Universal Solutions

Creating different primary packaging for different shades can be a great product communication vehicle on shelf, but it’s costly. With President Donald Trump raising tariffs—they currently sit at about 30% on goods from China, where most beauty packaging is from—Kent has observed brands moving away from it in favor of universal packaging that they can secure higher volumes of at lower prices. She suggests clear portions of caps that give consumers a peek at shades can have a similar impact of shade-matched packaging without the higher costs.

Aluminum Crunch

Sleek aluminum tubes have been depended on in the beauty industry to convey a bougie chicness. Think Grown Alchemist, Dieux, Aesop and Summer Fridays. But aluminum tubes’ cool is being challenged by their cost. In June, Trump doubled the tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from 25% to 50%. As a result, Kent-Gunn predicts there will be a steep decline in aluminum tubes for beauty packaging.

Besides their chic aesthetics, aluminum tubes have been talked about as a more sustainable alternative to plastic because aluminum is infinitely recyclable. However, as Kent-Gunn points out in a social media post, the extraction of aluminum, manufacturing and transportation of aluminum leads to higher carbon emissions. She says, “There is no one perfect solution. Every cosmetic packaging material is going to have both pros and cons in respect to sustainability.”

Origination Machinations

Tariff rates are determined by a good’s country of origin, and if it originated in many countries, the rate is determined by the country it was last substantially transformed. Beauty brands are scouring the world for possible countries of origin with lower tariffs to reduce their packaging costs.

For example, packaging manufactured in Vietnam faces a 20% tariff rate. However, if packaging manufactured elsewhere is determined to be routed through Vietnam to the United States, it can face a 40% tariff rate.

“If we are able to manufacture a few parts in China and the rest in Vietnam, there’s a potential to claim Vietnam as the country of origin,” says Kent-Gunn. “There’s a gray area, so you have to get strategic about it. I’m seeing it getting very detailed down to what component parts are produced in what country.”

For most brands, leaving China completely is unrealistic. “Brands find that, when they pivot their packaging to other countries, whether it’s Taiwan or Korea, it’s just as expensive if not more expensive than their Chinese partner with the new tariffs,” says Kent-Gunn. “A lot of brands are slowly coming to terms that this is just the new cost of business.”

Sustainability Reset

Many beauty brands have fallen short of their sustainable packaging goals. Kent-Gunn advises them to update or redirect the goals based on present conditions. “Sustainability still really matters to consumers, especially millennials and gen Z, and while consumers are aware of economic headwinds, they still care about the planet,” she says. “I would encourage brands not to abandon their goals, but to reassess what’s feasible in the current market.”

Design Simplicity

Kent-Gunn has noticed that younger consumers are averse to packaging fluff. “If packaging is doing too much to try to impact your perception of its value, it almost reads like it’s compensating for a lackluster formula. That’s a sentiment I’m seeing more and more,” she says. “I’ve seen a lot of brands take that feedback and use relatively simple packaging and find ways to dress it up to resonate with their community through artwork and decoration.”

More Minis

While Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has hinted that the Transportation Security Administration could eliminate restrictions on liquid that prohibits carrying them on if they’re over 3.4 ounces, Kent-Gunn doesn’t foresee beauty’s mini product madness dissipating, particularly with consumers under financial strain.

“They’re equal to a coffee or a pastry treat,” she says. “They allow you to indulge without overcommitting to something you don’t know you’re going to like.” She adds, “From a sustainability perspective, there’s an awareness that they’re difficult to recycle, but there’s also an acknowledgement of, if I don’t know if I’m going to like it, it’s more wasteful to buy the full size.”

Refill Recalibration

The sustainability benefits and drawbacks of refill systems are a big theme of Kent-Gunn’s social media content. In a post, she shares that bottle-in-bottle refill systems require consumers to purchase the refill four to five times before there’s a reduction in material use or carbon emissions. Pouch systems reduce material upfront, but Kent-Gunn notes they aren’t good fits for formulas susceptible to light degradation, oxidation and overall instability.

With the sustainability upsides from bottle-in-a-bottle refill systems elusive as consumers hop from product to product and brand to brand, Kent-Gunn predicts bottle-in-a-bottle refill systems will be increasingly phased out or not launched. She worked with a brand that invested $350,000 in a bottle-in-bottle refill system, only to scrap it a year later because it didn’t sell.

She says, “I don’t want to dissuade brands from trying to explore different models for sustainable packaging, but it’s very sobering how few refill systems, especially bottle-in-a-bottle systems actually get adopted by consumers.”

Material Minimalism

For brands looking to make a sustainable improvement to their packaging, Kent-Gunn’s first recommendation is lightweighting or reducing the amount of material in the packaging. It could mean thinning the caps or subtly altering the shape of a bottle to cut down the size. Kent-Gunn says, “Over thousands of units, that has a huge impact on carbon emissions and can be cost effective for a brand.”