What it takes to manufacture sustainable cosmetics: an interview with Yoon Kyung-up

While makeup products are often associated with health issues, the processes involved in its production are tied with overlooked environmental concerns. Academy Cosmetics is one prominent makeup brush manufacturer in Korea that has led ecofriendly changes to increase reliance on sustainable raw materials. In this interview, the cosmetics manufacturer's sales manager Yoon Kyung-up discussed specific sustainable strategies, economic challenges of adopting recycled materials and compliance with environmental regulations.

Could you first explain your current job?

I’ve been working at a company that manufactures and exports makeup brushes for about 10 years now. I’m currently involved in developing brushes, as well as sales management.

I understand that you use eco-friendly materials in the cosmetics manufacturing process. What specific efforts are you making in this regard?

Well, in the past, there were certain component materials used in makeup brushes. Generally, they consist of the bristles, the handle, and the packaging. Regarding these materials, we used to use animal hair or products that weren’t FSC-certified, and as for aluminum , which is widely used in handles, we’re now using new materials instead of recycled aluminum. However, the current international trend—which applies to both the U.S. and Europe—is that the EU has particularly strict environmental regulations. One of the EU’s key environmental regulations is the REACH Regulation.

This is an environmental regulation that applies to everything in European countries. According to this regulation, certain substances harmful to humans are prohibited from being included in any component. If any substances are detected, we cannot sell that product immediately and we must retest to determine exactly where it was found. To resume sales, we first analyze which specific product was affected, then reformulate the product using different raw materials or similar methods, and test it again. That’s how the entire process works.

Additionally, we’re also aiming to distribute sustainable products. In my case, I supply to buyers like Rossmann in Germany or Boots in the UK, so those global retail chains are particularly concerned about such issues. As you know, we used to use animal hair. But now, we have the technology to process plastic—not animal hair—in such a way that it can fully replicate the look and feel of real animal hair. So, by carefully selecting the yarn, we create hair-like textures using plastic instead of animal fur. 

As for plastic, we used to use virgin plastic, but now we make plastic from materials that have already been recycled once. For example, especially in recent years, the issue of ocean plastic has become a serious concern. So, we collect plastic from marine debris and process it into PBT for use in hair products, or into plastics like PS or ABS.

So, the component materials used in the brushes are now designed with sustainability in mind. As for the packaging, while we used to use a lot of plastic, that proportion has decreased significantly, and even the plastic that remains is made from recycled materials. So, in a way, by using components that comply with environmental regulations—such as those in the brush and packaging—and by utilizing sustainable raw materials, we’re constructing our products with these materials.

It seems you’re making a lot of diverse changes. You mentioned that you supply a lot to European countries. Is it difficult to comply with environmental regulations that meet the standards of the international market since regulations vary from country to country?

That’s right. This inevitably affects the unit price. So, when people who aren’t familiar with the industry wonder why we use recycled products instead of just using virgin materials, they might assume that recycled materials are simply cheaper. But virgin materials are actually cheaper. That’s because with recycled materials, there are processes like repeated washing and reprocessing, and as those steps increase, it affects the unit cost. 

As far as I know, in the U.S., the most widely followed—and arguably the strictest—regulation within the country is the one implemented by the California state government, known as California Proposition 65. However, that regulation currently lists about 900 substances and it’s not possible to eliminate all 900 of those substances. Therefore, products manufactured in the U.S. to meet California Proposition 65 standards might not be allowed to be distributed in Europe.

But on the other hand, suppose we excluded the ingredients regulated in Europe and manufactured the product. But those ingredients might still be present among the 900. So, while we can distribute the product in the U.S., if those specific ingredients are detected and it ends up violating California Proposition 65, we can still distribute it as long as we disclose those ingredients to consumers in advance.  

Because of these differences, we need to manage ingredients on a country-by-country basis in accordance with the lists published by each country’s regulatory agency—in our case, the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. In my view, the most stringent regulations globally are those implemented in Europe under REACH. We are proceeding by aligning almost all our component materials with those standards.

The cosmetics industry seems to be heavily influenced by consumer trends. Do consumers notice this shift toward eco-friendly products, and could you share any insights into how they perceive this from their perspective?

Since we don’t distribute directly to consumers, it’s difficult to get direct feedback. However, when we’ve asked our global distributors—through whom we distribute—and listened to their requirements, it’s clear that the current consumer trend is to avoid animal-derived ingredients. So, in a way, this is quite a superficial change. In the past, animal hair was genuinely softer and had better spreadability when applied to the skin, which is why it was preferred. But now, even though the quality is lower, there’s a preference for using plastic. Because of this trend and demand, global companies are no longer using animal hair and are developing products using plastic PBT—almost 90% of them or more.

This suggests that consumers now have a strong awareness of the need to protect animals. Consequently, while plastic products aren’t ideal—and certainly aren’t great for the environment—they’re still considered better than using animal fur. That’s why there seems to be a demand for plastic. I think those factors are at play.

I’m also curious about the role ESG plays in this process—specifically, how these company-wide environmental efforts have positively impacted our brand’s ESG performance.

That’s right. In a way, ESG management seems to be somewhat linked to sustainability. For example, our factory requires a certain amount of electricity to operate. Of course, we use that power, but we’ve also installed solar panels on the rooftops of all our factories. So, since solar energy is a form of eco-friendly energy, we store it and use it when needed. As for water, we have injection molding machines—machines that make plastic. But these machines require a continuous water circulation system because the internal temperatures are extremely high. Instead of constantly using fresh water, we have our own purification system that recycles the used water, allowing us to reuse it repeatedly. 

Another point is that, in our case, the vehicles used at the company—like cars and trucks—used to all be internal combustion engine vehicles. But now, we’re switching them all to electric vehicles. Since this is happening, I’d like to mention that, in a way, this is somewhat aligned with ESG management.

Finally, looking ahead, are there any hopes or desired policy changes regarding how the cosmetics industry as a whole, including Academy Cosmetic, can further pursue sustainability?

This is a bit of a difficult question. Because this is tied to future sales, but anyway, speaking broadly about cosmetics as well, you know that the ingredients used in cosmetics are all derived from oil, right? Yes, but as you’re aware, with the current international situation in the Middle East and the resulting difficulties in oil supply, the prices of raw materials used in cosmetics were bound to rise significantly. Especially with items like brushes—since even the plastic is derived from oil—looking ahead, I think we’ll need to start producing the raw materials for cosmetics using renewable energy or new materials instead of oil. Honestly, that’s quite a challenge.

Because there are scientific hurdles to overcome. But in the meantime, if there are feasible alternatives available now, we could use fewer cosmetics and instead rely on beauty devices. These devices, once set up, can provide electrical stimulation to slow down skin aging, for example. So, in a way, given the current situation, if we want to reduce the amount of raw materials used in cosmetics, we kind of need those kinds of “assistants”—tools like that. That’s why there are actually a lot of beauty devices on the market right now that are designed like massagers. I think those kinds of products will become even more prominent in the future. 

Furthermore, as these devices are integrated with AI, I think we’ll see the development of technologies that analyze individual skin types and adjust the intensity of stimulation accordingly, offering customized options for each skin type. So, in a way, rather than just applying products topically, using beauty devices and tools equipped with AI technology to naturally activate the inherent energy within each person’s skin—thereby slowing down aging, providing anti-wrinkle and anti-aging benefits, and even achieving skin brightening—might result in fewer side effects since we’re harnessing the body’s own energy. Since it’s not about external stimulation but rather harnessing our own internal energy, I believe that as these technologies advance further, the beauty industry will likely adopt a completely new paradigm. That’s my initial thought, at least.