs fall under mandatory reporting requirements, and several of the statements are goals, such as objectives of zero waste in landfill and more than 90% recycling, or a recycling rate of 50%. Using the same sample, in terms of the adoption or pursuit of CE objectives, only four of the companies were clear about their CE objectives, and none of the firms used circularity ratios, although some used alternative sustainability ratios [54]. A sample of sustainable reports for the Italian cosmetics industry for the period 2014–2019 shows terms related to the environment to be somewhat more frequent but also shows CE to be under-reported for governance, strategy, management, and performance, indicating the need for greater institutional, regulatory, and stakeholder pressure on companies [55]. International cosmetics companies are increasingly creating lines using natural products, particularly for shampoos in conjunction with large chemical manufacturers who have set up lines for natural raw materials and who support fair trade and social programs in various countries [56]. A sample of eight small and large cosmetics companies in Brazil suggests the companies to be focused on environmental aspects in design and sourcing and that while CSR compliance is improving, compliance with design for sustainability (DfS) principles is still in its early stages [57]. Organizations with innovation power such as Natura, a Brazilian cosmetics multinational with 5000 organizations in its supply chain, can proactively introduce innovation to further green supply chain management, while companies that cannot innovate may simply be resigned to palliative social efforts and greenwashing [58]. Informal CSR may allow SMEs to benefit more from radical innovation rather than incremental gains in efficiency [59,60]. In plastics waste management, startups have attempted strong sustainability while optimizing for environmental impact, as opposed to weakly sustainable firms that were motivated by competition, competitive advantage, and financial motivations and optimized on economic factors while incorporating environmental variables [61]. Startups, though, occupied niche markets with limited scope for growth and were at a disadvantage in terms of access to technical expertise and financing [61].

The cosmetic industry has made significant attempts towards minimizing environmental and social impacts, including for packaging. Natura and its brands have been mentioned often in the literature with regard to environmental innovation, such as refillable packaging based on plastic film that reduces transportation impact and waste; products 100% free of animal ingredients; the use of plastic from sugercane; reductions in the products’ water and carbon footprints; and annual sustainability reporting since 2001, with a focus on achieving the use of Brazil’s biodiversity in a sustainable manner [22,23]. Case studies also include L’Oreal, which has set a goal to have 95% biobased materials, derived from abundant minerals or from circular processes [24], and has 10 rules for eco-design, including the use of safe packaging in terms of environment and health; reduction in material usage and unnecessary packaging; preference to large formats; the use of less impactful materials and those that come from sustainably managed sources; not shifting burdens to other parties; reusable packages; consumer guidance for appropriate disposal; and facilitating post-use management, which have been implemented in its sustainable product optimization tool [25]. The company also uses technological advancements and third-party collaborations for waste management, similar to L’Occitane [26]. DM Cosmetics has introduced greener packaging and inks; Frosch has introduced 100% high-density polyethylene from post-consumer recyclables; ZAO has developed bamboo packaging; and P&G is facilitating recycling through its PureCycle program, while Estee Lauder’s MAC cosmetics has introduced Back-to-M.A.C. to return primary packaging for recycling [27]. Certain P&G brands also have resusable, recyclable, and refillable packages, while companies such as Lush (see also [22]) have, at times, removed all packaging, and several smaller companies have adopted similar approaches to reduce, reuse, and recycle [26].

3. Product Development Pitfalls