Is beauty really tackling microplastics – or just talking about it?

When the UK banned microbeads in 2018 as part of a broader European shift, following years of campaigning by organisations like the Plastic Soup Foundation, it looked like the beauty industry had tackled plastic pollution. Nearly a decade on, it’s clear we only addressed the most visible part of the problem.

Products changed quickly. The obvious plastic was removed almost overnight.

But microplastics haven’t disappeared from beauty; they’ve simply become less visible. Much like microbeads before them, what gets addressed tends to be what we can see. What remains is what sits beneath the surface.

Beyond microbeads: the plastics we don’t see

Most microplastics used in cosmetics were never the solid beads targeted by legislation.

They are synthetic polymers used for texture, stability and performance. You’ll find them listed as acrylates, carbomers or nylon.

From a formulation perspective, they work: consistent, scalable and cost-effective.

From a systems perspective, they are persistent. They don’t meaningfully break down; they fragment into smaller and smaller pieces, but never disappear. Plastic isn’t something nature recognises; it’s a human-made fusion of synthetic chemicals, designed for performance, not for return. Once created, it remains in the system indefinitely.

Most products on the market still contain some form of microplastic, which tells us how much work is still ahead.

What has actually changed?

There has been progress, but it’s uneven.

As a founder, and as Co-Chair of the B Corp Beauty Coalition, I’ve seen a clear shift in awareness.

More of the industry is starting to respond - from brands to suppliers and retailers - reflecting a growing recognition of interdependence across the value chain:

• Questioning ingredient choices.
• Exploring alternatives.
• Responding to increased scrutiny from consumers and retailers.

Tools like the Plastic Soup Foundation’s Plastic Free Future app are also empowering people to interrogate ingredient lists in a way we haven’t seen before, that matters. But awareness and advocacy alone don’t deliver systemic change.

Why are plastic-based ingredients still being used?

Because they’re embedded in how products are made, they deliver reliable performance. Replacing them often means:

• Reformulating entire products.
• Working with newer, less established materials.
• Accepting different sensorial outcomes or higher costs.

For large-scale manufacturers, that creates inertia. But within a B Corp framework, where environmental and human impact sit alongside performance, it becomes a question of responsibility, not convenience.

Is the industry moving fast enough?

At the scale we’re facing, no - not yet.

We’re seeing a spectrum:

• Leaders actively reformulating and innovating.
• A growing middle responding to pressure.
• And many waiting for regulation to force change.

Regulation itself is still catching up. While new frameworks are emerging, they remain in their infancy and are not moving at the pace or scale required. Current proposals risk addressing only a fraction of the materials in use.

From clean beauty to true transparency

One of the biggest challenges is the gap between perception and reality. Terms like “clean” or “conscious” are widely used, but they don’t always reflect whether a product is free from persistent synthetic materials.

Greater transparency and clearer definitions are essential, particularly as frameworks like the EU’s Green Claims Directive begin to demand substantiated, verifiable claims.

The next phase will be defined not by better claims, but by better proof. New capabilities are emerging to detect microplastics not only in formulations but also in packaging, bringing scrutiny across the entire product lifecycle. As third-party verification becomes the norm, the industry will need to move beyond intention and towards evidence.

What needs to happen next?

If the industry is serious about tackling microplastics, we need to turn shared intent into measurable action.

That means building a practical roadmap for replacement: identifying where synthetic polymers are still relied upon, accelerating viable substitutes, sharing what works, and creating the commercial conditions for better choices to scale.

It also means:

• Rethinking ingredient choices at a foundational level.
• Developing materials with clear pathways to scale, performance and return.
• Improving transparency in ingredient disclosure.
• Aligning incentives across the system.

This is where the B Corp Beauty Coalition comes into its own - not as a talking shop, but as a vehicle for pre-competitive collaboration and collective action to raise standards across the industry.

The opportunity is to create and share solutions collectively, and to rethink how innovation is rewarded - a direction we need to move towards so that what is developed together can begin to fund the next generation of materials, system and standards for the benefit of all stakeholders, including the planet.

From conversation to change

The conversation around microplastics has accelerated rapidly. But the real test is whether it translates into meaningful change. Removing what’s visible was the easy part. Addressing what’s hidden and embedded within systems is the real work.

The opportunity now is to move from incremental change to system-level transformation: committing to measurable action, sharing solutions that accelerate progress, and challenging long-standing norms around formulation, performance and value - creating space for open discussion so larger players feel able to lean in, rather than greenhush, and move issues from unseen to addressed.

Because the question is no longer whether we know enough to act; it’s whether we’re prepared to act together, at the pace this moment demands.

Jo Chidley is the founder of Beauty Kitchen, which is noted as Europe’s highest-scoring B Corp beauty brand. She is also involved in the BCorp Beauty Coalition, a global network of purpose-driven beauty companies aiming to raise ethical and environmental standards in the industry. Chidley has expressed a long-standing position against the use of plastic-based ingredients in skincare products. She advocates for a precautionary approach: if there is any uncertainty about whether an ingredient contains plastic, it should not be included in formulations.